19831004 City Council MinutesZOO.
September 27, 1983 - continued •
Councilmember Kasper asked when the budget meetings should be set? City Attorney Tanaka said one
hearing must be held on -or before the first Monday of December. Councilmember Jaech asked if the
staff were ready with the.budget. Finance Director Art Housler replied that the prelimi.nary budget
will be distributed before next week's Council meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST SUBMIT
A STATEMENT OF.WHAT HE HAS IN MIND CONCERNING THE COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
`07
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C' y Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON; Mayor
October 4, 1983
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Plaza Meeting Room of.the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk •
Jo -Anne Jaech Patrick Wilson, Assistant City Engineer
John Nordquist Art Housler, Finance Director
Larry Naughten Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Laura Hall Steve Simpson, Parks and Recreation Director
Katherine Allen Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Bill Kasper Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Superintendent
Ray Gould Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Wendy Wahl, Student Representative Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
AUDIENCE
')an Rice, representing the Edmonds Business Association which sponsored the Taste of Edmonds,
thanked the Mayor and City Council for the support which helped to make the Taste of Edmonds a
success.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (H) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL-
AEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items
on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of September 27, 1983.
(C) Authorization for Mayor to sign Right of Entry Agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad
(Meadowdale).
•
(D) Authorization for Mayor tosign agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad to construct,
maintain, and operate storm water pipelines.
.(E)' Authorization to advertise for proposals for the .Meadowdale:Sewer Project construction.
(F) Authorization to sell. Animal Control vehicle to City•of Brier for $2,000.
(G) Authorization for surplus equipment sale.
AUTHORIZATION FOR INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT POLES - DRIFTWOOD AND NORTHSTREAM LANES [Item (H) on
Consent Agenda
Councilmember Hall observed that the justifications cited on the petition submitted by residents of
Northstream Lane sounded like her street. She asked if this installation will be aesthetically
feasible as well as providing protection for the people. Assistant City Engineer Pat Wilson responded
that the poles used will be similar to two poles on the next street (Somerset) and they will not be
very high (18'- 20'), they are attractive, and'they do not intrude into the view. He added that.the
PUD lighting engineer will deter.mi.ne the exact placement of the poles (with some direction from the
City Engineer). Councilmember Hall expressed the'hope that they will not go above the necessary
haight. Mayor Harrison asked if.the PUD would pick up'the cost of putting in the poles, noting that
t;iroughout the City they have installed them and then charged the City a monthly rental. Acting
P•iblic Works Superintendent Bobby Mills responded that the City will have to supply .them and the PUD
will attach the light and arm. The City Engineer's estimate of cost to do this work was $350 per
pole for pole and street light arm and $250 per pole to set and wire the poles. A total of four
poles will be. -installed, and the City Engineerrecommended that the funds come from the-Undergrounding
Fund 115.which has a balance of $12,333., COUNCILMEMBER HALL.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH,
TO APPROVE THE REOUEST. MOTInN CARRIFn.
r�
U
239
• uctober 4, 1yu3 - continued
At this time Councilmember Gould requested a 10-15 minute recess between Items 3 and 4 on the agenda
so he could share some smoked trout with everyone.. He had caught the trout on his recent fishing
trip and had smoked it.
HEARING ON REVISED POLICIIES AND 'P"OCEOURES. FOP, ATH!_ETiC FIELD USE.
Parks and Recreation Director Steve Simpson briefly reviewed.previous actions related to the athletic
field and summarized tha most recent revisions to the Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
which were presented to the City Council at their September 13, 1983 work meeting.: They are: (1)
Minimum of 25% use by adults on fields suitable for adult play; (2) No scheduled play before 9:00 a.m.
o�n anyathletic field; (3)-The east softball field at the Civic Center Playfield is for scheduled
use only (the field can be scheduled at the Anderson Center); and (4) Fees for nonresident use are
increased by $2.50 per hour. Mr. Simpson explained -that a "resident" team is .comprised of 60% or
more people who are City residents or if it is a school district field 60% living within the school
district. Councilmember Jaech noted that the school district has listed the Civic Center Playfield
property as surplus for 1985 and she asked the consequences if it were to be sold. City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka responded that the City has a lease on it for 38 years and the City could not be
removed from the property until the end of the lease, so they could sell the property but the buyer
would have to honor the lease. Councilmember Nordqu.ist asked some questions about enforcement of
the Policies and Procedures, and.he felt there should be some staff to patrol the field in the
evening to assure that they are enforced. The hearing was opened.
Judy Gibson, 82.2 N.E. 200th, Seattle, President of the Snohomish County Adult Soccer Association,
said that association consists of 80 teams and.it is expected it will grow to 100 teams. They have
at least 12 teams that use the.Edmonds fields. Eight of their teams are young men .just out of high
school and two of those teams are Edmonds residents. She said their teams have to be 60% Snohomish
County residents. She observed that soccer is a crowing sport and Edmonds is the only field they
• have without going to West Seattle. She expressed thanks for the use of this field and said they
play teams from all around and that is why some of the cars present at the games are not from Edmonds.
She stressed that they police their teams and if there is any drinking it is not done on the field.
Councilmember Gould advised her that the Council recognizes that there is a problem with availability
of playfield facilities in the area and that he has proposed that the City put up $250,000 to help
develop the Meadowdale pla.,yfield along with Lynnwood and the school district, and he said they might
be asking her organization for some !yelp.
Dorothy Williamson, 703 Main St., complimented Councilmember Nordauist for bringing up the subject
of supervision, and she said that would give the neighbors somebody to talk to when there is a
problem. She said the Recreation 9epa.rtment makes up the schedules but they do not know what is
going on at the field at night. She thouq_ht all the rules Proposed were very good, but she said
when Ms. McCrystal had talked at the work meetinq it was evident to the neighbors that she did not
know what was going on at the field. She asked the Council to assure the recording of the rosters
as she said they are not available for the neiahhors.to look at to see where the people are coming
from, and she said there should be a ;Written roster that the Council and the. neighbors can see to
determine who is playing on the field. She urged them to go forward on the Meadowdale field because
more playfields are needed, and.she said the soccer association should realize Edmonds cannot take
care of all of Snohomish County.
Don Stay, 715 Sprague, complimented Judy Gibson, saying that group does self -police and they are
disciplined. He found the summerbaseballteams the most annoying, saying they have running dogs,
brawls during the league play, incidents of urinating on the field, and other such improprieties.
He felt it was a real administrative problem and he did not think the proposed policies would handle
the problem in depth. He said the other neighbors and he had presented some cohesive thoughts to
the Council but they got nothing out of it, and that there is no policing of the field and the noise
is not eliminated.
• Councilmember Jaech at this time said she had been talking to people in the Seattle school system
about the problem and thex/ have.been very helpful. Rosemary Wells, an Edmonds resident, is their
in-house engineer and she suggested moving the baseball diamond to the southwest corner. Councilmember
Jaech noted that Mountlake Terrace and L.ynnw!ood dr_: not have problems with their fields but they
strongly enforce their rules and supervise their fields. She added that if the diamond were moved
the City parking facilities could be used by the participants. She had called the consultant used
by the City of Seattle, and she had met with Don Stay, Bill Tyler of the Boys' Club, and Finis
Tupper who lives in the area and is a. member of the Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens, and they
had come up with a proposal to form a committee which will meet and report to the Council after 30
days.. She suggested that the committee consist of a neighbor from the area such as Don Stay, a
representative of the ,youth such as Bill Tyler, a. professional consultant who knows the area, a
representative from the softball association, and somebody from the Parks and Recreation Department.
The intent is to resolve the whole problem prior to the 1984 scheduling, but the people concerned
will be participating in bringing about a solution: Mayor Harrison thought that.was a good proposal,
but.he continued the hearing to allow others to be heard before Council action was taken.
Frank VanHorn, 4301 22.5th St., S.W., Mountlake Terrace, a member of a team that uses the field as a
home field, said he has never seen his team drinking at the field and that soccer is.well policed by
the officials, one of the rules of the league being that there is no drinking at the field. He said
they need the field at night, and 'if the lights are turned off that would farce more teams to set up
their schedules in conflict with youth teams, resulting{ in weekend games. He said this field is
very much needed for soccer and will continue to be.
Jeff Koup, 6302 142nd St. S.W., Edmonds, a member of the same team, thanked the Cite for the use of
the field and said he appreciated the continued use of the field.
Finis Tupper, 711 Daley, asked who worded the signs posted on the grandstand.to close it. He said
the signs say it is closed by order of the Council but they should say there is a hazard. He felt
that special privilege is being.granted to adult users ofthe baseball field because they improved
thefield, and he.objected to that. He discussed the continued expressions by some of the neighbors
• about the problems and gave some of his own ideas about what should be done. He thought there
`40
October 4, 19o3 - continued •
.should be adult user fees and youth, fees-, with adult user fees being in line with what Seattle is
charging. As to use of the field,..he thought it should be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays,
Saturdays for youth only, and no play on Sundays, not even tournaments. He asked for stop signs at
7th and Daley, as well as crosswalks; also, that two luminaries be removed from each light pole on
the field and that the louvres be removed. Finally, he said the Parks and Recreation staff should
monitor the fields during activities. Mr. Tupper referred to a meeting held with the Mayor to
resolve the problems but said none.of.the suggestions were implemented. Mayor Harrison noted that
there was a compromise as a result of.that meeting which was to close the field at 9:00 p.m.
Peggy.Harris, 721 Sprague, said the .neighbors are objecting to the glaring lights and there was
nothing in the recommendation about reducing them. She said they do not object to the youth playing
there,.but they do object to the fights.. She said they were installed without asking the neighbors
if they would object, and she asked why they were not consulted.
Tim Davis said he is involved in the softball program and the softball players have been very sympathetic
to the neighbors -of that area. He said there is strong policing by the members, as well as by the
officials, and they do not allow alcoholic beverages but they cannot control the spectators. He
noted that one problem they had this year was with a neighbor watching the ballgame with a beer in
his hand. .He favored the suggestion made this evening for a committee but he said there has to be
revenue or.funding for the field. He noted that the ballfield was put in by voluntary labor, as was
the one at Seaview Park, and he asked "How often can you go to the well?" Councilmember Jaech
responded that she had heard there may be IAC funds available. Mr. Davis added that a ballfield is
285' long, not 240' as stated by Mr. Tupper (Mr. Tupper.had stated that the Encyclopedia Brittanica
describes a'baseball field as being 240' long), and that is one of the problems with locating it.
He said theywere agreeable with the.stated hours and that they have tried to be as understanding
and sympathetic as possible, and also that they -conduct themselves in a very mature and adult manner.
As far as supervision,.he thought if there was any problem it must.be after hours or on weekends. •
Robert W. Rine II, 1039.6th Ave. S., said he sees the field lights from his bedroom window but they
do not bother him as he just shuts the curtains. He thought they were no brighter than having a
lamp pole in one's front yard.
Bill Tyler, 8024 215th S.W., said nobody is saying all softball players are bad or that all kids are
good, and he expressed assurance that all kids are.not good. He umpires softball, basketball, and
football. He recognized that there.is a lot of drinking going on among softball players, but he
said the officials' association tells them that if a person is out there drinking the officials are
to walk away from the game and the game is called. He noted that there are not always association
umpires used, although the Parks and Recreation Department does hire.them. He said if those of the
association go back and.tell their secretary what is going on they no longer are assigned. He
observed that all he had heard this evening was about the lights, the noise, the drinking, the
urination, etc., and it had been forgotten that this is a community and in a community there are
children, and he felt the children were suffering because of a misquote or a reporter saying Edmonds
is now a city of seniors. He noted that the young people willnot be hurt by taking away the lights,
but he said if the fields are taken away that will be different. He stated that most of the field
time is not devoted to kids and that he has seen them leaving the diamond at 5:00 p.m. so the adults
could play. On another subject, he could not understand why the Council was considering spending
$20,000 for the top.of the grandstand, nor could he understand why they were talking about going to
Woodway or Meadowdale, forgetting everyone else. He felt that money should not be put into Meadowdale,
that it should be kept in downtown Edmonds. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed.
Councilmember'Jaech.said she had asked Mr. Tyler to be involved in this because of his involvement
with the youth, and she agreed with him that they should be putt.ing the money into this field instead
of Meadowdale. Councilmember All.en said she had no reservations about having the committee, but she
said they were ignoring the revised policies they had requested of the staff, and she commended the
staff for them. She noted that there appeared to be a problem as to.adult and youth use of the
field, and she.felt that the adults also should have the use of the field and to eliminate them •
would be to short-change them. She said they must remember that there are 80 soccer teams now, of
which 12 use the Edmonds field.as a.home field, and that they will be growing to 100 teams. She
noted that the number of.people in the area has increased during the last ten years without increasing
the facilities that are offered to them, and that the harvest of that neglect is now being reaped.
She also noted that Meadowdale is a part of the City of Edmonds, and she felt putting $250,000 there
to be worthwhile as it will serve the City as the downtown field.does, but she also felt money
should be put into the downtown field. She suggested that the committee start with the policies
developed by the staff. Regarding the lights, she noted that the report from the consultant stated
that this facility, if anything, has less glare than others and that it is very close to minimum
levels in effect in 1981 and below the minimum recommended levels recently adopted, and that it
further states that there is not a great deal the City can do as the expense of changing them is
astronomical. The consultant had said there is nothing that can be done to the system to eliminate
the "perceived" glare., Councilmember Allen thought the Council.would have to do the best they could
to provide the most good to the most people and live with that.
Councilmember Hall agreed wholeheartedly with Councilmember Allen and added that the Council had
approved the configurati,on.of-this playf.ield when it was developed and there were hearings conducted.
She felt this was a cyclical problem.and that the recommendations of the staff were most reasonable
and.incorporated some of the concerns of the neighbors. She was concerned about the lights, however,
and she thought shortening the poles might help but then.some people would say certain lighting is
not enough. She thought there to be too much glare even though the report stated it is minimal.
Parks and Recreation Director Steve Simpson said the staff had not tried to address the field lighting
again after the consultant's report as.they were awaiting further direction. He noted that softball
fields are sized for different types of play, and the downtown field is.the only one in the City
sized for adult play and he does not have ,youth teams requesting that.kind.of.field.
Councilmember Gould thought the committee idea had real merit, as long as there is a timline, and
he suggested December 1 for the December 6 meete
meeting and action. He noted that the lighting expert
•
244_.
•
October 4, 1983 - continued
had said the City may wish to reduce the luminaires on each pole, and he thought that was an action
they could take to mitigate the lighting problem., He said they should look at the big picture and
be future oriented.and think about the legacy they will leave for the adults and the youth of this
community. He -felt it important to provide more facilities and said more sites are needed, and that
is why he advocated developing the Meadowdale site along with the other agencies. He did not think
the downtown field should be.diminished, however, but.that.it should be improved as well and.main-
tained for the youth and for the adults, but made liveable for the neighborhood, and he thought that
could be done. He also thouaht the Council should identify what they expect the:committee to do,
and he suggested that they should recommend a field use policy, including scheduling priorities,
schedulinc procedures, fees, charges, rules and regulations, field layout, buffers, enforcement,
supervision, and any other ideas they may have.
Councilmember Naughten also agreed with the committee idea and agreed that the lighting may be
reduced, but he again said there has to be some suoervision to enforce the rules.
Mr. Simpson noted that there are eight lights per pole and he clarified that the proposal was to
remove two from each pole, and he said at the same time they would have to remove the glare shields,
and he cautioned that many of the neighbors around the field have said the shields have been -tire
difference between the lights being tolerable and intolerable. Mayor Harrison thought there was
enough support to disconnect two lights per pole, so he said that would be done the following week.
Councilmember Gould cautioned that the lighting must be safe for the players and that it should be
measured with a light meter to be sure the standards are met. Councilmember Kasper suggested that
the top two lights be turned off --but he cautioned not to cut off the top of the poles yet. He
added that as the lights come down he thought there would be other problem areas. He did not like
to see the City being too chastised for this, noting that the levies were dropped regarding the
•
school district and the facilities and their problems are now going to the City instead of the
school district. He asked why all the is permitted on 7th Ave., noting that there is a
parking
parking lot on 6th Ave. and fewer homes are there. Mr. Simpson was asked about the adequacy or
restroom facilities, and he responded that there is a lack of sufficient restroom facilities.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH THEN MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT A COMMITTEE
BE FORMED TO REVIEW THE POLiCIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE PLAYFIELDS :AND THAT A RECOMMENDATION
BE SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL IN 30 DAYS SO THE PROBLEM MAY BE RESOLVED BY THE END OF
JANUARY FOR THE 1984 SCHEDULING, THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE.LAYOUT OF THE FIELD AND THE USE OF THE
FIELD, AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE LIGHTING, SO THE FIELD CAN BE USED IN A MANNER AGREEABLE TO
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT, ADULTS AND YOUTH ALIKE; AND, FURTHER, THAT A
CONSULTANT BE USED SUCH AS THE -ONE USED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Discussion clarified that the
committee will consist of seven people: a representative from the neighborhood, a representative
for the youth (Bill Tyler unless the Youth Club selects someone else), a representative from the
soccer association and one from the baseball association, the Parks and Recreation Director (Chair-
man of the committee), a consultant, and a citizen at large from the City. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD
OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER AND THE. SECOND, THAT THE REPORT FROM THE
COMMITTEE BE ON THE DECEMBER 6, 1983 AGENDA. The report is to address the items previously enumerated
by Councilmember Gould. Councilmember Allen asked how much it will cost to turn off some of the
field lights as suggested, and Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills responded that it will
cost approximately $200 to rent a machine to reach them and probably 4-8 hours of labor --totaling
$300-$400. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD THAT THE
.FUNDS FOR A CONSULTANT COME FROM THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was then
announced.
HEARING ON 3-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 234TH ST. S.W. AND 78TH AVE. W. (P-6-83/MASTRO
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's report on this item which was
issued after the public hearing conducted August 18, 1983. The reason for the hearing was that tr:e
subject property is a parcel of a short subdivision and the applicant.intends to subdivide the land
•
further so it is considered.a preliminary plat. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with
certain conditions. All engineerinq requirements must be met. The applicant is to provide an
access easement of 40' on property east of Lot C which will provide access to Lot 2 of subdivision
S-8-83. The improvements of the access easement will be subject to approval by the City of Edmonds.
Turnarounds will be required on all lots, and the turnarounds must be approved by the Engineering
Department. The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed.V COUNCIL -
MEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE P-6-83. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON 7-LOT SUBDIVISION,AT 18829 88TH AVE. W. (P-7-83/HOMELAND HOMES)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's report on this item which was
issued after the public hearing conducted September 1, 1983. The application included a modification
for a.13' street setback for the existing home on Lot 1. Because of the location of the public cul-
de-sac, it appeared that the configuration of the lots resulted in a reduced front yard setback for
Lot 1, so the applicant was requesting the modification to allow the existing 13' front ,yard setback
instead of the standard 25' setback for a corner lot. The hearing examiner indicated that the
request appeared to result from a -special circumstance and was not a special- privilege granted to
the applicant. Further, the request satisfies the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinances of
the City and is not detrimenta:lto the adjoining properties. The Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the requested modification and of the.plat, subject.to conditions: Engineering require-
ments must be met. The applicant should be restricted in areas where tree cutting will be allowed.
Those areas should be restricted to.building pad areas only. A 20' native growth easement should be
established for all the property on the eastern edge of the subdivision which should include all
trees.16" in diameter or greater. Other trees maybe removed by the developer. Diseased or dead
trees in excess of 16" may be removed by the developer (Ms. Block recommended that this be "must be
removed by the developer"). The .owner of the residences of the developed lots will be able to
remove.deciduous.trees but will be required to.maintain the evergreen trees on these lots. Lot 5 is
to be a flap lot, with the setbar_ks.being street/north, rear/south, sides/east and west. The.
applicant !-riII he on,-_ ;;.ccess noint to Lot-1, !-!hich !011 he Off the cul-HIP-sac and not off
88th Ave. W. A drawing of the plat was shown, and then the hearing was opened.
•
October 4., 1983 - continued •
Hank Lewis, representing Homeland Homes and Mr. and Mrs. Clark Rogerson who are selling the property
to Homeland Homes, had no problems with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, but he noted that
there had been some concerns expressed by two neighbors to the east regarding the native growth
easement. He said there are some very nice trees on this site and from a developer's standpoint
they should be kept.. The neighbors are concerned that removing.trees on the subject property will
open it up to prevailing winds which may affect their trees. He.also.noted that the Hearing Examiner
was discussing a native growth covenant rather than a native growth easement. He said a lone tree
should never be left and if there were one in the.20' easement they could not touch it with this
provision and the people.would not have the right to.remove it, but if it were cut the staff could
not enforce this requirement as°.the'tree..,would be down. -He stated -that every home will have a two -
car garage and parking space for.two additional cars in front. He recommended a restriction on the
cutting of the.trees only during the development and construction and that the staff be given
authority to approve the removal of.a lone tree. He said they would be willing to have an expert
recommend which trees would be removed. He said he would not want a covenant on the back of his
property restricting him from ever removing any trees, and he saidthat could affect the saleability
of the home sites. He noted that the road had been put in with.a kiltered effect to.get around the
trees. He had met with the concerned neighbors to discuss their concerns. No one else wished to
speak, and the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Gould asked how the neighbors felt about the change the developer was requesting.. He
said he would not want to make that change without the neighbors having the opportunity to discuss
it. Councilmember Hall thought the fewer restrictions, the better, and she noted that they will
have to take out some of the larger trees. She noted that there is the philosophy to take out the
larger trees and keep the younger ones which she.thought to be better. Councilmember Kasper said.
perhaps the developer should not.be able,to take out the trees but he did not think the owner of the
property.should be kept from taking them out in perpetuity and he said the developer's point was •
that it would be detrimental to the property. Councilmember Gould.agreed that a person should not
be restricted from cutting trees.orr his own property and he said most know you cannot leave a single
tree.' He agreed that the restriction should be onthe developer but not on the lot owner. COUNCIL -
MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO ACCEPT -THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT EXCEPT
FOR CONDITION 3 OF THE RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT THE RESTRICTION BE A RESTRICTION ON THE DEVELOPER
ONLY AND NOT RUN WITH THE TITLE TO THE LAND. All of the concerned neighbors were present so they
were aware of what the Council was doing. They wanted to discuss it, so the MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN
and thg hearing was reopened.
Kermit Metcalf, 18904 86th W., s&id he had elected to keep the large
trees on his property. He.
wanted the development to proceed on the subject property but he had.asked
for this
easement as some
avenue to help his trees to rema.in. He said the intent was to have
some protection
for their trees
and they did not see how this would offer any protection for their trees.
He wanted
all the trees
in the setback retained, and he noted that on the large trees all of
the greenery is
very high so it
does not provide a buffer. The hearing again was closed.
Councilmember Allen said the Council could accomplish what they wanted by striking the last sentence
of Condition 3. Councilmember Gould noted that the residents in the new subdivision would not have
the same protection as this .would afford the other neighbors, and removing the last sentence should
take care of.it. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said he did not quite understand Condition 2, noting
that whoever will build will have to put in the road. He interpreted it as meaning whoever comes in
and builds the house and develops.the land would only take those trees necessary to put in the road
and build the house but after it is sold --or if it is an owner/builder--if he wanted to take out
trees in the 20' that could be allowed. So it would apply to anybody who came in and built but not
as strictly as it.is stated, as theoretically the road could.not be put in if a tree were in the
way. Mr. Lewis thought it was assumed that trees in the roadway would be removed in order to put in
the roadway. He noted that his firm is both the developer and.builder and that he expected all.of
the homes would be built within the nextyear, most of them on a pre —sale basis rather than on •
speculation. He said in the case .of.a presold home he would hope those people would have the option
of stating which trees they wanted to keep as it is much less expensive to take them down during the
construction.than to cut them down later. Mr. Lewis did not think striking the last sentence would
accomplish what the Council intended. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLER,
TO APPROVE P-7=83 AND THE REPORT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER EXCEPT FOR CONDITION 3 OF THE RECOMMENDATION
WHICH SHOULD BE ELIMINATED (PAGE 7 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER.'S REPORT). COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED TO
AMEND -THE MOTION, ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER.AND THE SECOND, TO AMEND CONDITION 2 TO RESTRICT IN BUILDING
PAD AREAS AND ACCESS ROADWAYS ONLY. THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON.APPEAL FROM ADB APPROVAL OF EXISTING SIGNS FOR SAFEWAY., 190 SUNSET AVE.
(APPELLANT/SHIPPEN)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block said the Safeway store has four signs which collectively exceed the
total permitted sign area. The roof sign is not permitted,by the Code. 'There is one freestanding
sign which is nonconforming as to area, and all signs are nonconforming as to height except for the
insignia sign. She reviewed the figures for all the signs. The ADB granted approval of the existing
sign on the front of the building (240 sq. ft.) and a new smaller freestanding sign that meets tl.e
standards of the Code, provided that"the existing roof sign, freestanding sign, and insignia sigr
are removed. The ADB believed that approval of the one existing storefront sign was warranted on a
building of the size and design of the Safeway store, although it -still exceeds the total permitted
sign area. This action was appealed by Natalie Shippen because the sign exceeds the sign standards
by 111 sq. ft. The hearing was opened.
Natalie Shippen, the appellant, said Safeway occupies a prominent site in Edmonds and they did not
offer a new sign package and the ADB did not require one, the result being a sort of off-the-cuff
proposal. She said they started with four signs and ended up.with two,'one of which exceeds the:
Code by 60%., Further, she said it was suggested twice during the hearing that Safeway come in with
a new sign hack;.ne a.nd she thought both the City and Safeway would have benefitted by that advice.
0
243.
• October 4, 1963 - continued
Councilmember Na:a,g:'itan was concerned; about removing, t'ne Safeway logo because Safeway spore is a lc+ of
money on its logo. He agreed t',at a better propc0l cou.1.1 be submitted:.
Tim Hall, Construction Representative for Saf way, said as fear as he is concerned the reason the ADB
allowed this was because they thought the alters.ative was not Oet.te-r tran leaving t,;c, sign. He said
the existing "aAFEWIX' across the front of the build fiig was ,art of the design of the store but it
is too big by the standards now and to meet the ordinance they would have to reda:esinn the storefront.
He said the sign face is actually less than 75 sq. ft. The freestanding sign they will put up will
be 90' sq. ft., completely Tig,hteu and it will have the insignia !Nuilt into it. The- existing insignia
is their old one. He said: as it stanas now the;, do not intend putting a freestandinry sign on t�,e
corner, bit retail managementcomes and goes and the' next person in charrye of t±,Js ;area may think
the sign is necessary. He said tha site is not a. primo are:a for business but it is coming back.
Safeway has no objection .to the Sign Ordinance but the basie problem is that they do not want to he
put in a noncompetitive situation, and if the competition does not do what they do that will present
a problem. Also, h,e said the ordinance takes into account the l engtt-� of the. star; -::front, not its
size. He noted that A.1 jertsons is wide &;n;J. s'r ..l 1 or; so ti,:ey are entitled to more s i gina.ge and the
J
Olson's store across the strrn t from it is rather narrow ?:nd almost square, and �e
one be dis-
advantaged because of its shape but they draw from each other. He said the cost to change Safeway's
signs will be approximately .$31,0:00 which Safeway can afford bu.t the custoims.-rs eventually will pay
it. He noted that 'Safeway historically :has gone in, and clone what is required by sign ordinances and
then the ordinances have been overturned., and they do. not want 'to be in gnat situation ;.ryai!n. '.-le
added that they were forewarned that this action.probably would be appealed, and he was curious as
to hot-j many others were appz-a.led; which t,lerF: riven variance,. He was -told ther•.e ar five other
appeals schraJiled. The hearing then was closed.
Councilmember Naughten said the Council realizes this is a financial hardship even though the sign
•
owners have been given five ye as to comply with the ordinance. He felt they must adhere to the
Sign Code as it now exists, and: if it is a statement as . to 1,%iir:t is desired for the appearance of
Edmonds then that is what they are saying must be on the City's buildings. He added that they must
be consistent. Co;.:1lcilmember Kasper otserve:i that .a codie cannot be drafted that will meet all cases
without variances, and he felt the ADB should be able to make the recommendation. Councilmember
.Allen said at the conclusion of this she intended making a motion regarding the Council's action on
September 19, but that motion would not fit this particular point. Mr. Hall added that the ADB
knows they are going through the motions, and he asked why this appeal action is in effect. In
answer to a question, he explained that the $30,000 cost he had mentioned would be for taking every-
thing down and rEplacing the. -in w.it'�, one or two new signs -=it will cost $S,C10O - $65,C100 to take down
all the signs. Councilmember. Gould observed that to do what the ADB required would cost considerably
less than the $30,000. Ms. Shippen noted that the alternative signs were not available to the ADB
nor to the Council. Councilmember Gould stated that they have.to be concerned about what the Sign
Code is supposed to do for Edmonds and they have to be concerned with the effect on business. He
thought the position the ADB took was a good position, reducing the existing signage by 55%, and to
conform with their recommendation would not be a $30,000 burden to the company which is an important
business in Edmonds.. He also felt that the ADB is. the proper agency to consider what the signage
ought to be, and he observed that they had some rationale for why they thought the signage should be
allcwed. lie thought they did it right and he su.ptported what they granted. He sai; i:= a r_w free-
standing sign is not erected tee square f;;:,tage will be down to 24Cu sq. ft. Ccuncilmember Al1-an
agreed with Councilmember Naughten that the City has a Sign Code which it should live with, and in
living with it over the past five years they have come up against this a couple of times and i,ave
given direction to the Planning Board to review the Sign Code, and she thought it does need some
review. In looking at the photogranals c1 tlne signs and seeing the store and trying to be objective
about it, she agreed with Councilmember Gould that the AD3 acted responsibly .inWthe situaticn with
which they were faced. THEREFOR_, COUNCILMEMBER. A.L LEN' -MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KAL L, TO
UPHOLD THE A1:3'S ACTION. Councilmember Gould added.tl,at 'tie did not think they should really expect
people to change their signs within the five-year period ---all of the action will happen at the end
•
because people will get as rr:uch arorn -their dollars as tcney can. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN CPS THE
MOTION, WITH COUNCIL,MEX43ERS ALLENS. COULD, HALL, KASPER, A. -ND NORDQUIST VOTING YES, AND 'iITH C01AgCIL-
MEMBERS JAECH AND NAUGHTEN VGT.L, ;. iJC. i"CTI:�i� CABBIE:).
Councilmember Allen noted that on September 19 they had discussed the appeals considerably and her
feeling was that the motion made about variances was that only the variances appealed would go to
the Hearing Examiner, but that is not the way it appeared in'the minutes. Therefore, she proposed a
new action. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT A HEARINC BE HELD
NOVEMBER 1, 1983 ON A.PROPOSAL THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD BE OVERTURNED AND THAT
ONLY THOSt: VARIANCES T I "F 111 1711 i"OUE GRIAN T 11 BY THE AIB ;HAT ARE APPEALED WILL C-u TO THE HEA1I111
EXAMINER. She said the ;next s'te!: would be appeal to the Council, and Councilmeri�er Ja2cn said that
could result in three steps, rather than two. Councilmember Allen that
responded one of the things
they discussed is that the ADB is in the design business and the Hearing Examiner is in the code
business, and the ADB grants variances when they feel the perception and feel are right. Mr. Tanaka
noted that the Planning Board did consider this and their recommendation was that any requested
variances go to the Hearing Examiner, and 20.100.030 of the Code states that when, the Council gets
the recommendation from the Planning Board it can adept or send it back 7Jithout a hearing, but if
the Council wants to make a change in the recommendation they have to hold a public hearing. Councilmember
Hall said she had discussed this with the Hearing Examiner and he will get back to -the Council with
criteria. Ms. Block said he does not feel he is the person to esgabiis,r i the citeria, so the staff
will work on it. THE MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison announced that Edmonds is the first city in the State to have a "Downtown Development
Team" visit it. Ms. Block explained that this was the result of work on tIzz! "Main Street" program,
and the design assistance.team w :ll..help in looking at revitaliza,tion and.esta!lishinq better ties
between: the downtown and she waterfront.
Mayor Harrison announced that Don Van Driel has invited members of the City Council to a private
•
showing of the remodeled house at 729 Plain St. at 11:00 a.m., October 7.
244
October 4, 1963 - continued
COUNCIL
•
Councilmember-Allen noted that there was a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding extension of
the amortization period for signs, and Mr. Tanaka said he will draft the proper ordinance.
Councilmember Allen referred to,a memo from the City Attorney regarding a proposed settlement in the
case of.Edmonds vs. Carol Jensen. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT
THE CITY ATTORNEY BE GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF EDMONDS VS. CAROL
'�JENSEN. -MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Jaech noted that there is a large housing development going in off of Elm St. (Frank
Taylor) and the pump system is going constantly and there are many springs coming out all over the
hill. She also was concerned about the traffic pattern. It was explained to her that they have to
de -water the hill before they put ih.the pump station and the project had been before the Council
and was approved, including the traffic pattern.
Councilmember Jaech asked when the roof will be started on the.Boys' Club. Planning Director Mary
Lou Block responded that the interlocal agreement was approved last week and it is going back to the
County to be signed, and then they can go -out -to bid for.the design work which will be minimal.
Councilmember Hall reported that Sue Hall wants to know the decision about the log cabin. COUNCIL -
MEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO PLACE A DISCUSSION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF
THE LOG CABIN ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 1983 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kasper asked about the new roof for the executive offices and was told by Property
Manager Jim Jessel that the design is complete and it has to go out to bid and will probably be
accomplished in the spring.
Councilmember Gould noted that there is a campaign sign at 196th and 80th, on the north side, which
exceeds the area allowed by the Sign Code. He asked the staff to take appropriate action.
There was no further business to.come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
U
IRENE VARNEY'MORAV City Clerk
October 11,1983 - Work Meeting
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Jo -Anne Jaech
Bill Kasper
Ray Gould
Laura Hall
Katherine Allen
Larry Naughten
Wendy Wahl, Student Representative
John Nordquist
CONSENT AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Jim.Adams, City Engineer
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Art Housler, Finance Director
Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Superintendent
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Director
Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
LOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll Call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of October '-4, 1983.
(C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for right-of-way from Jeffrey and Sharon Remington.
(D) Adoption of Ordinance 2400, amending 1983 budget as.a result of unanticipated revenues,
transfers, and expenditures of various funds.
(E) Adoption of Ordinance 2401, suspending the operation of Section 17.40.040 of Community
Development Code for a limited period of time (until May 16, 1984) and as applied to
certain legal, nonconforming signs.
(F) Report on bids opened September.28, 1983,.and..award.of contract for construction of Harbor
Square/Marsh Walkway to Expert Stone Paving, Inc., in the amount of $11,338.80.
7�
-0 0
1
0
1
L�