Loading...
Olympic Beach PropertyApril 30, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Charles G. Dibble Mayor's Admin. Asst. SUBJECT: FUNDING SOURCE FOR UNION OIL BEACH PARKING Attached are the Council's motion of April 24 and an excerpt from the Park Board minutes of April 25. We recommend that the appropriation for parking pavement at Union Oil Beach be made from the in -lieu park fee funds. N CGD/am Attachments PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING April 25, 1979 UNION OIL PARK Mr. Jim Jessel stated that, at the present time, Union Oil Park is closed, and the Port and the City are attempting to find ways to discourage the use of the area by teenagers. He went on to say that the most immediate need is that of a blacktopped parking area. This parking area and the cost of it will be shared jointly with the Port of Edmonds. The Port of Edmonds will fund one-half of the costs involved in the parking lot, with the City of Edmonds assuring the other one-half. The parking lot has been designed so that when Union Oil Park is built, it is exactly the parking lot desired. This has been reviewed with the City Council to set up the cooperative atmosphere with the Port of Edmonds. The parking lot will have twenty-five parking stalls and it is felt that this will nicely accommodate the 65 - 70 people using the park, which would be about the maximum amount of traffic the park could bear. Bicycle stalls will also be placed in this area. Mr. Jessel presented cost estimates for the parking lot which would run in the neighborhood of $8,000.00 and he asked the Park Board for their approval of using $4,204.00 in in -lieu funds for this project. Inasmuch as there was not a quorum present at this meeting, a discussion ensued as to a motion being passed regarding the use of the in -lieu fee funds for the parking lot project. Members present approved of taking the funds for the park- ing lot from the in -lieu fee funds and approval by proxy of the use of these funds was granted when the other Park and Recreation Advisory Board members were called. May 13, 1982 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Steve Simpson, Director Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: REPORT FROM PARKS & RECREATION ON UNION OIL BEACH IMPROVEMENTS Union Oil Beach development is 50% complete. About $5,600 has been spent to date from the Parks Acquisition and Improvement Fund to complete grading, addition of topsoil, seeding, and irrigation. The plan to complete the project includes the addition of pathways, trees, play equipment, improvements to the entry, and an enlarged parking lot. We estimate it will cost $20,000 from the -In Lieu Park Fund to complete the Union Oil Beach park project. SOS/mw Attachment C0( May 13, 1982 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Steve Simpson, Director Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: REPORT FROM PARKS & RECREATION ON UNION OIL BEACH IMPROVEMENTS The Planning Advisory Board reviewed the development plans for Union Oil Beach at their May 12, 1982 meeting. Nancy Dilworth, Landscape Designer, and Jim Jessel, Project Administrator, re- viewed the history of the City's shoreline plan for the development between Brackett's Landing Beach and the Union Oil pier. Development of Union Oil Beach is part of a comprehensive waterfront plan that includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connecting developed nodes on the Edmonds waterfront. The Union Oil Beach node was identified in the 1978 Waterfront Plan as an area that should be developed. Although the beachfront is not be- ing developed with the grandiose scale originally envisioned, the plan is be- ing following wherever possible. Development of Union Oil Beach began with a 22-car parking lot designed by the Public Works Department that limited parking to one area. The Parks and Recrea- tion Department designed the park after the lot was in place. The park's design is intended to: Buffer park users from the industrial develop- ment with berms and trees; encourage people to leave their cars to appreciate the area's amenities; provide for active and passive activities; and leave natural amenities in the park as is and develop only the altered areas. The Planning Advisory Board questioned whether the City considered the natural features and the original uses of the beach. Staff believed that there were few natural elements in the gravel parking lot that the City wanted to preserve. The area behind the beach was mostly fill dirt with no vegetation. The primary use was by young people engaged in rowdy behavior. This behavior, sometimes illegal and antisocial, discouraged use by other age and interest groups. The City's policy of displacing this activity (to other parts of the City) was questioned by Ward Phillips and Ray Sittauer. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Sittauer believed that the City should have considered use by teens a legitimate activity that should not have been eliminated without accommodating it elsewhere in the City. The problem is now on Sunset Avenue where it is difficult to control and overburdens the police and antagonizes other citizens. Mr. Phillips felt this solution offered does not address the whole problem. Staff and other members of the Planning Advisory Board felt the development would not stop the park's use by teenagers, but would get them out of their cars. Staff also felt no one had found a solution to the "teenage problem". REPORT FROM PARKS & RECREATION ON UNION OIL BEACH IMPROVEMENTS May 13, 1982 - Page 2 The Planning Advisory Board questioned whether there is enough parking for the expected increased use. Jim Jessel explained that park development standards call for 21 spaces per acre for a neighborhood park. Union Oil Beach has 22 parking spaces. Plans include doubling the size to 44 spaces. This should be sufficient for the parks' two acres and expected use level. Funds are available for developing the larger parking lot. The City Staff do not believe park users will have to use Port parking. At least a portion of the users will bicycle, jog or walk to the park. There will be racks for bicycle parking, along with benches and picnic tables. Public transportation will be encouraged as part of the waterfront plan. The Planning Advisory Board suggested the City make every effort to cooperate and coordinate with the Port on waterfront development. The Planning Advisory Board asked if development was planned south of the Union Oil pier. Jim Jessel said Union Oil Company would lease the property to the City if a passage were provided over or under the pipeline. This should not overtax the parking lot since the new area would be left in a natural condition and not be much more of an attraction than it is now. The Planning Advisory Board suggested that the entry chain link fence should be softened with additional plantings. The Planning Advisory Board recommended by unanimous vote to: 1. Review closing times of the park, and suggested that it not be before 10:00 p.m. 2. Continue the existing plans to develop the area and double the size of the parking lot to 44 spaces. 3. Review the planting plans and soften the entry gate with additional plantings. 4. Explore every alternative to allow the City to lease the Union Oil property south of the Union Oil pier and lease it as quickly as possible. Note: This report is not an official account of the May 12, 1982 Planning Board Meeting. SOS/mw June 3, 1982 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor VIA: Steve Simpson, Director Parks and Recreation Department FROM: Jim Jessel, Project Administrator Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: REPORT FROM PARKS & RECREATION ON UNION OIL BEACH IMPROVEMENT On May 12, 1982, we reviewed the status of the Union Oil Beach improvement plans with the Planning Advisory Board. Their three major recommendations were: 1. That the portion of the beach south of the Union Oil pier be con- sidered in future planning. 2. That additional buffer landscaping be considered on Port of Edmonds property. 3. That our recommendation for doubling the present parking lot size be approved. Mary Lou Block and I have met with Union Oil Company representatives to discuss future uses of the southern beach and we have requested a meeting with the Port of Edmonds; both in an effort to meet Planning Advisory Board suggestions. We have spent less than $6,000 to date on the Union Oil Beach improvements project (excluding approximately $2,000 of in-house labor). This included grading of the grass area by Edmonds Community College students, an auto- matic irrigation system, equipment rental, grass seed, and construction of the parking lot. The City Council authorized up to $30,000 for the Junior High playfield and Union Oil Beach projects for 1982 from In Lieu Park Funds. When negotiations with the Port are completed, we will return to the Planning Advisory Board and City Council for authorization to finish the landscaping and parking lot phase. JJ/mw Attachments CITY !TY OF E O M O N D S HARVE H. HARRISON 700 MAIN ST • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 96020 • (206) 775.2525 MAYOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT June 2, 1982 Mr. Gordon Maxwell, President Port of Edmonds 456 Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Gordon: Subject: Waterfront Improvements As noted in our June 1 conversation, the City of Edmonds Planning Advisory Board recently reviewed our improvement plans for Union Oil Beach and suggested that improvements to Port of Edmonds' property be jointly considered. Specifically, entrance and buffer landscaping was discussed. I have attached the Planning Advisory Board meeting minutes for your review. Please call me at your earliest convenience to further discuss these improvements. �--.Sincerely, 7 Ja es F. Jessel Project Administrator Parks and Recreation Department JFJ/mw Attachment cc: Mr. Ray Sittauer, Chairman Planning Advisory Board Mr. Steve Simpson, Director Parks and Recreation Department Nancy Dilworth, Landscape Designer Parks and Recreation Department PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD May 12, 1982 The regular meeting of the Planning Advisory Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Chairman Ray Sittauer in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Ray Sittauer John Hodgin Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner John McGibbon Steve Simpson, Parks b Recreation Director Dave Larson Jim Jessel, Project Administrator Fred Ross Nancy Dilworth, Landscape Designer J. Ward Phillips Felix deMello, Buildings & Grounds Supervisor Ken Mattson Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Valina Walker Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. ROSS MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. WALKER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 1982, MOT10N CARRIED. STAFF AND PAB COMMENTS Mr. Bowman reported that the City Council had a public hearing on the PAB recommendation for downtown parking and remanded it to the PAB for further discussion. The Staff will provide additional information for the PAB's consideration. Mr. Bowman noted that the City Council had acted on the ordinance aggregating non- conforming lots but they included the requirement for a covenant for a no protest clause which the PAB had not recommended. AUDIENCE Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, noted that at the April 14 PAB meeting there was some discussion of upcoming projects and one of them was a study of downtown land use and update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He asked what that meant, inasmuch a lot of time had been spent in putting together the Community Development Code, Mr. Bowman responded that the PAB will be looking at the Comprehensive Policy Plan as it relates to the downtown and its development, and the intent is not to rewrite the entire Comprehensive Policy Plan, He said there is some interest in the possibility of looking at programs for revitalization as they relate to development and design, Mr. Phillips added that it is t❑ look at what has been done and to visualize it more in detail. Mr. Larson also added that they think the specific parking requirements for the downtown area are in conflict with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and they are not defensive about the Comprehensive Policy Plan but believe it is a working tool and if conditions change it should be reviewed periodically also. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNION OIL PARK AS PART OF THE CITY OF EOMONDS WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Landscape Designer Nancy Dilworth showed slides which reflected the development of the waterfront from Union Oil Park to Brackett's Landing Park during the last few years. Project Administrator Jim Jessel and she reviewed the history of this development plan. The Union Oil Beach portion was identified in the 1978 Waterfront Plan as an area that should be developed. It has a 22-car parking lot which is proposed to be doubled in size. Mr. Phillips had been concerned that what is being accomplished there is ❑verdevelopment and that the site should be left in its natural state. The Staff indicated that the area behind the beach was mostly fill dirt with no vegetation and that there were few natural elements in the gravel parking lot that the City wanted to preserve. Mr. McGibbon colimented that it had developed to a beach surrounded by a grassy dune and he thought it looked "pretty decent." Mr. Larson urged that the south portion of Union Oil Beach be included in the plans. He said consideration should be given to how it relates to the present parking and the proposed parking, and also that the City must learn to work with the Port of Edmonds. He also urged r working with voluntary groups for improving the planting areas, noting that Edmonds has some very active garden clubs and volunteers. The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Bowman said he had received a telephone call from a lady who was concerned that the Union Oil Park should be kept open and natural. Mr. Phillips said it is important to address the fact that in the very beginning stages of planning something was displaced and it was human beings in the form of teenagers. He said a developer doing this would have to file an EIS, and he was disturbed that the fact that something was displaced had not been addressed. He said this was an area that teenagers used for many years and then a park was put on it, so now they are up on Sunset. He thought the mental thinking process could have worked better, and the Park Department should be careful of what they are displacing when they work on something. Mr. Ross responded that he did not think the City had a responsibility to provide a place for young people to drink beer and smoke marijuana. Mr. Mattson said that problem was addressed and this is the answer to the problem. Mr. Phillips then said the parks on the water should not be closed before sunset, and he also thought there should be some trees at the entry to Union Oil Park. He encouraged looking for a lease for the remaining property. 11R. LARSON THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. PHILLIPS, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REVIEW THE CLOSING TIMES FOR THE WATERFRONT PARKS AND THAT CLOSING TIME FOR BRACKETT'S LANDING BEACH AND UNION OIL BEACH BE 10:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. MR. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. WALKER, THAT THE PAB RECOMMEND THAT THE PARKING LOT AT UNION OIL BEACH BE DOUBLED IN SIZE IMMEDIATELY. MOTION CARRIED. MR. PHILLIPS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LARSON, THAT THE PAB RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK DEPARTMENT EXPLORE THE ALTERNATIVES FOR LEASING THE PROPERTY ADJOINING UNION OIL BEACH TO THE SOUTH. MOTION CARRIED. It was noted that bicycle racks and softening the entrance with landscaping also are to be considered. ISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGNS Mr. McGibbon stated that as now written the Code allows some flexibility and the decision can always be appealed to the City Council. He asked for some evidence that this was not in the City's best interest. Mr. Phillips responded that the Code itself is in conflict because 15.15.030 B.2., "Downtown Concept," states that signs are to be low level and oriented to pedestrians, and in another part it says they only will be allowed if the sign cannot be placed on the building, and he felt a developer could abuse that. Mr. McGibbon said he had walked down 5th Ave. and he thought some of the freestanding signs look better than a sign on the building, e.g., an attorney's office in a residential building with a small freestanding sign in front. Mr. Phillips responded that University Federal Savings is now trying to interpret the Code to their advantage and it is not working in the City's favor, in that when their sign proposals were rejected they said they would use the old pole sign on the property. Mr. Bowman noted that this was only a discussion item this evening and that a public hearing would be held May 26 at which time some kind of decision should be rendered. Natalie Shippen, in the audience, commented that there are three kinds of signs: flush with the building, projecting from the building, and freestanding signs. She suggested a maximum height for the freestanding signs. She thought the Edmonds Garden sign to be lovely and noted that it 1s a freestanding sign, so she thought it extreme to eliminate all freestanding signs. She suggested a maximum of 5', as an arbitrary suggestion. Mr. Phillips responded that there is a strong consensus of opinion that there should be no more pole signs in downtown Edmonds. Mr. Larson asked if one of the problems was the type of sign, rather than the height, and Mr. Bowman said it was not, but he said they may want to distinguish between pole signs and freestanding signs. Mr. Phillips said if a sign exceeds the height of a pedestrian it is not low level and pedestrian oriented, and as the Code is now, downtown Edmonds could end up with signs like Westgate or Highway 99. He felt the City should have the ability to be specific in establishing a maximum. Mrs. Walker suggested that the height of freestanding signs be restricted to 5' unless otherwise approved by the ADB. This proposal was acceptable to the Board. Mr. McGibbon said he would like to see examples of recently approved freestanding signs, and also he would like to have a representative of the ADB present for the hearing. He said he would like to ask what difficulty the ADB perceives in enforcing the ordinance. Chairman Sittauer said he would not be present for the June 9 meeting. Mr. Tanaka was scheduled to be present on June 23 to discuss the duties and powers of the Board. There was no further business to come before the Board, and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Page 2 - May 12, 1982