Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19840417 City Council MinutesI ii I I April 10, 1984 -continued Nordquist replied that this was not the intent in negotiations with the Union and said he saw no letter indicating Union approval of this action. ~e said he would like to see Union agreement in writing. Councilmember Jaech asked for clarification of the request. Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills explained that he is requesting the Council to approve an additional NE-9 position, which will be filled by promotion from an NE~6 position. The vacated NE~6 position will not be filled. The c~rrent NE-8 position will be filled at the NE-3 level with Council approval. He said it is easier to leave the positions vacant than to try to eliminate them entirely. He said the Union is in agreement and is encouraged with this approach which provides promotion within the City. codNCILMEMBER.JAECH MOVED, SECONDED Bf COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, THAT THE NE-3 VACANCY BE FILLED BUT THE NE-9 ~OSITION BE CONSIDERED AT THE COUNCIL RETREAT. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Mills asked. the Council not to take this action since the Union is agreeing to hiring of the NE-3 if there is a promotion to the NE~9 pos1tion. Otherwise, he said, he would have to fill the position at the NE-6 level. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE PREVIOUS MOTION BE VOIDED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVE~, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO POSTPONE CONSID-ERATiON OF THE QUESTION UNTIL APRIL. 24.' MOTION CARRIED. Council: President Jaech asked that i nfor-mation be furnished to the Council for consideration of this question at the retreat. MAYOR Mayor Naughten said there was room for three Council members in the car he will be taking to the retreat. He will be leaving at 8:00 a.m. The Mayor introduced Bruce Orwall, of the Everett Herald, who will be covering City Council meetings. Mayor Naughten ~eminded the Council to file their Fl5 forms by April 15. COUNCIL Council President Jaech reminded everyone the retreat.is Friday. She said they would be receiving packets of information on Wednesday that will be needed for the retreat. Council member Nord qui st asked if the Woodway Fi re Servi tes contract wou.l d be. ori .an agenda soon. He said he was concer·ned that an indemnification clause be included in the contrc:tct. ;·councilmember Nordquist stated that Jim:Murphy, of Ogden, Ogden and Murphy, had suggested on November lJ, 1979 that an indemnification clause be added to the contract. John Wallace had a.lso suggested that an indemnification clause should b'e included. Councilmember Kasper said this was :one of the areas of concern. he. had ~when he' voted against the :contract. He sa:id the City should explore. buying insurance to cdver this disability and treat it as.an additional expense. Mayor ·Naughten said that the City of Woodway is investigating this questidn and a report should be available for the;Council very soon. Couricilmember. Wi lsan· asked why letters to ·the PUD' and telephone company have not yet gone out regarding the use of· their poles for banners for the Arts Festival.· He said if the City is not going to. consider permanent poles for the banners,· the letters should go out immediately. Mr. Mills reported that the poles cost $125 each and will take about two hours each to install. He said the letters are ready to be mailed on Wednesday and he is waiting for the Council's decis~on. Council-member Ostrom voiced his disapproval of installing new poles, when ·the Council is discussing under,.. grounding of existing wires. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Mills said events sponsored by the City are also insured by the City and the banners are installed by the City. Mr. Adams ~larified that an individual wishing to install •banners must have a street use permit, which requires they have permission of the owners of the poles and an insurance certificate. It is nearly impossible for them to do this and the City has sponsored nearly every event, obtaining an insurance rider at no additional cost. Mr. MHls listed the permanent locations specified in the letters to the PUD and telephone company; i.e. 84th Ave. W. at 196th St; Puget Wy. and 9th Ave. :.N.; the east corner of the A~derson Centei on Main~ Second and Main; and.Fifth Ave. South. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT LETTERS BE SENT TO THE PUD AND TELEPHONE COMPANY ASKING APPROVAL TO PLACE BANNERS ON EXISTING POLES AT THE LOCATIONS LISTED. MOrION CARRIED. Council member Dwyer reported that Sno-Com groundbre'a king will be Wednesday, Apri 1 ll at 11 : 30 a. m. Councilmember Jaech reported that she had spoken with Mr. Adams concerning yellow markings on curbs on the corners of Fifth and Walnut on the southwest side and by Tradewell. There w~s no further business to come before tha Council and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor •· April 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 Larry Naughten, Mayor Jo-Anne Jaech Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Bill Kasper Lloyd Ostrom Jack Wilson ABSENT John Nordquist STAFF PRESENT Duane Bowman, Asst. Planner · Da 1 e Schroeder,. Eng. Coo rd. Dan Prinz, Actg. Police.Chief Jack Weinz, Fir~ Chief Bobby.Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt. · · Jim Jessel , Property Manager '-· Art Housler, Finance Director Jackie Parrett, City Clerk April 17, lga4 -continued ::John Wall9ce, City Attorney Mark Eames, City Attorney· Pat LeMay, Personnel Director Shirlie Witzel, .. Recorder I . ' . Councilmember Nordquist had informed•·the City Clerk that he would not be pres~nt because he was in Portland attending a Community l'ransit Conference. CONSENT AGENDA .1. ;· COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDEU.BY COUNCILMEMBER ~ALL, TO ~PPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOtION CARRIED WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included.the followJng: . 1 (A) Roll call. '. (B) Passage of Resolution 587 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) (E) Set date of April .24, lga4 to discuss parking alternatives on Elm St., 7th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. S. 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, lga4 for hearing on propos.e.d 2l~lot s:ingle family PRD. and subdivision (PRD-1-84, P-1-84/First Security Realty Service Corp.) (G) Report on bids opened April 4, lga4 for lga3 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 g2ND AVE. W. • ~ ' • i' ' , ' ~ Assistant Planner Duane Bowman reviewed the petition requesting annexation into the corporate limits of Edmonds. He noted that the.petition had been submitted in .1ga3 but 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 reiidential) upon annexation. The questions before the Council this ·evening are whether to accept.the proposed annexation and whether or· not assumption of indebtedness wicl 1 be required. He observed that the annexation does not I I appear to pose any significant service problem for either utilities or streets. The staf,f .recom-I mends annexation o~ 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 are~ fo~ annexation. He added that another area of. unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of g2nd Ave on 220th St. ,s.w. may be·brought before the .Council on:·a7.5% annexation petition in the near future. ·· Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Paul·Holly,.g307· 220thSt.·S.W.·; stated that he and his .wife.were·.the one~ who had initiated the petition. He said they would ,like to·. be part ,of the C:ity 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 SOUqHT 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 I 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 go 0 .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 intersection to make it a goo 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 ·1 $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 noted that 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 Alternate four and asked that he be adv·ised 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 ~ I I I I I Paril 17, 1984 -continued Olympic to improve vision a,nd 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 that the detailed design has not been determin~d 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 1 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 A.lternate 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 djd not show the left turn from Olympic Ave. onto Olympic Vi.ew Dr. to be a significant problem. 2. During the last hearing, comments showed residents preferred an alternate access to Puget Dr. from Olympic Ave. during the winter. He said the grading proposed at Olympic Ave. ~nd Puget Dr. will reduce the hazard but could not say it would be eliminated. Since no one.else wished to speak on this subject, th~ Mayor returned the question to the Council for action. Councilmember Hall asked, if Alternate four were adopted, whether left turns could be prohibited at 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 l.asting 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, als.o. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, 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. (ST""'.4-83) . . 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~ thi Applicants are to comperisate the City of Edmo~ds for the vacated right of way. Mr. Bowman displayed transparencies showing the proposed street vacati.on and a topographic view of the ar~a. He explained the location of the deeded.right-of""'.way and the as-built. road in relation to the proposed.street vacati.on.· He iDdicated.the location of Ms. Hinton's {one of.the applicants) home. The Public Works Dept.~ Engineering. Dept~ and emergency services do not.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· propose·d area. He added that the house is an existing nonconforming structure and. could be. occupied in the present. manner. If any. additions wer.e to .. be n:iade, they would .have.to comply.with the zoning .. He estimated that.the. lot is 60-70' wide .. He said the Council could limit.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 Hear.ing Examiner and. the City ".·<:'. Counc.il would_ be receiving a pr9posal 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. Wallace.;:commented that a potential cavity could be created. if the recommendation to change the official street map does not occur. Councilmember Kasper noted that he would.favor 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-bu i 1 t road. Mr .. Bowman said that property i.s contra 11 ed by the property owners to the south of 17.4th. Councilmember Dwyer. asked that the mat.ter 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 ~xaminer's ~indfogs and item one of his recommendation. ·There was no one present who wished to speak on this subject. 365 366 April 17, 1984 -continued COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED,' SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE HEARING EXAMINER 1 S RECOM- MENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: THE CITY WILL NOT VJ\CATE THE AREA~ SOUTH OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF 174TH ST., THE DEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT THIS TIME, THAT THE APPLICANT 1 S WILL BEAR THE COST OF THE APPRAISAL, AND THAT THE CITY POLICY B~ FOLLOWED AS TO'ACQUISITION OF LAND. MOTION CARRIED. : . . . Councilmember Kasper asked that the minutes show th.at if the property is not ·purchased chased by both adjacent property owners, ·it wi 11 require a segregatio'ri of the property to take the property to only one property owner. · HEARJNG ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION-FOR SIGN CODE Mayor Naughten explained that the hearing would be kept to a l 1/2 hour limit. Everyone speaking to this question will be asked to hold their commentsrto 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 wish.ing 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 criter?ia for considering Sign Code modifications. Mr. Bo'wmah said the· moratorium on Highway 99 signs: estabJ.ished 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 is 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, tf 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.ll Daley St.·~ spoke as President of the Edmonds CounCil of Concerned Citizens, com- prised of 602 members, a non-profit corporation register~d in th~'State.·The Boafd of Trustees consists of 8 people meeting once a month with an agenda. The organization has been discussing the sign ccide 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 quaHty 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 cbde. 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 1 s BMW Saab, 21420 Highway 99, congratulated Mr. Bowman 1 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. The.re 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 tosigns 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 rriade conforming· if necessary. He noted that much time and energy had been expended·by? large number of people and asked for the Council 1 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. . . . : . : • q ·. Jim Braun, 22435 '?4th W. and 23609 Highway 99, Olympic Properties, stated there are two important items that must be covered.~:·The attempt tci control or l~gisl~te 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 niap of Edmonds, the portion producing revenue for the City is in direct competition with jurisdictions that do not lie ~ithin Edmonds. He said the compromise worked out is not being applauded by the business community,. but the flexibility built in is the nios·"t important aspect. He I I I said size does not dictate taste, attractiveness or effectiveness and signage is advertising and I must be effective. In order to be effective it should not anger and that is where taste comes in. A sign must attract attention especially when it is in competition: with people directly across th~ 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 'th.ose services must be advertised. If additional property is required, the owner must know that the additional services can be advertised before acquiring the -1 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 th~t maintenance arid upkeep are ~bre important than the size and specifitations. ·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 is trying to do, must be considered. -- I I I I -- April 17, 1984 -continued Arnie Nelson, Bill Blume Volkswag~n, 24329.Highway 99, said the proposals.are not ideal but are an acceptable co~promise 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 c6mpensation~· however, being allowed to use a sign that the business has_ paid for is not j~stified as compensation~ When the federal government mandates a safety or emission ~ontro], chahge 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 a 11 owed to use the car for the 1 if e 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 existinq signs or who is to say that the code adopted at this meeting may not change in f~ve-years requiring all signs be changed again. He indicated the expense faced by their business in removing or changing their signs would necessitate testing the law to see if it is valid,, .. -·•···: : . ·: ... ·,~:· :. ·:::~:;, Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., said he had attended most of the general meetings held and felt there,was a good mix of information and discussi6n. 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. presen~ code allows adequate signage, which can be divided among free- standing and ·attached signs. That portion would be eliminated, allowing a sigh 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. \~. Auto Rebuild at 23510 H·ighway 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. . Bi 11 boards 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, p6inting·to the fact that the sign code must be flexible to allow the ADB to· determine individual needs 6f businesses. He mentioned a safety factor also, stating he i.s involved in collision repair, and feels the smaller signs are. a 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 Shippen, 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 attended.•most Planning Board meetings,. listening 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.restrictive 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- . tamers 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. He felt the goal bf the meetings was to see how: small the signs could be rather than giving business. a fa.i r amount of s·ignage 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 an.dCopy 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-· sented 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 busi~esses 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 i where traffic is moving at a much greater rate of speed. : He said all. of those who had participated 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 developed. from 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 Tupper commented that the. group he represented did not initiate changes to the sign code. In fact,. they support the code as it now stands. .rn reference to. the proposed amendments, the Edmonds Council of Concerned.Citizens', Board. 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.,:need for a mi nimum."si ze: but ·would urge. the minimum. stay at 48 square feet. The recommendation on .landscaping and location of freestanding signs is agreeable to the 3()8 April 17, 1984 ~ coritinued Board,' and_(the,Board sees<no-st1bstantiation of"need"to:ra_ise the-sigh.h~ight above 14 feet. He said the intent of the code was for identification not advertisirig. 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 ~onsidered in any change to the CG area since Chapter .15 of the code is not ~eing changed~ · · Roger Hertrich spoke on amortization or the grandfathering question .. He agre~d that businesses having nonconforming signs need. a .way out. He said thei 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.reco~mendation. 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 m~king 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 diff~rent. He said the waterfront should be included as part of the downtown bowl area. He finds that W~stgat~ is not a high speed area and is not in agreement with changes in that area; Bob Campbell, Bill Blume V6lksw~gen, spoke concerning nonconforming signs .. He feels ·the matter must be address~d .. and solved or there i~ no sense in going· through the exercise of the sign code.· ·If protection for annexed areas .is not afforded,.to be.legal. at one point and later be told a business must change its signs, thereis no equity. He says business property is taxed on its size and a maximum i5 ·placed on the size of their sighs -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 on~ 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 could take up the other items if time allow~d. He had observed that three of the five· reco~mendations contained in the March 22 memoran- dum seeined to be uncontested, suggesting those be considered first. Councilmember Kasper indicated th~t 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 minutes 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. I I I I I I I I I April 17, 1984 -continued 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 to.Highway 99 and, as previously stated if SR 104 were included, he would vote in favor. Council- member Hall 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. 369" 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 siqns 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 2l2th. 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 ARETERIAL 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 ~larks Superintendent, the. City Traffi-c Engineer and himself. Based on problems recently encountered in determining mining what constitutes an arterial street, all streets and their classifications .are being re~iewed 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 the. allowable number of freestanding signs. He read the current code regarding location of freestanding signs. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH~ DWYER, OSiROM, 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 COllNCIL- 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 Harks 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 Planninq 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 Moore 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 pa.id upon request.· COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE CITY REQUEST THE OTHER $2500 BE PAin 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 reorganjzation. .. :-··;· .. 370' 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 1 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 I 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. LARRYS:NAlJHTEN, Mayo? April 24, 1984 -Work Meeting 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 Larry Naughten, Laura Hall Bi 11 Kasper Lloyd Ostrom Steve Dwyer Jack Wilson Brian Stewart, Mayor ABSENT. Jo-Anne Jaech John Nordquist Student Rep: STAFF PRESENT Pat LeMay, Personnel Director Dan Prinz, Acting Police Chief Jim Adams, City Engineer Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner Art Housler, Finance Director Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt. Jim Jessel, Property Manager Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Director Shirlie Witzel, Recorder Councilmember Jaech advised the City Clerk she is attending the Annual ~1atrix Meeting. Council- member Nordquist advised the City Clerk that the would be attending another meeting first and would be late but was not present. CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll Call. (B) Approval of minutes of April 14, 1984. (C) Set date of May 15, 1984 for hearing on appeal of ADB approval of revised landscaping plan for Richmar Condominiu~ at 536 Maple St. (Appellant: ·Rowland). · (D) Acknowledge receipt of c'laim for damages from Ernesto G. Vesagas ($1,100). (E) Final Approval of 12-lot plat at 1225 Viewland Wy. (Harbor View Estates/ P-2-82). (F) Adopt Planning Board recommendation regarding proposed amendment to Chapter 18.95 of Community Develo~ent Code to standardize the compact/regular car parkinq stall size (CDC-6-84). I I I I