19840417 City Council MinutesApril 17, 1984
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist Duane Bowman, Asst. Planner
Jo -Anne Jaech Dale Schroeder,-Eng. Coord.
Steve.Dwyer Dan Prinz, Actg. Police Chief
Laura Hall Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bill Kasper Bobby Mills, Actg, Pub. Wks. Supt.
Lloyd Ostrom Jim Jessel,.Property Manager
Jack Wilson Art Housler, Finance Director
• Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
364
April 17, 1984 - continued •
+!John Wallace, City Attorney
Mark Eames, City Attorney.
Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Shirlie Witzel, Recorder
Councilmember Nordquist ha6,informed•the City Clerk that he would not be present because he:.was in
Portland attending a Community Transit Conference.
CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED. -BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included, the following:
.(A) Roll call.
(B) Passage of Resolution 58.7 to allow city departments and officials to process and approve
applications for subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds.
(C) Final acceptance of work by David Edwards Construction for Dayton St. improvements.
(D) Set date of April.24, 1984 to discuss parking alternatives on Elm St.,
7th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. S.
(E) Passage of Resolution 263 setting hearing date for creation of LID to�
fund water loop"in'area of Edmonds waterfront;
(F) Set date of May 15, 1984.for hearing on. proposed 21-lot single family P.RD and subdivision
(PRD-1-84, P-1-84/First Security Realty Service Corp.)
•
(G) Report on bids opened April 4, 1984 for 1983 Street Overlay Projects and
award to Seattle Servi.ces�Co. in the amount.of.$62,088..75.
MEET WITH PETITIONERS FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREA NORTH OF 220th St. S.W.,
SOUTH OF 217TH ST. S.W.,-,,AND WEST OF 92ND AVE. W.
Assistant Planner Duane Bowman reviewed the.petition requesting annexation into the corporate limits
of Edmonds. lie noted that the.petition;had been submitted in,1983 b.ut the,City had requested peti-
tioners to seek a more reasonable and logical area for�annexation:which.they have done. The City
has established the zoning .for this area as RS-8 (single family residential) upon annexation. The
questions before the Council this -evening are whether to accept the proposed annexationand whether
or not assumption of indebtedness will be required. He observed that the annexation does not
appear to pose any significant service problem for either utilities or streets. The staff.recom-
mends annexation of the area and assumption of the indebtedness of the City of Edmonds by the
annexed area. Mr. Bowman displayed an overhead transparency showing the location of the proposed
area for annexation. He added.that another area of.unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of
92nd Ave on 220th St. -S:W. may be -brought before the Council on -a 75% annexation petition in the
near future.
Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.
Paul Holly; 9307' 220th St.:.S.W.; stated that he and his ,wife were•the ones who had initiated the
petition. He said they would dike to.. be part :of the City. for the sewer. advantage and for police
protection.
Since no ,one else wished to speak, :the hearing was: closed.•.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED,SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT;THE PROPOSED.ANNEXATION BE ACCEPTED
AND THAT ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TERRITORY'HEREBY SOUGHT TO BE ANNEXED SHALL BE ASSESSED AND TAXED
•
AT THE SAME RATE AND ON THE SAME,BASIS AS PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR ANY NOW OUTSTAND-
ING INDEBTEDNESS OF SAID CITY, INCLUDING ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES IN PAYMENT OF ANY BONDS ISSUED OR
DEBTS CONTRACTED, PRIOR TO OR EXISTING AT THE -DATE OF ANNEXATION AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF
PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS BE REQUIRED. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING (CONTINUED FROM.MARCH 20) ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC REVISION FOR PUGET DR. AND
OLYMPIC AVE.
Engineering. Coordinator Dale Schroeder reviewed the March 20 meeting when three alternate traffic
revisions were presented. As a result of the public hearing on that date, he said, alternates one
and three were eliminated and a fourth alternate designed. Alternate two involves installing a curb
barrier to prevent left turns at Olympic View Dr. and Olympic Ave. and revising the intersection to
make it more nearly a 90°.angle to improve sight distance for .traffic stopped on Olympic Ave.
Alternate four attempts to address .the comments made during the March 20 meeting, prohibiting left
turns of south bound traffic from Olympic View Dr. onto Olympic Ave, revising the i.ntersecti_on to
make it a 90' angle, and allowing a right or left turn onto Olympic View Dr. for traffic exiting
from Olympic Ave. Some grading would be done.on Olympic Ave. at Puget Dr. to level the grade and
make a better landing area for southbound vehicles. He presented cost figures for Alternate two of
$3,500 and Alternate four of $5,500 and said the staff recommends Alternate four.
Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.
Harold Huycke,, 18223.84th Pl.. W.;-.said he was the owner of the green apartments at the corner of
Olympic Ave. and Puget Dr. He notedthat the proposal to use their parking area as a turnaround for
a cul-de-sac was the reason for his attendance this evening.. He said he was. relieved to see that
suggestion had been eliminated. He feels his property.will be most affected by the leveling indicated
on Al..ternate four and asked that he be advised of the finer details as these are developed. He
summarized that he -would prefer Olympic.Ave. be kept open to prevent his parking area being used as
a turnaround. He recognized that something would have to be done at the intersection of Puget and •
3 64_5
• Paril 17, 1984 - continued
Olympic.to improve vision and sight.distance of traffic and the grading would be a reasonable
approach; however, he again said he would like to.be informed of the details.
Mr. Schroeder commented thatthe detailed design has not been determined at this time; however, he
will make sure that Mr. Huycke is advised.
Grant.Bush, intersection of Olympic Ave. and Olympic View Dr., asked why the Engineering Dept.
preferred leaving left turn.access onto Olympic View Dr. and what benefit that offered, since
Olympic Ave. is only l 1/2 blocks long with access to Puget. Dr. both east and west. He said he
favored restricting traffic to a right turn only onto Olympic View Dr. and right turn only onto
Olympic Ave. Mr. Schroeder said there were two reasons the staff recommended Alternate four; 1.
The accident pattern at the intersection indicated that 80% were left -turning south -bound vehicles
from Olympic View Dr. onto Olympic -Ave. The accident pattern did not show the .left turn from
Olympic Ave..onto.Olympic View Dr. to be a.significant problem. 2. Duringthe last hearing,
comments showed residentspreferred an.alternate access to Puget Dr. from Olympic Ave. during the
winter. He said the grading proposed at Olympic Ave. and Puget Dr. will reduce the hazard but could
not say it would be eliminated.
Since no one,else wished to speak on this subject, the Mayor returned the question to the Council
for action. Councilmember Hall asked, if Alternate four were adopted, whether left turns could be
prohibited a.t a later date without excessive additional cost. Mr. Schroeder said that would be a
matter of extending the islands to close off the left.turn access. Councilmember Hall recounted her
experiences.at the intersection. of. Puget Dr. and Olympic Ave. resulting,from the poor sight dis-
tance. -Mr. Schroeder replied that the limitations.of the right-of-way and configuration of the road
dictated, to an extent, what:could be done.
In response.to a question from Councilmember Ostrom, Mr. Schroeder.noted that flashing lights had
been discussed as a means of slowing traffic from 196th St. S.W.. He said they would be effective
• until people grow accustomed to them.and does not see that solution as a lasting one. He noted that
the speed limit is reasonable at 30 mph. He suggested signage might be used to draw people's
attention to the potential danger at the intersection.
Councilmember Hall asked if Engineering had looked at the potential traffic which could result if
Olympic View school were sold and used for a residential or office development?..:Mr.. Schroeder
commented that they would take a look at the.other.side of that intersection., also.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECN, TO. ADOPT ALTERNATE FOUR. MOTION
CARRIED.
HEARING ON.VACATION OF A.PORTION OF 68TH AVE. W.,-BETWEEN MEADOWDALE BEACH RD. AND
174TH ST. S:W. (ST74-83)
Mr. Bowman recounted the hearing of the proposal before .the. Hearing Examiner on January 5, 1984.
The Hearing Examiner's Report on January 23, 1984 recommended that the vacation should be granted
subject to the following conditions:
1. An appraisal of the vacated right of way is to be conducted and the Applicants are to share the
cost of the appraisal.
2... Based upon the findings of the appraisal., the Applicants are to compensate -the City of Edmonds
for the vacated right of way.
Mr. Bowman displayed transparencies showing the proposed street vacation and a topographic view of
the area. He.explained the location of the deeded..right-of-way and .the as -built road in relation to
the proposed.street vacation. He indicated the location of Ms. Hinton.'s (one.of.the applicants)
home. The Public Works Dept., Engineering,Dept. and emergency.services do no.t..object to the recom-
mendation of the Hearing,Examiner. In response to a question:from.Councilmember..Kasper, Mr. Bowman
estimated that the Hinton house is located 2.'-3' from.the proposed vacation. There is a temporary
building that does encroach the proposed area. He added that the house is an existing nonconforming
.structure and could beoccupied in the present manner. If anyadditions were to.,be made, they would
have.to comply -with the zoning. He estimated that.the.lot is 60-70' wide. He said the Council
could l-imit.the vacation to the southerly line of.the deeded right-of-way.
..City Attorney John..Wallace.asked if there had been -any review as to whether the entire roadway on
the official street map should be removed. Mr. Bowman.said the Hearing Examiner and,the City
;1.Council would be receiving a proposal from the City.. Engineer's office to vacate the deeded right -of -
:way of 174th St. S.W.-., amend.the official street map;.and align it with the.as-built road. Mr.
Wal:lace;:commented that,a potential cavity could be created, if the recommendati-on to change the
official. street map does.not occur. Councilmember Kasper noted that he would on
vacating the
property to the abutting two ownerships, but not south of the existing right-of-way. He also
questioned the possibility that the entire vacation could be sold to one party, creating a narrow
lot. Mr. Wallace said.presumptively the vacation would go 50% to each applicant.
In response to,a question.from.Councilmember Jaech, Mr. Bowman recounted.the history of the area
which.resulted,.in.the City making adjustments to rights -of -way to reflect the as -built road. There
are quit -claim deeds the City does not possess in the area in question; therefore, those portions
have not been vacated..
Councilmember Jaech asked about the ownership of the property lying between the deeded right-of-way
and the as -built road. Mr —Bowman said that property i.s controlled by.the property owners to the
south of.17.4th. Councilmember Dwyer asked that.the matter of the cost of the appraisal be clarified
to indi.cate;.that the applicants will bear the cost. He said there was some confusion between item
six of the Hearing Examiner's findings and item one of his. recommendation.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this subject.
66
April 17, 1984 - continued •
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED., SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOM-
MENDATIONS'WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: THE CITY WILL NOT VACATE THE AREA SOUTH OF THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF 174TH ST., THE DEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT THIS TIME, THAT THE APPLICANT'S WILL BEAR THE
COST OF THE APPRAISAL, AND THAT THE CITY POLICY BE' FOLLOWED. AS TO'ACQUISITION OF LAND. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilmember Kasper asked that the minutes show that if the property is.not purchased chased by
both adjacent property owners, -it -will require a segregation of the property to take.the property to
only one property owner.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION..FOR SIGN CODE
Mayor Naughten explained that the hearing would be kept to a 1 1/2 hour limit. Everyone speaking to
this question .will be asked to hold their comments'to three minutes. If there is not sufficient
time for everyone to speak, the hearing will be continued to another date. If there is time left
after everyone speaks, those wishing to do so may speak again.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the process by which these recommendations had been formulated by the Planning
Board and submitted to the City Council for their action.; He added that a joint meeting of the
Planning Board and Architectural.Design Board (ADB) has been scheduled for April 25 to discuss
criteria for considering Sign Code modifications. Mr. Bowman said the moratorium on Highway 99
signs established by Ordinance 2401 will expire on May 14, 1984 unless the Council takes action by
ordinance to extend that moratorium. Mr. Bowman then showed slides -'of signs now existing on Highway
99 from 212th.St. S.W. to 244 St. S. W. He said the need for some degree of flexibility in ad-
ministering the sign code has been recognized by both the Planning Board and the Planning Depart-
ment. It i.s their opinion that the current situation can be resolved, if specific review criteria
are furnished to the ADB for use in granting,modifications., He suggested that-, i'f the ADB retains
responsibility for sign modifications, the Council may see the need to not change Planning Board
recommendations, specifically the maximum sign height. They may also need to consider the different •
needs of the various areas of the City. -
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Finis Tupper, 7.1.1 Daley St.', spoke as President.of the Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens, com-
prised of 602 members, a non-profit corporation registered in the'State.•The Board of Trustees
consists of 8 people meeting once a month with an agenda. The organization has been discussing the
sign code issue for over 17 months and have become familiar with the issue, giving input to the
City. He commented that they had studied the code of the City and surrounding municipalities as
well. as other cities. The group is concerned about the character of Edmonds and application of the
Community Development Code in terms of orderly and quality development. He said he disagreed with
some of the recommendations of the.Planning Board. In reviewing the tapes of the.meetings with the
business community and the Planning Board, he finds no significant data presented supporting changes
in.allowable heights or sizes of the present code. He said'160 square feet is out of concert with
what should be done on Highway 99.
David Griffith, owner and general manager of Allen's BMW Saab, 21420 Highway 99, congratulated Mr.
Bowman's efforts during the entire process of dealing with the sign code. He stated that he sup-
ported the recommendations before the Council and urged acceptance of them. He said the change is
needed by the.business community, and the community at large as well as future annexations to the
City. There are serious problems in the sign code regarding calculation of signs: In calculating
sign size by building size, many properties with lengthy frontages are not receiving adequate
signage. He said in regard to signs that are currently standing, the economics for removal or
replacement are'not present in the.current business climate. He'said he realized that time and
change are necessary and when 25%'of a building is being changed, a sign should be made conforming
if necessary. He noted that much time and energy had been expended by a large number of people and
asked for the Council's consideration of what had'been'accomplished. He added that there will be a
need for a human group like the ADB, no matter what type of,code is. determined., Since situations •
will always arise that cannot be addressed by a black and white code.
Jim Braun, 22435 74th W. and 23609 Highway 99, Olympic Properties, stated there are two important
items that.must be covered.;:�;The attempt to control or legisl;ate signage is laudable and the.result
of the time expended is a fine example of community involvement. He'said the area being considered
is a unique section of commercial property where the competition i.s not bound by the same rules. In
looking at a map of Edmonds, the portion.producing revenue for the City is in direct competition
with jurisdictions that do not lie within Edmonds. He said the compromise worked out is not being
applauded by the business community,.but'the flexibility built in is the most important aspect. He
said size does not dictate taste, attractiveness or effectiveness and signage is advertising and
must be effective. In order to be effective it should no.t anger and that is where taste comes in.
A sign must attract attention especially when it is in competition with people directly across the•
street.
Jennifer Saloman, Budget Rent -a -Car, 22430 Highway 99, stated that the business community is trying
to grow, that growth provides revenue for the City. She said the sign code must have flexibility as
provided by the ADB. She sees growth being limited by the maximum limitations, where taste should
be implied. If services are expanded'those services must be advertised. If additional property is
required, the owner must know that the additional services can be advertised before acquiring the
property. She said because of the speed on the street, Highway 99 cannot be the same as the down-
town area. With the proper flexibility:in the code and design, Highway 99 can be better than it is.
She stated that maintenance and upkeep are more important than the size.and specifications. -The
eyesores on Highway 99 are signs that are old, need repair; or repainting. She said as an owner she
wants her business to grow and she wants to advertise the services.that are available.; but, under
the current.code, she cannot adequately advertise those services. Multiple businesses are particu-
larly vulnerable. She summarized that she would like to see a fair code, something that is agreeable
and helpful to everyone. The,:situation is not one in which numbers alone can be considered, the
entire picture, what the business i.s trying to do, must be considered.
•
April 17, 1984 -.continued
Arnie Nelson, Bill Blume Volkswagen, 24329 Highway 99, said the proposals are not ideal but are an
acceptable compromise particularly for -future construction on Highway 99. He said the issue.of
nonconforming signs regarding annexation and presently existing, is addressed by a law stating that
municipalities requiring removal of a.sign for reason must.make adequate compensation. Some have
said that five years use of.a sign is compensation; -however, being allowed to use a sign that the
business has..paid for is not jus.tif.ied as compensation. When.the federal government mandates a
safety or.emission.control-chafige on an automobile, the owner of the car is not given five years use
of the car and told to throw it away. He is allowed -to use the car for the life of the auto.
Changes in zoning or.building.codes are applicable to new construction, old buildings are not torn
down because they no longer. conform. He said protection must be given to existing signs or.who is
to say that the code adopted at this meeting may not change in five years requiring all signs be
changed again. He indicated the expense faced by their business in removing or changing their
signs ' woul.d necessitate testing the law to see if i t `i s . va<l i d.
Roger Hert.rich, 1020 Puget Dr., said he had attended most of the general meetings held and felt
there:was a good mix of .information and discussion. However, as the meetings progressed, there were
constant requests by the business.community for:more and larger signs. He had heard.people from
Highway 99 say there has to be something different and it is a special situation and he agrees and
believes the present code addresses this by allowing different size signs and different height
limits for the.CG.zone on Highway 99. He said the largest complaint on Highway 99 other than
nonconforming signs, is the business with the small building and large frontage.The minimum
recommended, although he does not agree with 56 sq. ft., believing it should be 48, gives each
business an.opportunity to advertise their business in a reasonable manner. He does not agree with
the maximum, believing the.present code allows adequate signage, which can be divided among free-
standing and attached signs. That portion would be eliminated, allowing a sign on the building to
the former maximum and a freestanding sign in addition. Mr. Hertrich said there were many sections
of the current code that deal with signs.
Bruce Lingle, of Edmonds Collision at 22327 Highway-99 and G. W. Auto Rebuild.at 23510 Highway 99,
said he had attended most.of the meetings on this issue. He pointed out that Highway 99 is split
with.one side.administered.by Edmonds and the other.:by the County. Billboards are.being erected on
the west side of Highway 99 and in other areas of the County along Highway 99 compelling the Edmonds
businesses to compete.against these large signs,.pointing,to the fact that the sign code must be
flexible to allow the ADB to`determine individual -needs of businesses.. He mentioned -:a safety factor
also, stating he is involvedin collision repair, andfeels the smaller signs area contributing
factor in addition to the high speed on Highway 99. The driver does not see the smaller sign soon
enough to slow and make a safe turn into the business.
Natalie Sh.i:ppen, 1022.Euclid,.said.-she�had followed: this matter for the -last. year. -..She noted there
was very little left to say except that signs do have a major effect on the appearance of a com-
munity. She stated that a careless sign code, carelessly administered can have an adverse and long
lasting effect on any town. In comparing Edmonds' commercial areas with other towns, they look very
well, attributable in part 'to.the sign code. She.asked that the Council be very cautious in amending
a sign code that has worked well for the.community, amending -only those section in which specific
and genuine.code problems have been discerned.
•
Bob Koronko,'of Factory Direct Tire.Sales, had aatended.most Planning Board meetings,:listen.ing to
the pros and cons. He said larger signs are needed for Highway 99. He pointed out that Highway 99
is a business area, not residential or an'apartment complex,' therefore the exposure ,for signs is
needed. One reason for lack of development has been the.restr.ictive nature of the code, which has
not encouraged businesses to grow and develop. He mentioned the revenues:that.come from the area.
He noted the businesses on Highway 99 are in -:competition with the shopping malls. He:said they are
not asking.for large signs to clutter 'the highway, they are only asking.for good exposure so cus-
tomers can see the business. He agreed that Highway 99 Looks nice in comparison to other places.
He said most of the signs on Highway 99 are illegal and they are only asking that they be allowed to
keep the signs they now have.' Hefelt the goal of the meetings'was:to see how.small the signs could
be rather than giving businessea fair amount of si'gnage to afford the needed exposure. He added he
would like to stay in business and hoped that the. proposed sign changes would be approved..
Dan Kenyon, Kenyon Printing and Copy Centers, spoke for the Businessmen's Group.that has partici-
pated -in the democratic process.that has been going on. concerning the recommendations' -being pre
sen.ted to the Council. First, he noted that the appearance of.Edmonds and the appearance of signs
is important, but it is also important to have adequate signage to enable the business community to
operate a sound business. He said Edmonds would not look as nice if the businesses were not making
money. Second, he believes the sign code for downtown Edmonds works fine, but for the CG zone, the
Highway 99 strip, it is not practical Certain businesses must. compete with businesses that are:not
in Edmonds and have a more liberal sign code. Third, small and improper signs are a safety factor.
Because of the speed of traffic, small signs are difficult to read and, while drivers are looking at
the signs, they.are not 'looking at the highway. "He said it is intelligent.to have larger signs in a
business area on an arterial, where traffic is moving at'a much.greater rate'of speed. He said all,
of those who had part:icipated in.the process.which'resulted in the recommendations before the Council
had enjoyed the experience. He noted that none are happy with the package being presented, but that
it is. reasonably acceptable to the majority of the people. The businessmen speaking during the
evening had demonstrated -the needs of -their businesses. He.commented on the time and effort spent
in working out these recommendations and urged the Council: to 'pass -the recommendation for the CG
zone, a compromise that had developedfrom the democratic process.
Since.there was additional.time available and no one:else wished to speak, previous speakers were
offered an additional -five minutes to continue their remarks.
Finis Tu,pper.commented that the.group he represented -did not initiate changes to the sign code.. In
fact,,they support the code as it .now stands. ,In -reference to..the proposed amendments, the Edmonds
Council of Concerne& Citizens.'. Boar.d.has no problem,with the new method.for measuring sign area,
they do not'believe,the.:business community has demonstrated a need for increasing'the maximum.sign
size, they agree there -is a..meed fora minimum,:"size: but:would .urge.the minimum..stay at 481square
feet. The recommendation on.landscaping and location of freestanding signs is agreeable to the
3 0) 7
368
April '17, 1984 continued
Board,' andAthe:Board ees -no substantiation of. 'need `to ,raise'ahe.:�sign, I height. above 14 feet. He said
the intent of the code was for identification not advertising. If the business community intent was
to use the sign to attract,customers, if.that is their primary mode of marketing their business,
they have a problem. He mentioned.several points within the code that should..be considered in any
change to the CG area since Chapter.15 of the code is not being.changed..
Roger Hertrich spoke.on amortization or the grandfathering question. .He agreed that.businesses
having nonconforming signs need.a.way out. He said they have been led down the path, feeling nothing
needed to be done and now the.code.is being enforced. In regard to the 25% formula of.building
modification -.he agrees with the.recommendation. However, in 17.40.040 regarding the amortization
period, in.which the businessman may take his,specific problem to the Hearing Examiner and receive a
decision, he.�believes that would be fair. Some nonconforming signs should be.changed while others
may not need to be and the Hearing Examiner should be the one making that decision. He stated there
were several chapters in the code.that pertain to signs. He cautioned against liberalizing the
code. He said the ADB had performed well and.not so well,and feels they should deal with design not
size. He noted that the code does point out that.Highway 99 is different. He said the waterfront
should be included as part of the downtown bowl area. He.,finds that Westgate is not a high speed
area and is not in agreement with changes in that area.
Bob Campbell, Bill Blume Volkswagen, spoke concerning nonconforming signs. He feels -the matter must
be addressed and solved or there.is no sense in going through the exercise of the sign code.- If
protection for annexed areas..is not afforded,.to be 1 egal.at one point and later be told a business
must change its signs, there is no equity. He says business property is taxed on its size and a
maximum is -placed on the size oftheir signs.- no maximum is placed on taxes. Much of.the revenue
for the City is generated by businesses on Highway 99, what will happen if the sign code hurts that
business, he said.
David Griffith related an incident demonstrating what a sign has meant to his business. When he
incorporated in 1979, he was told by the man putting up the sign that after a couple of years the
sign would not be.that important,. At that time he approached the ADB and.was granted a variance to
keep the sign size he has. In December 1982, the sign was lost during a substantial windstorm. He
found very.quickly the importance of the sign, not so much the loss of business but the difficulty
people experienced in finding.the location even those who knew where he was located. Signs are very
important to businesses on Highway 99 and there will be a'problem if they are not allowed to.prop-
erly identify and advertise their businesses.
Bruce Lingle stated there is a need for the ADB to look at the sign on a particular site. It should
not be a size board, but a design board. They have had to issue a large number of variances, sub-
stantiating the need for sign code.change. A sign is.very important to Highway'99 businesses since
many businesses are used only.once in a lifetime and must be easily found at that time.
Arnie Nelson,. 24329 Highway 99, agreed with Ms. Shippen that Edmonds has become a.very beautiful
place. However, he feels it is ironic that the City of Edmonds had hired experts to determine what
the City could do to regenerate business in downtown Edmonds. He suggested that improper signage
may be one of the problems, causing people to go to outlying areas instead.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Dwyer suggested that a.general approach to the number of specific recommendations
before the Council be taken singly, issue by .issue, for discussion and vote. He said there were
five items contained in the document of March 22 and then they couldtake up the other items if time
allowed. He had observed that three of the five'recommendations contained in the March 22 memoran-
dum seemed to be uncontested, suggesting those be considered'first.
Councilmember Kasper indicated that he would not be comfortable in voting on these items until the
minutes of the last Planning Board meeting were available to the Council since it has been his
pattern to read the minutes following a public hearing, and he would prefer waiting until he has all •
of the information. He also asked that the recommendations be laid.out in one pattern by the Plan-
ning Department and all of the mi.nutes be made available prior to any vote being taken.
Councilmember Jaech suggested a compromise might be to consider those items contained in the March
22 memorandum, since the minutes are complete, leaving the items received this evening for another
meeting.
Councilmember Hall suggested that.the evaluation of the ADB function be.discussed including the
criteria for ADB use.
Councilmember Ostrom noted that there had been no discussion of the criteria at this point. He
suggested that.raising the ADB topic would bog down the matter now before the Council. If the
matter is to be continued, he suggested the Council take the items one by one and deal with them
without getting into the question of criteria..
Councilmember Dwyer said a delay would not enable him to vote more wisely on the issues with which
everyone is in agreement. He felt the Council should proceed with the three items in the March 22
memorandum that seem to be uncontested.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SIGN, WHEREIN THE SIGN AREA IS THE ACTUAL AREA OF THE SIGN VISIBLE FROM ANY
SINGLE POINT OF OBSERVATION. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Bowman displayed a
transparency which demonstrated the measurement of a sign that -is not rectangular. The proposed
method of measurement would require submission of a scale.drawing of,the sign, a planimeter would be
used to trace the sign perimeter, giving the area of the sign. The cost of designing an ornate,
different type of sign will limit their use, but the planimeter can be used to figure the area of
any sign regardless of the design. The recommendation would apply to any area of the City. MOTION
CARRIED.
r�
U
•
369.
April 17, 1984 - continued
1
1
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO.APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
LANDSCAPING ON HIGHWAY 99, THAT THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE A RATIO OF ONE SQUARE FOOT TO ONE
SQAURE FOOT OF SIGN AREA AT THE BASE OF THE FREESTANDING SIGN OR TWO SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPING TO
ONE SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA WITHIN THE FIFTEEN FOOT.STREET SETBACK.
Councilmember Kasper stated that he would vote against the motion on the basis that it only applies
tv,Highway 99 and, as previously stated if SR 104 were included, he would vote in favor. Council-
memberiHall indicated that SR104 could be included when the BN zones are considered. Mr. Bowman
said,a code amendment would be required at that time. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Jaech mentioned the recommendation concerning freestanding signs (all zones). Council -
member Hall asked why all zones was being included. Mr. Bowman explained that the current code
would allow a downtown business area to propose to put up freestanding signs on both street front-
ages. The Planning Department believes it would be more appropriate if freestanding signs were
located either on an arterial or primary street frontage only. Possibly at the corner of an inter-
section but not on two street frontages. The requirement would apply to Highway 99 and would allow
two signs for businesses that front.both Highway 99 and the designated arterials of 205th, 220th and
212th. The goal of the recommendation is to keep the freestanding signs on the arterial street or
primary access street. The policy does not change the fact that freestanding signs are discouraged
in the downtown business area, it just says they must be located on an arterial or primary street
frontage.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE.
LOCATION OF FREESTANDING SIGNS IN ALL ZONES, THAT STATES COMMERCIAL SITES MAY HAVE ONLY ONE FREE-
STANDING SIGN, UNLESS THE SITE HAS FRONTAGE ON TWO AP.ETERIAL STREETS, IN WHICH CASE THERE MAY BE ONE
SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE.
• In response to a question from Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Bowman said the policy for changing streets
to arterials is.under review by the Public Works Superintendent, the.City Traffic Engineer and
himself. Based on problems recently encountered in determining mining what constitutes an arterial
street, all streets and their classifications.are being reviewed and a recommendation will be sub-
mitted to the State of Washington.
Councilmember Hall stated she would vote against the motion partially because of the review of the
arterials and because she believes a statement should be made discouraging freestanding signs in the
downtown area.
Mr. Bowman replied to a question from Councilmember Dwyer that the recommended change would actually
decrease theallowable number of freestanding signs. He read the current code regarding location of
freestanding signs A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH; DWYER, OSTROM, AND WILSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS HALL AND KASPER VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council discussed continuing the remaining items to the May 8 agenda. Councilmember Dwyer asked
if a May 8 meeting would allow any action taken by the Council to become effective prior to the May
16 expiration of the moratorium on Highway 99 signs. Mr. Wallace replied that it would be possible
only if an ordinance were in final form for adoption at the May 8 meeting. Councilmember Dwyer
suggested that an ordinance be prepared extending the moratorium the number of -days necessary for
any action taken by the Council"to-become effective. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER DWYER, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSISON OF -THE REMAINING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAY 8,
1984. MOTION CARRIED..
The Mayor declared a ten minute recess.
MAYOR
The Mayor recognized Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Superintendent, who reported that he had
received an answer from the PUD denying the City's request to use their poles for banners adver-
tising events occurring in the City. Mr. Mills asked the Council to authorize purchase of wooden
poles -for this use if the telephone company also denies permission for use of their poles.
Councilmember Jaech returned to the Council table following the recess.
Mayor Naughten asked the Council to confirm his nomination of Dan Rice to the Planning Board.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF DAN RICE
TO THE ALTERNATE POSITION .ON THE PLANNING BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten asked any Council member interested in serving on the Association of Washington
Cities' Nominations and.Resolutions Committee to contact him.
The Mayor reported that a letter of congratulations had been sent to Mayor tloore and the Everett
city staff on receipt of the news that the Naval fleet would be stationed in Everett.
Mayor Naughten advised the Council of a request for payment of $2500, the City's share of a $5000
bill for the Flood Evaluation Study by Reid Middleton. Councilmember Kasper asked what assurance
the City had that the other $2500 would be paid. Mayor Naughten said it would be paid upon request.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE CITY REQUEST THE OTHER $2500
BE PAID AND PAYMENT OF THE CITY'S SHARE BE MADE UPON RECEIPT OF THE. $2500. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten reported that he felt the retreat was very productive and that progress was being
made on the subject of reorganization.
M o
April 17, 1984 - continued •
COUNCIL
Councilmember Kasper stated that he is concerned about payment of disability for firemen. He
suggested the City look at budgeting the expense to share the disability cost of firemen and police.
Mayor Naughten replied that the disability cost of the police will be covered by a hold -harmless
clause and insurance policy by those cities in which the officers work. He added that the question
of firemen's.disability is not resolved and is only answered in the budgeting process.in that Edmonds
and Woodway way are partners as long as the contract exists. Councilmember Kasper reiterated that
if the City insured the firemen, the City would be covered for the life of the disability not just
the life of the contract. He suggested the City explore this idea and treat it as an expense. -on an
annual basis and the exposure could then be costed in the contract.
Councilmember Hall thanked the Mayor and the staff for the azalea plant sent to California for her
brother's funeral. She said the card'and.expressions from the Council were appreciated. She noted
that the new sports complex being built in the Sacramento area may be named in honor of her.brother.
Council President Jaech remarked that the agenda for May 15 is full and asked Ms. Parrett to list
the items scheduled for that date.
City Clerk Jackie Parrett commented that another item, an appeal of the Richmar Condominiums, had
been received that would have to be heard on that date. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER.OSTROM, THAT THE MAY 15, 1984 AGENDA BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Mills, who requested a decision from the Council and authorization to
purchase wooden poles for $700 if the telphone company denies permission to use their poles.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT IF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY DENIES
PERMISSION TO THE CITY FOR USE OF THEIR POLES, THE NECESSARY POLES BE INSTALLED TO ADVERTISE THE ART
FESTIVAL AND OTHER EVENTS OF THE CITY, TO BE DONE AS AESTHETICALLY AS POSSIBLE, THE POLES TO BE •
WOODEN AND NOT EXCEED $700. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH VOTING NO.
The council adjourned to executive session at 10:10 p.m.
QU LINE G. PAR ETT, City Clerk LARRY S. NAU HTEN, Mayo