Loading...
19840515 City Council MinutesMay 15, 1984 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 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 Brian Stewart, Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Director Jo -Anne Jaech Student Rep. Jack Weinz,' Fire Chief Lloyd Ostrom Jim Jessel,.Property Manager Bill Kasper Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Laura Hall Jim Adams, City Engineer Steve Dwyer Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supv. Jack Wilson. Pat LeMay, Personnel Director John Nordquist Robin Hickok, Actg. Police Chief Jackie Parrett, City Clerk John Wallace, City Attorney Scott Snyder, City Attorney Shirlie Witzel, Recorder Councilmember Kasper advised Mayor NaughtenthatCouncilmember Nordquist would be delayed at a Community Transit meeting but would join the Council later in the evening. CONSENT AGENDA • Item.(F) was removed from the Consent Agenda by Mayor Naughten because of language problems and was returned for Council consideration during the Mayor's portion of the meeting. Items (B), (C), (G), (K), (L), (M) and (N) were withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE -THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (D) Authorization to advertise.for procurement of traffic control poles (SR 524 and 80th Ave. W.). (E) Adoption of Ordinance.2428 amending Chapter 18.95'of Community Development Code regarding parking lot construction and standards., (H) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Grant K. Weed for $910.89. (I) Accept.recommendation to make 20 annual payments of $34,866 each as Edmonds' share of improvements to Brown.'s Bay Treatment Plant. (J) Authorization to award.Public Works Uniform Service Contract for two years to Troy Linen & Uniform Service for $8,314:80 annually. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 8, 1984 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember.Hall asked that Page 8, first paragraph, last sentence be corrected to read "Council - member Hall said in order to mitigate all of the problems the playfield would have to be closed and the Council would.have to work backwards from that point." COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE MINUTES BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. • May 15, 1984 - continued AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE CONSULTANT CONTRACT (UNION OIL WATER LOOP 385 [Item.(C) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember Kasper asked for clarification regarding the figures used in connection with the engineering costs of'$13,960 and $5,898. City Engineer Jim.Adams indicated that the reduction was a result of negotiation -and possible misunderstanding by the consultant of what the City wanted. He added that nothing had been dropped from the original plans and specifications. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE'A CONTRACT WITH FUJIKI. & ASSOCIATES, INC. FORA TOTAL FEE OF $5,898. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2429 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.40 RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS AND AMENDING CHAPTER . 20.60 REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO SIGN CODE [Item (G) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember Kasper.said because the sign code had not been finalized and the Council had not acted in good faith with_the Planning.Board and Architectural Design Board, he.would be voting against the ordinance.. The ordinance.does not include areas,other than Highway 99, and he will.not support the ordinance unless areas such as SR1.04 are included... COUNCILMEMBER KASPER'MOVED, SECONDED BY -COUNCIL - MEMBER WILSON, THAT ORDINANCE 24.29.BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE WORDING "THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE .TOP .OF THE PARAPET ON A FLAT ROOFED BUILDING AND THE DRIP LINE OF A PITCHED ROOF." A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, HALL AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL - MEMBERS JAECH, OSTROM, AND DWYER VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. Councilmember.Jaech.noted that she had voted no since.Councilmember Kasper had indicated he would be voting no on the ordinance and she believes the Council should wait until-Councilmember Nordquist arrives before voting on the .ordinance.. Co.uncilmember..Kasper.indicated he would be asking for repeal of the ordinance that was. adopted last week and.would be willing to wait until Councilmember Nordquist is present. He said he would be willing to vote for.the.o.rdinance in question if it were complete; however,. the Council had not dealt with the question under consideration. In regard to the ordinance passed.last week, Councilmber Kasper said former.Councilmember Gould had made a motion on December 6, 1983, seconded by Councilmember Naughten,.to meet with the ADB to discuss retention of ADB authority before.any • action is taken to adopt the.ordinance giving this authority to the Hearing Examiner. Council - member Kasper said the Council. was acting in poor faith in not waiting to meet with the ADB before adopting that ordinance. In addition, he said, when he brought up the question of criteria for the ADB, Councilmember Ostrom had asked the Council to concentrate on the sign code and not discuss criteria. Councilmember Kasper said he believed the motion to pass Ordinance 2427 was out of order. He was assured by the City Attorney that it was in order and.had asked the Mayor to.veto the ordi- nance. The Mayor had chosen not to veto and, Councilmember Kasper then asked Councilmember Nordquist, who had voted on the prevailing side, to move to reconsider the ordinance. Councilmember Jaech moved that Item (G) on the Consent Agenda.be moved to Item-7 on the Agenda. Councilmember Kasper said he was.not agreeable. He said he would:bring up the subject of Ordinance 2427 later in.the evening.. He asked that vote on his motion be taken at this time. MAYOR .the NAUGHTEN VOTED NO TO BREAK THE.TIE. MOTION FAILED. .000NCILMEMBER.KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT ITEM (G) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BE MOVED.TO ITEM 7 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. SET. DATE.FOR HEARING ON APPEAL..OF.HEARING EXAMINER'S.DEC,ISION.REGARD,ING SETBACK DETERMINATION AT:"'8029-.::242ND.;ST-:'.S.W:' (APPELLANT: MATHAY) [Item.(K) on Consent 'Agenda] Councilmember Kasper questioned.scheduling this hearing for -the May 2-9th meeting since the Council had agreed to keep fifth.Tuesdays open. Council President Jaech said scheduling of the Town Hall Meeting on May..l. had used up the fifth Tuesday of the month. All other fifth Tuesdays this year h.ave.been blocked out.and nothing:will be scheduled. If .the Council does.not use this date, there will be a backlog of .hearings. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO SET A DATE.OF_,MAY 29, 1983 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING SETBACK DETER- MINATION": AT 8029 242ND ST. S. W. (APPELLANT:. MATHAY). MOTION CARRIED. REPORT.ON BIDS OPENED MAY 4, 1984 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RENOVATION OF MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE AND • , SITE IMPROVEMENTS [Item (L).on Consent Agenda]. REPORT...ON BIDS OPENED MAY 2,:1.984 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RENOVATION OF EDMONDS MUSEUM [Item M on Consent Agenda REPORT ON, BIDS OPENED,.MAY 2, 1984 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR WADE JAMES THEATER IMPROVEMENTS Item N on Consent Agenda Councilmember.Kasper.pointed..out that all three.of.these contracts provide that one percent of the total project cost:will be transferred to the Public Arts.Fund. However., since these projects are federally funded 'one percent.c.annot be..transferred to.the.Arts. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY"COUNCILMEMBER JAECH,.THAT THIS PROVISION BE REMOVED FROM THESE THREE CONTRACTS AND COUNCIL APPROVE AWARD OF BIDS TO.HAWK CONSTRUCTION IN AMOUNT OF $22,597.88 FOR MEADOWDALE IMPROVEMENTS, TO AINSLEY CONSTRUCTION IN AMOUNT OF $15,150 FOR EDMONDS.MUSEUM RENOVATION, AND TO ED BOULTON INSULATION IN AMOUNT OF $48,170 FOR.WADE_.JAMES THEATER IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper raised a question regarding expenditure.above the;budgeted amount for the Meadowdal.e..Clubhouse,.and site.improvements. Planning Director Mary Lou Block replied that bids received were over.the.budgeted amount.. Contingency monies were requested from HUD to cover increased costs and the request was approved. Councilmember Jaech asked if the cost of the.elevator was included in the amount of $15,150 for renovation of the.Edmonds Museum. Ms. Block said the elevator cost.has to be added to the bids. Mr. Adams explained that the total.cost was $41.,090.of.which.$15,150 plus tax was for construction of the shaft. The purchase of the elevator has already been awarded for approximately $25,000 including tax. .The $69,623 was an estimate by the architect.. Councilmember Jaech asked that future information furnished to the Council include all pertinent information for use in comparison of costs, etc. May 15, 1984 - continued • AUDIENCE Dan Rice,'18726 Soundview Pl., representing the Edmonds Planning Board, read a letter from the Board to the Council expressing their views regarding adoption of Ordinance 2427. The Planning Board asked the Council to defer any decision on Item (G) of the Consent Agenda until the Planning Board has opportunity to.make recommendations for a definitive sign code. Bob Boye, 24235 76th Ave. W., member of the Planning Board, asked the Council to remand the sign code back to the Planning Board.i.f Ordinance 2427 is not repealed. It was the intent of the Plan- ning Board during their work on the sign code that the ADB would be the flexible partner in admin- istering the code. If that changes, the sign code must: be made more definitive for the.Hearing Examiner's use in.working with variance.requests. He used the example of the K-Mart sign to illus- trate his point. Councilmember Ostrom asked if Mr. Boye wanted to provide better criteria for evaluating variances heard by the He Examiner. Mr. Boye replied that the Planning Board would like to make some definite recommendations regarding heights and other areas, as well as establish- ing criteria. Councilmember Ostrom.noted that granting.variances is covered in the code. If the ADB were given.powers as.descri.bed.last week, essentially, there would be no code at all. He said he doe�,not understand what variances have to do with the proposals from the Pl.anning Board, since they are evaluated on specific prini.cpl.es. Mr. Boye replied that specifics set down in a sign code, such as the 14 foot limitation, would mean the Hearing Examiner would say no everytime to a request for a variance from that. Councilmember Ostrom read from.the City Code regarding variances. He said he does not understand what would be done differently for the ADB to apply the principles than the Hearing Examiner. Mr..Boye said the Planning Board wishes to have the chance to be more defini- tive and relaxing on the sign, height on. }li,ghway. 99. Councilmember: Dwyer asked., if. anything would prevent the Planning'Board from'considering these issues regardless of what the Council does:this evening. He said the people who had received benefit from the actions taken at last week's meeting should not.be prevented from receiving those rights while the Planning Board deliberated on recom- mendations.''`Mr. Boye answered that nothing would prevent the Council taking action; however, the • Planning Board would prefer to provide a complete and proper package instead of amending the code for the next few months. Ken Mattson, P. 0. Box 234, Chairman of the Planning Board, said four general.areas were being considered in revision of the City Code: 1. The Sign Code. There are several areas within the City that are separate and unique such as,Highway 99, SR104, Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Possibly the code needs to be adjusted.to fit each area. 2. The ADB. The possibility of expanding the list of membership qualifications, adding a local artist, sign maker or sign painter, etc., involving a more rounded viewpoint of signs in general.. 3. ADB Criteria. At this point any criteria is vague and there was agreement at the ADB - Planning Board joint meeting that rationale must be explained for decisions made. 4. Review of Nominees for Board appointment. Tranditionally appointments are friends of the family.or political appointments, but he suggested that qualifications should be examined more.closely. He reiterated that the Planning Board had included the flexibility of the ADB in reviewing the sign code. He said the current code consists of guidelines, with provision for modification by the ADB. Mr. Mattson.recounted that.the.Planning Board had assumed the premise that the ADB did not exist when they began looking at revision of the sign code. They attempted to take into account every possible circumstance that might exist on Highway 99 and found they would have to spend three years to accomplish this and would have a sign code twice as thick as the City code; or some group of skilled individuals would have to be given the ability to look at a case by case basis and make decisions. He al.so asked.that the Planning Board be given the opportunity to send better sign information to the Council for review. Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Mattson believes the Council acted in bad faith in passing Ordinance 2427 last week. Mr. Mattson replied that if he were a new member and -something 1i,ke_that had, happened,,_h.e would, have asked what was, going on; however, he was not.surprised,.shocked or outraged, just believes the -Planning Board should have the oppor- tunity to look at the si.gn code in light of this circumstance.. In response to another question from Councilmember Kasper, Mr.. Mattson said he had heard the statement that the Hearing Examiner is concerned about consideration of these matters, but he did not know that to his own knowledge, but would not surprise him if that were the truth. • Mayor Naughten.said Items.2, 3, and 4, should be moved to June 19. He noted that Item 4 is the appeal of the ADB approval of a..sign,on the proposed Edmonds National Bank by Hertrich.. The Mayor had received..a call from the Edmonds National Bank requesting that this be continued to June 19. Councilmember Jaech said there is.a problem in moving Item 4 since this is similar to a hearing that was before the Council concerning.the Shoreline. Marina Expansion project earlier in the year. At that time., Mr. Her.trich had requesteda continuance because he would not be present on the date of the hearing.. The Council chose to go ahead at that time regardless of the appellant's presence. She also said, in addition to the question of fairness, that the date set should be agreeable to both parties. At this point, Councilmember Ostrom asked why Items 2 and 3 were being moved. Mayor Naughten replied that those items would be moot if Item (G) on the Consent Agenda were to be approved or they would have to be continued if Item (G) were.continued since they all tie together. Councilmember Ostrom'in responding to a statement from Councilmember Kasper, said Item 4 had been continued by the Council until. the.sign code issue had been resolved. In response to a question from the Mayor, Roger Hertrich,.1020 Puget Drive, the appellant, said the date of June 19 would not be agreeable to him. He asked that he be given the opportunity to speak at this time. City Attorney John'Wallace said it was up to the Council if they wanted to open, the hearing or continue to another date. If the hearing is opened, the appellant and anyone else wishing to speak may do so and the hearing could then be continued to another date, giving the respondents an oppor- tunity to listen to the tapes and present their testimony. a.t that time.._,The.problem,in resolving the matter in its entirety at this time would be whether the respondent received an indication that there would be a continuance. I.n response to a question, Richard Johnson identified himself as being from the bank but indicated that he did not represent the bank in this matter. Councilmember Jaech outlined the Council's rationale for concluding the. hearin.g:on.the Shorel ner,Marina Expansion project and asked if the Council is.not be inconsistent in their treatment.of the'situatation. She 387 • May 15, 1984 - continued sai,d..a method should:be decided upon.and adhered to. She asked if the respondent.had been given indication that the hearing would.be continued. Mayor Naughten said the letter had been received during the day :and he.had also received a phone call from_the.Bank, during which he had told them the:next possible.date would be June 19. Councilmember Hall suggested that the.fact of the Bank's absence would constitute assumption. on their part that the hearing would be continued. She said the delay has-been caused because the Council has not decided whether.the ADB will be allowed the necessary powers.and this has resulted in the current confusion on the state of -the appeals. She suggested this matter be.concluded this evening. She.also asked that the Council members listen to the Planning Board members, remand the.sign code .to, the Planning Board, and make a philosophical statement on the.ADB dealing with. -modifications versus variances and then this type of embarrassing situation will not reoccur. Councilmember Kasper said.he had moved for continuance of the Marina project, hearing because the reason for the appeal was very.cl.ear"-even though the appellant was not present.-COUNCILMEMBER .WILSO.N.MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT-ITEMS_.2,.3, AND 4 BE MOVED TO JUNE 19.. Mr. Wallace recommended that the hearings.be postponedin accordance with the motion, subject to Mr. Hertrich's ability. to..be in attendance on.that date. He added that this type of thing could be taken care of in the future to avoid the situation now before the Council. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer noted that his vote in favor of the motion was because he believes the Council was.wrong during the hearing on the Marina Expansion in not continuing the matter to.a later date. COUNCI.LMEMBER JAECH MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE APPELLANT BE ASKED IF THE JUNE 19 DATE IS AGREEABLE. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL VOTING NO. Mr. Hertrich said he would be unable to attend the June 19 meeting and.asked to be allowed to present his testimony at this time, then continuing.the hearing to allow,.the. Bank to..,present their testimony. He noted.that he had been at every meeting to present his testimony and asked for the opportunity • now. COUNC,ILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE PREVIOUS MOTION BE RE-, CONSIDERED AND THE.000NCIL HEAR TESTIMONY ON ITEM 4 AT THIS MEETING, CONTINUING THE HEARING TO JUNE -19 TO HEAR THE ABSENT PARTY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist.arrived and joined the other members of .the Council. COUNCILMEMBER -JAECH MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM,.THAT THE HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB APPROVAL OF SIGN ON NORTH FACE OF PROPOSED EDMONDS NATIONAL BANK BUILDING AT 125, 137, AND 145 3RD AVE. S. BE OPENED. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Director Mary Lou Block read the.staff.report.which contained background information on this appeal, the application, elevations, sign design, and minutes of the ADB meeting of January 4, 1984.and City Council meetings of February 7, February.28, and March 7, 1984. Mr. Hertrich.distributed excerpts.from the,minutes. of ADB meetings of January 4 and February 1, 1984. At this point, Mr. Wallace interrupted to give.Councilmember Kasper an opportunity to speak.. Councilmember Kasper de..cl.are.d,that several of the..Bank's stp:c.l.jp;ders were:his customers, and. though he.d.id not.know if there were any controlling interests, he stepped down from participation in the matter and left the room. Mr. Hertrich continued that his reasons.for appealing the ADB decision are that the 20' sign does not conform to the 1.4'.height limit stated for. the .downtown zone. He stated that the people of Edmonds. have never indicated they want 20' signs all over the city. In addition to the 20' non- conforming height, the app.licant.gave erroneous information in.his application for the 20' sign height. It -is apparent that there are.no trees on the south side of Rainier Bank or.on the north side of the applicant's property. A hedge„exists on the'southwest corner of Rainier Bank property with a height of approximately 7' and there is one deciduous tree on the fence line. There are some trees on.the west side of.the Rainier building between the building and the sidewalk. The appli- cant's property can be,viewed from the,intersection-of 3rd and Mai.n., the main view blockage is the • Rainier Bank Building. Mr..Hertrich.read an.excerpt from the ADB minutes of January 4, 1984 in which the applicant had.said a lower sign would.be blocked from view by a row of existing trees on the south edge of.Rainier.Bank.property. He then read a statement from the February 1, 1984 ADB minutes in which Mr'. LaFon said "it was obvious that most Board members had not visited the site or they would not have voted as they dial. He said.it was. -the Board's responsibility to visit these sites to make good decisions and believed,they should make every effort to do so.. In response to a question from Mr. Hintz, Mr. ,LaFon.said the Bank had argued :that a hedge blocked the View of the sign from the 3rd and Main intersection. He said.the hedge.does not block any.view." .Asked if he were at the meeting, Mr..Hertr:ich replied that he did not remember if he were present on February 1. Mr. Hertrich then said the code does require.that signs..are to be..smal.1, low level, oriented to pedes- trians., He said he was bothered by the assumption.that a person has a right to advertise.acro's another person's property; the City.does not guarantee.that,to anyone. He said he appealed the ADB decision because the information provided.that Board was erroneous, in that there.was no view .blockage, and the decision was based upon the fact that there was; also, a 20' sign does not meet the standards of the code. Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the hearing was. closed. COUNCILMEMBER.DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER"OSTROM;:;�'THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 19.- MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED 21-LOT SINGLE FAMILY PRD AND SUBDIVISION AT 16400.6817H AVE. W.. (PRD-1-84, P-1-84%FIRST SECURITY REALTY SERVICE CORP.) Ms: Block.stated that the Hearing Examiner, on April 5, 1984, conducted a. public hearing on this proposed Planned Residential..Development. On.Apri.l. 24,,.19.84, the Hearing Examiner issued his report outlining his findings of fact, conclusions.an recommendations. She said the.Hearing.Examiner recommends approval of PRD-1-84 and P-1-84, subject to the conditions listed in his report. Ms. -88 May 15, 1984 - continued • Block then read portions.of the Hearing Examiner's report and indicated that the Planning Department staff recommends approval with the addition that any clearing other than building pad and yard areas will be conducted only upon approval of the Department of Engineering and Department of Planning. She noted that.,the compensation to the City in the form of lot 9 for vacation of 164th St. S.W. would reduce this to a 20-lot PRD..rather than a 21710t PRD. She also outlined the history of the property. Mr. Kasper returned to the Council table. Councilmember Jaech.said there had been a letter from Jack Linge.which prompted some questions. She asked if the prior PRD application involving attached single-family residences were in any way connected to this .application. Ms. Block answered that this application is a totally different development -proposal and.bears no relationship to the other. Ms. Block also said that traffic problems in the area had been addressed. Mr. Wallace responded to a question from Councilmember Jaech by saying that a declaration of nonsignificance has been determined by a responsible official of.thee.Cit: and.-:the�Councilwould be concurring with that finding. Ms. Block explained that the. hammerhead turn around by l.ot 9 does encroach on City right-of-way, but would also encroach on City right-of-way if it extended into lot 9 and by extending as it does it provides use of lot 9 by the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse. De Ang Lang, Subdivision Management, Inc, 16031 119th P1. N.E., Bothell, representing the applicant, described the public hearings that had been held with the neighbors.of the proposed project. He listed the concerns expressed and.the attempts of the applicant to address the same. The concerns of traffic, parking, size.of the lots, the trail that exists on'the property, sidewalks, clearing of the property, and that all neighbors in the area be notified of any hearings. The applicant also had presented several designs for development at these meetings and the design selected had also been the one best received by those present at the meetings. Councilmember Kasper asked if all sewerage would go into the Lynnwood lines. Mr. Lang said the new, , proposed trunk the City of Edmonds is installing will go past their property from the N. Meadowdale Rd.. Mr. Adams clarified that the property is not located in the moratorium area, but no building permits would be issued for construction, on the property that would be served by the new sewer lines until the moratorium has been lifted by the City Council.. He added that there are other portions of the property that can.be served .by the Lynnwood lines on 68th. He said the new trunk line should be finished by -August of 1984. He also said the previ.ous PRD-had constructed some lines to be connect- ed on 68th and those could be used for -the upper section.. Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Lang would be.supervising the construction of the development, since there had been difficulty in another development.on a steep site, the.C.ity would like to make sure of the qualifications.of the developer. Mr. Lang replied that'he would be supervising unless he were fired. Mayor Naughten declared the hearing open. Ann Linge, 6970 160th St. S.W_.,.said.she.was present representing her parents. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Lang's work with the neighborhood. Ms. Linge said the Herald had announced that the meeting this evening was.a closed meeting with no audience participation which might have discouraged some neighbors from attending and speaking. She expressed concern regarding access and the amount of traffic that will be'added notwithstanding the decrease in the number of units planned. She.noted that a major -concern is that single family units, non-attached, be maintained. She asked that the Council insure -that a clustered home concept not be allowed for consideration on this property. Ms. Linge also indicated their desire to maintain large lot sizes. She said the additional parking would help at the Community Club, but the overflow exceeds the planned 15 spaces. She asked that the width of the roads allow parking for not only cars, but boats and R.V.'s and that parking be provided within the development. She said they would like to maintain a quality neighbor- hood. She ended by asking the Council to address the concerns of the neighborhood in their con- sideration.of.the proposal. Mr. Lang said he had shown.the present development plan to Ms. Linge earlier and said she was . pleased. He said .the road widths were proposed at or about the City standards. As to the R.V. parking, it would not be allowed on the lots. Off-street parking in the project should not be a problem since double car -garages are planned as well as two car parking in the driveway. Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing. Councilmember Jaech questioned whether the Hearing Examiner had used the proper section of the Community Development Code in rendering his report. Mr.'Wallace and Ms. Block assured her the proper sections were used but that an apparent typographical error had resulted in a different section being shown 'Ms' Block indicated that the requirements'mentioned i'n the report'are'referred to in Section 20.35. She indicated that the sections of the code, 20.35 and 20.75, were referred to in the staff report as well. Mr. Wallace said if there were any doubt, the Council could include a statement to the effect that the Council finds that all the criteria of 20.35 relating to PRD's have been met by the -proposal, if the Council.moves to approve the project. Councilmember Jaech read from the Community Development Code, Sections 20.35.040 and 20.35.050 and Ms. Block responded to each point as read, indicating,that the requirement had been met. At one point, she noted that development of the property as"single family residential could conceivably allow 27 units. She also indicated that approval of the projectas presented would prohibit.any other type of construction, such as an.attached single family residence. Councilmember Hall said she was familiar with the site and the PRD concept. She believed the PRD will provide the variety which Ms. Linge had mentioned. She said she would vote for the develop- ment. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED -BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED -TO THE COUNCIL BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, THAT THE 21-LOT SINGLE FAMILY PRD AND SUBDIVISION AT 16400 68TH.AVE. W..(PRD-1-84, P-1-84/FIRST SECURITY REALTY SERVICE CORP.) BE APPROVED; ALSO BASED ON THE FACT THAT CHAPTER 20.35 REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, AND ADDITIONALLY THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALSO APPROVE ANY CLEARING OTHER THAN OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. MOTION CARRIED. • 389 a May 15, 1984 - continued Meeting was recessed for ten minutes at 9:50 p.m. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB .APPROVAL OF REVISED LANDSCAPING PLAN -FOR. RICHMAR CONDOMINIUM AT 536 MAPLE ST. (APPELLANT: ROWLAND) Councilmember Kasper.said he i.s involved in the financing of the project -and excused himself from consideration of the question. He stepped down and left the room. Ms. Block reported that the.appellant and the applicant have agreed to a modified landscape plan, a copy of which is before the Council. The agreement was,reached in conjunction with the other affected neighbors. If the Council approves this plan as submitted, the property owner has agreed to revise the landscaping immediately. She.said the Planning Department recommends approval of the .revised plan, making it unnecessary to go back to the ADB. In response to a question,from Councilmember Jaech,..Ms. Block said•the original plan, approved by the ADB a year ago, caused concern among.the neighbors. The Planning Department had received calls as,.had Mr.. Johnson, the owner, regarding some birch trees, and the_�plan went back to the ADB for approval to remove those trees. However, the neighbors concern was not the birch.trees but the Austrian pine trees and tbeir,growth rate. Mrs. Rowland appealed the ADB approval concerning the Birch trees and the staff..fe.lt it was an opportune time to resolve the matter through a coopera- tive effort' -of the neighbors', Mrs. Rowland and Mr. Johnson. Mayor Naughten Opened the hearing. Helen Wood, 555 Alder, livi.ng next door to the condominium, said she had been concerned about the pine trees growing so fast and interrupting her view. .She favors the revised plan. • Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.OSTROM, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AS PRESENTED CALLING FOR THE MOVING OR REMOVAL OF.THE PINE TREES AND VINE MAPLE, TO BE REPLACED WITH RHODIES OR DWARF SCOTCH PINES. NOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall said this would normally go back to the ADB.for approval. The Council is approv- ing the plantings and.;f.they.;showl:d:.grow in: -,the way, she does not want the ADB to bear the blame. Mayor Naughten thanked the neighbors, Mr. Johnson, and the staff for working out the agreement. Councilmember Jaech suggested the Council should look at the form which is used that calls for the trees to be planted in sensitive areas. that are fast growing. She asked that the form be reviewed and brought before the Council for approval. PROPOSED ORDINANCE.2429 AMENDIN.G:CHAPTER 17.40 RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO SIGN'CODE [Item (G) on Consent Agenda] Councilmember Kasper returned to the Council table. Councilmember Kasper said.he had pulled Item (G) because he wanted to amend the ordinance and add height.to the ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED. -BY CO.UNCILMEMBER WILSON, ORDINANCE 2429 BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE.THE WORDS "THE°HEIGHT OF THE SIGN SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE TOP OF THE PARAPET ON A FLAT-ROOFED.BUILDING AND THE DRIP LINE ON A PITCHED -ROOFED BUILDING." ...Councilmembe.r Ostrom asked where.the amendment would be placed in -.the ordinance.. Councilmember Kasper said he did not know where the amendment would fit in the ordinance. The Council had voted .down the 14' limitation Ion attached signs last week; however, the Council did not address the subject of his motion, which would cover situations such as Harbor Square. Mr. Snyder said wall -mounted • signs are covered in.Chap.ter 20.60.045 of the.proposed ordinance; however, another provision in the sign.code, not before the Council this evening, sets a limitation of 14' for attached signs. Mr. Wallace suggested that.the motion should be restated instructing the City Attorney to redraft the appropriate ordinance to include the provisions of the motion before the Council. Councilmember Ostrom pointed out that there is a provision for a 14' limitation on attached signs now in the code. Councilmember Kasper said he is not willing to amend the sign code and allow a 14' limitation to apply to every building in the City regardless of the height of the building. All of the problems should.be addressed. He corrected his motion to direct the City Attorney to address this along the lines of an ordinance and apply it to the proper sections of the code. Councilmember Kasper also said he was not willing, in situations where a business has no other signs,'that the attached sign should be limited to.14' on a building that may be 25' or 30' high. He does -not want to restrict the ability to properly sign a building without going to a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Kasper stated that the ordinance in question should.be held in abeyance until the City Attorney can return with a method of attacking the height situation. Councilmember. Ostrom requested clarification of the motion. Councilmember Kasper said he was requesting the Attorney to address the method of stating within the code that the sign height would not be limited on attached signs on buildings where there are no freestanding signs. Councilmember Hall requested a restatement of the motion. The original motion was read by the Recorder. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS.TAKEN, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING YES COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, OSTROM, HALL, DWYER, WILSON, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY.000NCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE ORDINANCE NOT APPLY TO ATTACHED SIGNS.. THAT ATTACHED SIGNS BE MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE PARAPET ON A FLAT -ROOFED BUILDING AND TO THE DRIP L.I:NE ON A PITCHED -ROOF BUILDING. THAT ATTACHED SIGNS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.' Councilmember Hall suggested that deletion of .the 14' limitation on attached signs might be an easier way to state the motion. Councilmember Kasper replied that he would not want the -sign to exceed the parapet and drip line. May 15, 1984 - continued 0 Councilmember Ostrom raised a point -of -order.. He said the ordinance before the Council does not specify a..14 :::.l.i.mitation; that limitation is contained in a separate part of the code. He said the motion is not addressing Item (G). Councilmember Kasper noted that the discussion during the meeting last week was concerned with freestanding and attached signs and the 14' limitation..for attached signs. Mr. Wallace said the amendment would apply to Section 20..60.020, subparagraph B, which is being dealt with in one of the amendments and is within the scope of his attempt to amend the ordinance. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING YES., COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.40 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO.THE SIGN CODE. Councilmember Kasper reiterated that he will vote against the motion for reasons stated earlier in the evening. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO. MAYOR Councilmember.Jaech raised a point -of -order, stating that Items 2 and 3 on the agenda had been continued -to a later date. She asked if, now that..the sign code ordinance had been passed, a hearing must st-ill be held on these items-' Mr. Wallace replied that hearings would still. have to scheduled since the ordinance is not effective yet and will not be until five days after posting and is still subject to Mayoral veto. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MEMBER.JAECH, TO CONTINUE ITEM 2, HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DENIAL OF EXISTING SIGN AT THE EDMONDS THEATRE, 415.MAIN ST. (APPELLANT: MAYO); AND ITEM 3, HEARING ON APPEAL OF DENIAL OF EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN AT DAIRY QUEEN DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT AT 7530 212TH S. W. (ADB-63-83) (APPELLANT: OLMSTED) BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 19. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2430 REGARDING MEETING HOURS AND CONDUCT OF CITY .COUNCIL MEETINGS Item 7F on Consent Agenda Mr. Wallace corrected the wording of Ordinance 2430.' On.Page:l, eighth line, "such adjournment is extended by" strike two words "a supra" and insert "an affirmative vote of a" leave the word "majority" adding the words "of the Council as a whole plus one." Strike the next line. On the next page, Section 2, i.n the quoted portion, the third line which begins "the attorney shall insert the words "b& required to"; COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCIL - MEMBER JAECH, TO MAKE'THE ABOVE CHANGES., MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE 2430. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten announced a meeting of the Association of Snohomish.County Cities on May 31. The Mayor said he would be appointing Rick May to the Arts Commission. The Council will interview Mr. May.at 6:45 p.m. on May 22. Mayor Naughten proclaimed the week of May 20-26 as National Public Works Week in Edmonds. The Mayor presented an application for a liquor license from Jack Pot Food Market, on Highway 99, a Class EF license. The application has been investigated -and approved by the Police Chief and the Council should recommend approval or disapproval of the license, which then goes to the state for final approval. COUNCLLMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THE.APPLICATION BE FORWARDED TO THE STATE FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten noted that 60 years ago, -then -Mayor Engels proclaimed the day of May 16 as a holiday in Edmonds because of the first sailing of the ferry between Edmonds and Kingston. COUNCIL Council President Jaech said Edmonds has another silver medal winner, Linda Marquardt, for Karate and suggested the City give her a resolution of commendation for this achievement. She suggested Ms. Marquardt be contacted to set a date for the award. Council President Jaech read a,letter.from Harold E. Ayers, stating that Frank Frese, Post 66, American Legion, Edmonds, invites members of the Edmonds Council to participate in the Fourth of July parade. Transportation will be provided and the Council is asked to advise how many will be needing the transportation. Participants are asked to be 'at the Legion Hall at 1:30 on the day of the parade.- Anyone interested should contact Mr. Ayers at 22429 100th Ave. W. Council President Jaech said information pertaining to disclosure statements has been gathered by the Council Resource Person. Another item for Council consideration 'is in Section 1.04.020 regarding.attendance records.. Council President Jaech read that section -and said a certain member of. the ADB had missed four meetings.. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said she keeps a record of the attendance of all Board Members, the information being taken from the Minutes of the meetings. She noted that she had checked the attendance just two days ago and no one has missed more than two meetings. Some..of the absences are excused, and only an unexcused absence is referred to .in the Section read by Council President Jaech. Councilmember Hall reportedthat.she and the Mayor had attended the 75th Anniversary of Edmonds Sen.ior High School. She said it was quite a gathering and a good time was had by all. In addition, she took part in a student forum conducted by a facilitator dealing with the Classroom and Philosophies of Education in 2001. Councilmember Hall noted that former City Clerk Irene Varney Moran would be honored at Governor Spellman's office as the first Certified City Clerk in the State. 1 • 1 0 • May 15, 1984 - continued Councilmember Kasper asked.Councilmember Nordquist if -he -would be willing to ask for reconsideration of Ordinance.2427, since he.was on the prevailing side. Councilmember No.rdquist.responded that he would be willing to ask for reconsideration since Councilmember Kasper had indicated that all the facts had not been explored. Council member Kasper said that some of the.new Councilmembers had not.had. opportunity to.know all the facts when. they were.asked to vote on the Ordinance. When the subject of criteria for the ADB was broached on April 17,.he said he was asked not.to pursue it until the sign code.process was completed, and then before that was completed, the ordinance was passed. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, -.SECONDED BY.000NCLLMEMBER. KASPER, TO RECONSIDER THE.ORDINANCE. Councilmember Wilson said, asa new member, he had not been ready to deal with the issue when it was raised not having been involved prior to membership on the Council. Councilmember Ostrom raised a point -of -order, asking.if a motion to reconsider must be seconded by a member of the prevailing side. Mr. Wallace indicated that was not necessary. Councilmember.Jaech.stated her:position in regard to the ordinance, indicating she has no problem with it. Councilmember Hall said she would,:vote for the motion based.on the fact the Council has honored past requests for time for additional. study,of issues, as well as the plea of.the Planning Board given earlier in the evening. Councilmember Wilson noted that the ADB had been given indication that the Council would meet with them again and that.the meeting had not taken place. Councilmember Hall read an excerpt from the December 6, 1983 :Council minutes in:.which.a letter from Warren LaFon was quoted resulting in the motion by Mr. Gould to set a meeting between the Council and.the ADB. Councilmember Ostrom, quoting from the same 1 etter, said he had no objec- tion to the ADB retaining aesthetic issues. He said the criteria for granting variances do not • involve aesthet.ics or design. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, HALL., AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, OSTROM, DWYER, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO.. MOTION FAILED. There being no further business to come before the Council, meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. • C JACQUIELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk LARR .S. NA GHTEN, May