19831018 City Council Minutes247
•
October 11, 1983 - continuea
* Regarding annexations, Councilmember Nordquist stated that the annexed areas are asked to accept the
City's indebtedness and their zones are established, but on commercial properties they immediately
are told they must adhere to the Sign Code within 60 days, whereas those already in the City may
have waited as long as 15 years before coming into conformance. He suggested that their signs be
acceptable until the first ownership change or remodel, and that this be retroactive for businesses
which previously have been annexe!. !,,!ayor Harrison agreed that the City might as well make that
concession or the businesses will not annex and the signs will still be there anyway. Councilmember
Kasper agreed that something must be done or the City will have no tax base. Councilmember Gould
liked the idea, but he also liked the idea of the five-year time frame so it is the same as for
everyone else. Councilmember Allen observed that some of the businesses do not turn over for, many
years, but she -thought the idea was good. COUNCILMEMBER NORDOUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL.MEMBER
GOULD, TO REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DISCUSS JUST PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING; ANNEXED AND 'THE
EFFECT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR SIGNS WITH AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD. (This does not pertain to only
Highway 99.) MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Jaech acknowledged receipt of a letter from Ted and Deloris Westerlind, 8498
Talbot Rd., appealing variance V-12.-83 which is a height variance.
Council President Jaech stated she will put on an aeenda a presentation by the South County Chamber
having to do with the economy of South County.
Council President Jaech discussed the dates she had set for budget work sessions. a satisfactory
Saturday could not be agreed upon, so it was decided to.devote the November 7 meeting to budget
only.
Council President Jaech asked for.a clarification as to conflict of interest, this in regard to an
• incident at the last ADB meeting. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that when there is a bare
quorum and one of the persons has an appearance of fairness conflict, under the most recent State
law the person can announce the apparent conflict and thereby remain to hear the item. However, the
recent incident was an actual conflict, not an appearance of fairness, so his advice to the person
was that it would be best to step down.
Council President Jaech requested that the Council be provided.a copy of the recent letter from the
Department of Transportation regarding the landscaping of the new Park and Ride lot in Edmonds.
This had been brought up at the ADB meeting as the DOT had declined to appear before the ADB stating
that the Attorney General had ruled that the DOT is net subject to local codes and that landscaping
would be done as funds are available.
Councilmember Hall noted that the Safeway parking lot drainage problem has been fixed.
Councilmember Allen acknowledged letters from Deirde Peeps regarding her attendance at the Puget
Sound Water Quality Conference and from Merle May Cannon, expressing thanks for the use of the
Plaza Meeting Room for the recent Friends of the Library hook sale.
Councilmember Allen, noted that the City of Everett has left the insurance pool and will self -insure.
•
There was no further business to come before the Council, and.the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 11:15 p.m.
U
IREN VARNEY MORAN, Caty Clerk
October 18, 1983
Harve u. Harrison, "Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m..bv 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
Jim Adams, Citv Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech
Irene Varney Moran., City Clerk
Bill Kasper
Art Housler, Finance Director
Ray Gould
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Laura Hall
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Katherine Allen
Robby Mills, Acting Public Works Supt.
Larry Naughten
Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
John Nordquist
Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Wendy Wahl, Student Representative.
Jim Jessel. Property Manacer
Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
AUDIENCE
Mayor Harrison recognized Gordon Hyde, Chairman of the United Way Way campaign for the City of
Edmonds. Mr-. Hyde invited everyone to the annual.United.Way breakfast on October 2.6, from 6:00 -
8:OO'a.m., at the Senior Center, all proceeds to.go to the United Way of Snohomish County. Council -
member Gould, who is the South County Chairman of the.United Way, thanked Mr. Hyde for the marvelous
job he is doing with the campaign, and he also encouraged everyone to attend the breakfast.
*See Minutes of October 18, 1983
248
October 18, 1983 - continued •
Mayor Harrison recognized Cub Scout Pack 265 which was present this evening, working on their
Citizen Activity Badges.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HALL, TO.APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the
Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(C) Report on bids opened October 12, 1983 and award of contract for construction of an
asphalt walkway on 83rd Ave. W. and 204th S.W. to low bidder, Olympic Paving, in the
amount of $4,158.70.
(D) Final approval of 6-lot subdivision at 1125 Olympic Ave. (P-5-83/Pantley National)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER ll, 1983 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] ,
Councilmember Gould referred to page 4 of the minutes, the fifth paragraph, regarding annexations,
and said a citizen had called him to ask for a clarification of the motion. The motion was:
"COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD
DISCUSS JUST PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING ANNEXED AND THE EFFECT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR SIGNS WITH
AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD." Councilmember Jaech explained that she believed the intent was to give an
amortization period of possibly five years after they annexed, after which period they would have to
come into conformance. Some of the other Councilmembers agreed with her interpretation. She added
that possibly when the Planning Board looks at it they should develop some sort of guidelines as to •
what happens when the amortizati.on ends and who will enforce it. Councilmember Allen noted that
With regard to those which have annexed in the last few months she thought if they appealed the
Council would have to listen to the appeal,.and otherwise there would be no problem. Councilmember
Nordquist arrived at this time and further explained that the intent was that the Council would send
it to be reviewed by the Planning Board and that some of the options discussed were requiring con-
formance when there is a change of ownership, major.remodeling,. etc., and that the Planning Board
would consider all the options and develop some guidelines. He felt that people were being invited
to join the jurisdiction and then immediately upon doing so they are required to outlay a massive
dollar amount by changing their signs. He noted that McDonald's is faced with a $30,000 sign change
after annexing to the City. Councilmember Allen suggested that if time was to be given to new
annexations then possibly recent annexations also should have some additional time, and she thought
that was inherent.in the motion. Councilmember Nordquist.said he felt it should be retroactive to a
certain date and that he assumed the Planning Director would carry the intent of.the Council to the
Planning Board for discussion. City Attorney Mark Eames suggested that if the Council intended to
have the Planning Board look at other options than amortization or retroactivity of any changes,
then a new motion would be appropriate after last week's minutes were approved. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD
THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1983 AS
SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO
REQUEST THE PLANNING BOARD, WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT ANNEXATION OF COMPANIES WHICH HAVE NONCONFORMING
SIGNS, TO CONSIDER RETROACTIVITY TO THE DATE.OF ADOPTION OF THE CURRENT SIGN CODE FOR BUSINESSES
THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. MOTION CARRIED.
Further regarding the minutes of October 11, 1983, the Finance Director later pointed out to the
Clerk that on page 3, the second paragraph, the figure in the first line should be $180,000, rather
than $80,000 (with reference to the amount in the budget for Yost Pool improvements and maintenance).
4AYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS
.Mayor Harrison made the following appointments to the new City of Edmonds Youth Board: representing •
Edmonds Community College, Gina Al.iverti and Tom Wills; representing Edmonds High School,.Charlie
LeWarne and Tambi Shaw; representing Woodway High School, Ralph Squillace and Debbie Corso; repre-
senting Snohomish County Christian School, Jim Johnson; the City Council Student Representative,
Aendy Wahl; and citizen at large., Suzanne Uberuaga. Meadowdale High School has not yet designated
its representatives. They will be elected by the student body. The student representative to the
City Council will alternate as appointed. Staff liaison will be the various department heads,
starting with Parks and Recreation Director Steve Simpson. Appointments will be for one year., .
Regarding two hearings on the agenda, appeals of ADB decisions on signs for K-Mart and Bill Blume
Volkswagen, both located on Highway 99, the Planning Director recommended that Council action be
postponed until after the Planning .Board has submitted suggestions for sign requirements on Highway
99. The Council felt that was a.good suggestion, and COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO POSTPONE THOSE TWO.HEARINGS (ADB770-83 AND ADB-60-83, RESPECTIVELY) UNTIL
AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD HAS SUBMITTED SUGGESTIONS FOR SIGN REQUIREMENTS ON HIGHWAY 99. MOTION
CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL FROM ADB APPROVAL OF EXISTING SIGN AT EDMONDS LUMBER, 228 5TH AVE. S.
(APPELLANT: TUPPER)
The Council was provided copies of the application and minutes of the ADB meeting of September 7,
1983, when this application was reviewed. Edmonds Lumber has three signs which exceed the total
permitted area, height, and number of allowed signs. Further, the freestanding signs do not have
landscaped areas at the base. The ADB granted approval of the existing northerly freestanding sign
and existing.attached sign, subject to elimination of the existing southerly freestanding sign.
This action was appealed by Finis Tupper,.711 Daley, as a benefit to the community, because he felt
the decision was.inconsistent with theprinciples and objectives set forth in the Community Develop-
mant Code. ,His appeal .Iettpr'stated that in the central downtown business zone the Sign Code should
be enforced to enhance the beauty of Edmonds and that Edmonds Lumber did.not demonstrate to the ADB
r�
U
•
October lo, 1983 - continued
that no other reasonable alternative exists to satisfy the identification needs of its business and
that the Architectural Design Board was not an impartial jury in its decision to allow the freestanding
sign to remain. Mr. Tupper addressed the Council and asked if the ADB really did ii:s job --did it
discuss the design of the signs? He said that historically the Code has been enforced in the downtown
area and it has stricter requirements in the downtown area, and'by granting this variance he wondered
if it was a special privilege because Edmonds Lumber demonstrated that special circumstances warranted
a variance.
Chuck Cain of Edmonds Lumber said Mr. Tupper was appealing the decision as a benefit to the community,
but Mr. Cain thought his sign was a benefit to the community of Edmonds. He read a letter received
a week ago from the Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens (a group with which he associated Mr.
Tupper) regarding a candidates` night and asking to use his readerboard for their message. Mr. Cain
said he knows, the ADB knew, and the City Council knows that he exceeds his allowable square footage
of signs but if he cut the sign up it would not be any good to him. He said he would be willing to
lower it but the ADB decided it would be better to leave it at its height. Regarding landscaping
beneath it, he said parking is more important to him.there although he. likes landscaping. He said
he is in business and people have to know where the business is, and many times people coming from
the south pass the store before they see it, and he needs that sign. He thought the ADB decision
should stand.
Clint Gray, 935 Alder, 63 years in Edmonds, could not see why the sign should be torn down. He said
when he was in the fire service they used the readerboard for Fire Prevention Week and a lot of
community service is given with that readerboard.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., was at the ADB meeting when the decision was made and he said it is
beyond his comprehension why they would take down one you can see from both sides and and keep one
backed up against the building which can only be seen from one side. He asked what kind of design
it would have if they started anew, and he said this is a request to hold onto an old sign and this
was an opportunity to decide whether that old sign really looks good or if something built to Code
and is imaginative would look.better in Edmonds.
Mike Santopolo, 1111 9th A.ve..N., said it is evident to him that no one on the City Council or in
Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens owns or operates a business in the City of Edmonds, as if the
business.community had their feelings represented then the people who say they are concerned would
be more reluctant about a change. In the case of Edmonds Lumber, he said that business has contributed
40 years of service to the community's needs and it is unfair and costly to require that the sign be
removed. He added that there are some businesses on Highway 99 that could be persuaded to annex but
with the existing Sign Code they will not. Also, he alleged that the Edmonds Council of Concerned
Citizens is trying to take away the livelihood and enjoyment of citizens and the business community.
He asked that the Council not overact to concerns of a special interest group, because "we are all
concerned citizens."
Finis Tupper responded to Mir. Santopolo's remarks, saying his appeal was not as representing the
Council of Concerned Citizens and that he did not discuss it with any member of that group and he
was not given any of their support and he did not appear on their behalf. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Naughten asked about the possibility of exchanging the two freestanding signs, and Mr.
Cain explained the reasons it would not be feasible. It would be costly and would give him no
benefit. Mayor Harrison thought there was not anything too distractive about any of the signs on
this site and he hoped the Council would see fit to allow all of them. Councilmember Hall had been
one of the Sign Code Committee and as such she felt the decision of the ADB should be upheld. She
said the hardware store is an important part of Edmonds and the firefighters collect their news-
papers there and the Lyons Club collects their telephone books there, and although it is a tight
spot to get in and out of because of the parking problem, it can be done. She agreed that without
proper signage it would be missed, but she was quick to say that what they have is not proper, but
• rather quaint, unique, and make -do. COI_INCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO
UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE ADB, He said he believes in the participative government set up for the
City by way of the ADB and he thinks they gave realistic consideration to the needs of business --and
the City needs to support its businesses --and the owner is willing to go along with the ADB's
decision. He felt that upholding the ADB's decision would substantially bring the business into
conformance with the policy... Councilmember Kasper's second was for the same reasons. Councilmember
Allen noted that the ADB had not required landscaping and she said that is one of the few freestanding
signs in town without landscaping; and that bothered her. She said they had discouraged freestanding
signs altogether in the downtown, and the sign at the north side is not terribly visible except when
heading north, so as a sign to get people into the store it is not terribly useful. She was not
sure either of those signs was needed, but she said if there needs to be a freestanding sign it
needs to be somewhere else and should be more in the nature of what is trying to be done in the
downtown --be more unique. She said the ADB has generally suggested that signs be in natural colors
with earthtones and although the sign across the front of the building is greater than the maximum,
it is attractive. She opposed the two freestanding signs.
Councilmember Jaech said the sign at the south end is smaller but she asked if it gave more visibility,
and Mr. Cain said it does not and he would rather take it down and he did not want to lose the other
one. He said. it would be hard to landscape the sign to the north, and the sign to the south does
not serve its purpose because of the apartment house and tree height there. THE MOTION CARRIED,
WITH COUNCILMEMBER.ALLEN VOTING NO.
HEARING ON APPEAL FROM ADB DENIAL OF EXISTING SIGNS AT FIVE CORNERS CLEANERS, 8405 MAIN-ST.
(APPELLANT: DOBLIE)
The Council was provided copies of the application and the minutes of the ADB meeting of September
7, 1983 when this application.was reviewed. The applicant has two signs which collectively exceed
the total permitted sign area. The roof -sign is not permitted by the present Code.. Also, there is
one freestanding.sign which the applicant shares with the business next to his and it is nonconforming
as to height and does not have a landscaped area at the base. The ADB denied the application as
250
October lo, 1903 - continued •
presented because the existing sign area was substantially.larger than permitted and they indicated
they would allow the existing location of the roof sign because of the problem associated with
locating it on the fascia, but it must be reduced to the size allowable. The action was appealed by
the applicant, Jerry Doblie. The.applicant said'the figures related to the signs. were incorrect
and, in fact, he has 96 sq. ft. of signage instead of the 72 sq. ft. stated, having 84 sq. ft. on
the roof and 12 sq. ft. as his share of the pole sign which he shares with the adjoining pharmacy.
His store space previously (under the previous owner) had included part of what now is the pharmacy
and the sign was constructed for it then. He said his business sets back from the road and he
depends highly on foot traffic. He.said the ADB essentially had removed all of his signs, but he
had indicated a willingness to remove the pole sign provided there was some sort of allowance made
for approval of his roof sign, but they took everything. He said the type of business he is in
reacts to changes in advertising and a number of his competitors just outside.the City Limits on
196th present some real problems. He felt the ADB's decision should be reconsidered for these
reasons.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., said they should stop and think about the decision the Council made
on Edmonds.Lumber and think of what they want Edmonds to look like and why there is a Sign Code. He
admonished them that they were on the verge of changing the Sign Code for everyone who wants to make
an appeal. He suggested that if they felt the Code to be fair, and if it meets the needs of the
City if everyone adheres to it, then everyone is treated the same. Further, he said it would keep
the signs small and if everybody adheres to the Sign Code then everybody has the same advantage --
both small.and large businesses. He believed that the signs on the cleaning establishment at
Westgate and across from his home met the square footage requirements and were placed on the proper
place on the buildings, although he did not.personally like their signs. He observed that if he
were in the business he also would appeal the decision because it will cost him money to change the
signs. He noted that nobody had come in with a new sign proposal or a good looking sign to give the
City a certain look, but it is always just the dollar,.and he asked if they were concerned about the
dollar effect or about the looks of their City. •
Councilmember Hall responded that signs serve a purpose but if the restrictions on them cause.a
business to go under, then what has the City done to it. She noted that Mr. Hertrich is campaigning
and putting up signs and she asked.if she should be able to.regulate the number of signs he can put
up or the colors of his signs. He responded that he adheres to the Sign Code, and signs may help a
business but most of the people go to it because they know where the business is or it makes its
name otherwise. He said they should look at their City and think about what they want it to look
like.
Mayor Harrison said he wants the town to look as good as anybody does and he thinks it is a very
attractive town. He thought the signs to be to scale at Five Corners and he said those little
businesses set back and need larger signage than the Code provides, and different businesses require
different signage, e.g., a bank or CPA can get by with little signage, but a theater, dry cleaners,
or grocery store needs more signage. He said the Code needs more flexibility to accommodate the
needs of the businesses. He felt that the existing signs in the City are not distractive and said
they are acceptable to him.
Councilmember Allen responded that they are not acceptable to her. She was distressed that the ADB
on the one hand approved Mr. Cain's signs., for reasons she did not perceive, and on the other hand
turned down the Five Corners signs, also for reasons she did not perceive. She agreed with Mr.
Hertrich that if all the signs are treated the same then everybody has the same chance. She said if
there is a problem in the Sign Code then they should change it, but.they should not uphold one and
turn down another when they are similar.
Councilmember Naughten said if the Sign Code were not good somebody should have said something
during the past five years.
Councilmember Jaech noted that a few weeks back they were discussing who should grant a variance on •
the Sign Code, and this evening presented a prime.example of why the ADB cannot grant them. She
said they have to be fair to everybody and treat everybody equally.
Councilmember Gould said the ADB told Edmonds Lumber to take one sign down and that he would be
allowed one, and if the area of the south sign is subtracted the area left is within 1' of that
allowed, so the issue of total signage.area and freestanding signs was addressed. On the Five
Corners sign he noted that the ADB said they would allow it because of the problem of locating it on
the fascia,,but.t.hey said they would allow it provided it conformed to square footage requirements,
and he thought that was a reasonable decision. He thought.they should uphold the ADB finding, and
Councilmember Hall agreed.
Mr. Doblie said the width of the store.is only 24' but it is very deep. He said the ADB decided to
remove all of his signs and he was upset about that. He said he had tried to work with them, and it
seemed to him to ask an individual to put out•a cash outlay of $8,000 - $9,000 for signage after
being in business only eight months is unreasonable. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Jaech said that since the applicant had expressed a desire to work with the City in
resolving the problem she thought it should be remanded to the ADB. THEREFORE, COUNCIL•MEMBER JAECH
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REMAND ADB-74-83 TO THE ADB. Councilmember Kasper said
all the factors should be recognized as they are important when there are modifications and changes
in a business. Councilmember Gould noted that it should bestated that the applicant has indicated
a willingness to take down the freestanding sign if the roof sign is allowed to stay, and also the
fact should be considered that the original size of the sign was dependent on the.different size of
business. THE MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL. FROM ADB DENIAL OF EXISTING SIGN AT ROBINHOOD LANES, 9801 EDMONDS WAY
(APPELLANT: GUENTHER)
The Council was provided copies of the application and the minutes of the ADB meeting of September
7, 1983 when this application was reviewed. The applicant has one freestanding sign which exceeds •
• October 18, 1983 - continued
the total permitted sign area, as well as the area and height limits for freestanding signs. There
is a large landscaped area at the base of the sign,.. -,:The ADP denied the existing freestanding sign
because it substantially exceeds the area and height requirements of the Code. The applicant also
asked for approval of an additional 24 sq. ft. sign face to be placed on an existing pole and
frame. The ADB denied the proposed new sign because it would increase the discrepancy between the
existing sign area and the maximum. -permitted -sign area. Both actions of the AD3 were appealed by
the applicant, :lohn Guenther. Councilmember Nall said she could not see any sense in removing the
arrows from the sign as they are -part of the Robinhood theme and if the sign is to remain they
probably should remain also..
Mr. Guenther said the original permit indicates the sign to be 292 sq. ft., rather than the 630 sq.
ft. stated, so he thought the recent measurement was taken from the top of the spears. Also, he
said it is located on SR 104 which maybe is not the same as downtown Edmonds and may fall into the
same category as Highway 99 because of the ferry traffic. The sign was moved when the road was
widened, prior to his purchasing the business. He thought it was too bad the Sign Code did not
exist when the sign was down, but he said now, seven or eight years later, the City is asking them
to do the same thing, although he is a different owner. He has three businesses in the building --
the bowling alley, the restaurant, and the cocktail lounge, and he thought one freestanding sign for
three businesses w1as not out of line. He said customers use Robinhood Lanes as a landmark to give
directions so there would be a great loss of business identification without the sign. He said the
sign is attractive and well.maintained and the lighting and painting are not deteriorating, and
without the sign the building would appear to be a square, boxy -building. Further, that it is well
landscaped and does a lot for the building and if it is required to be removed there should be some
compensation for the loss of business. The lease on the sign will run two more years, rather than
six months as he had stated at the ADB meeting, and he plans to keep it when the lease ends. He
said it is not feasible to remove it. There had been a1arge sign on the side of the building which
the previous owner removed. He said on the second sign under consideration (ADB-66-83, new sign
. face on existing pole and frame) the Board had figured both signs together and said it was too much
and they wanted the sign redesigned, but he said there is not much to do without tearing it down.
Walt Ovens of, Tube Art Display said his company is the actual owner of the sign and he has the 1960
permit which states 235 sq. ft. is the exact area of the sign. He had a drawing of the letters
taken down from the side of the building and he said they were taken down partly because of the cost
of maintenance and because the owner thought one freestanding sign did the job. He said the State
paid them to move the sign back when the road was widened. He added that he looks at this niece of
investment as an investment to income, and that he had been told it cost the City of Seattle some
v$500,000 to remove or replace the signs on Northgate !day when they widened the street there.
Celia Anderson, of the Business Advertising Council, 2600 Fairview E., referred to RCW 47.42.107, a
law passed in 1977, which she said requires -local government to compensate for removal of signs.
She said it is tied to the Highway Beautification Act, and SR 104 is under the Federal Scenic Vistas
Act. She said.compensation must be made to the owner and anyone lith any leasehold interest, and it
is not only the sign but loss of business. She thought Edmonds might find itself in a situation
wherein the business may not know it has this right and it can come back later and demand it. She
stated that Bellevue is going to re -analyze its Sign Code because of this. She recalled that she
had been present in 1977 telling the Council why the Sign Cade would not work, and -this evening she
said she had heard the reasons why it is not working. She alleged that the Sign Code does not
address what the City is trying to accomplish and the ADB does not know what they are trying to
accomplish. She said they were correct in saying the amortization issue should be readdressed and
that a new business would not annex if it only had a 7-8 year amortization. She stated that the
Robinhood sign is part of their advertising and it is worth more to them today than when it was
installed. She said it is never too late to readdress a sign code and that she was available to
help --that she can write a sign code that will work. Councilmember Nordquist asked if she was
saying that once you have a sign you have to live with it forever, and she responded that such is
basically what the State law says. Councilmember Hall said she recalled duelling with her when they
were writing the Sign Code, and this was the sign industry's response to Ladybird Johnson's effort
•
against billboards. She recalled that Ackerley Communications was involved with this. She added
that the Sign Code Committee included some business people, as well as a representative from the
sign industry, and she had no apologies for that group. She noted that Ms. Anderson also had input,
and she said that RCW was addressed at that time also. She said signs are not static and they
should not be static.
Ms. Anderson acknowledged that there was a committee but she said .half of the committee objected to
the way it was eventually passed. Regarding compensation, she said Tube Art was compensated $ 18,000
for one sign from the City of Seattle, and she asked if Edmonds could afford all these signs. City
Attorney Mark Eames said he believed the Seattle case she was speaking of was settled out of court.
He noted that the Code also provided a mechanism by which the owner could go before the Hearing
Examiner and establish how long it would take to amortize the sign, and no one took -advantage of
that opportunity to establish exactly how long that would-be, and they thereby accepted the five-
year amortization period. He added that there is a case which interprets the State statute which
was passed, Ackerley Communications vs. Seattle, in 1979, and it points out that this is a much more
complicated area, so when you apply provisions of State law or federal law you have to look at a lot
of factors with respect to that particular sign. He said it is difficult to tell whether or not
compensation is required for this particular sign, and the City's position all along has been that
even if compensation is required the compensation is the amortization --that was the mechanism set up
and that is a procedure which has not been tested yet in any courts. Ms. Anderson said the legislators
who passed the law covered that position as it was Bellevue's position.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said amortization will never be tested because as long as anyone has
the choice of going to a. body with a 75% chance of getting a variance they will never apply for an
amortization period. She felt that it was futile for the Planning. Board to explore this matter
again. She did not think people were being treated fairly and -she said they had not been on this
evening's agenda, but it will be that.way until it comes_ to someone who knows what.he-i-s ta,lkinn
about regarding variances. She said .there is some dispute as to what amortization means --whether it
is compensation or not. She again said amortization will never be tested --and that there is a
• better choice, a much more certain one.
2 5 2.
October 18, 1983 - continued •
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., said there was a problem here and he would be hesitant to take a -
step at this moment, but some things should be considered --what are you going to take from.this
person and what will he be compensated for? He said they did not want him to lose his insignia, but
how large does it have to be? He thought it did not necessarily have to be that large, and he used
McDonald's arches as an example. He thought the threat that had been given the Council would have
to be thought over carefully, so he said he would not end the issue but would continue it until they
can find out more. Regarding some of the larger signs that are very expensive, he said if they
could get together with the people and come up with more time with the idea that they are locked in
for design --give them more time to amortize but in a contract requiring them to abide by a certain
design size so when the time is up the new sign goes up. He said that would'be a way to guarantee
the,City that it gets what it wants and yet give the business owner a chance to write it off. He
said he recognizes that sign at Westgate'everytime he drives by, but he always asks himself whether
it has to be that big. He said if the owner knew what he was going to get into he might be more
willing to do it. Councilmember Allen said that in 1978 they thought they were giving everybody
five years, and people were notified that they were out of conformance. Mr. Her trich countered that
the City administration let the people know that all they had.to do was go to the ADB and ask for
it. The hearing then was closed.
Councilmember Jaech observed that there appeared to be a legal question to be discussed so she
wanted to continue the hearing:until they could get a legal opinion on the items presented this
evening concerning State laws. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO
CONTINUE THIS'HEARING TO NOVEMBER 15, 1983. Mr. Eames stated that RCW 47.42.107 applies to local
cities, but the entire act will have to be examined. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilember Naughten congratulated the Public Works Department on the reconfiguration of 7th Ave.
S. •
Councilmember Naughten said he was disturbed about campaign signs as the candidates are spending a
lot of money and time in putting them up and it is disheartening to see them disappearing. He asked
for an unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" to respect each other's signs and that the campaign be
conducted in a mature manner.
Councilmember Gould reported thata Capital Improvements Program meeting.was held this evening and
the Community Services Committee is taking it a section at a time to update it. This evening they
talked about the.utility section and they are considering looking at the program by an area concept
so they will do a.sewer line before a_street and a water line before a sewer line, and not have to "
tear up previous work in doing new work. They talked about.a policy from the City about cost of
installing pipelines for water and for drainage. The policy of the City is that it would pay the
difference if a change in pipe size is required by the City.if it needs to provide additional flow
or reduce head loss of the system. The staff is being asked to formulate policy for it. The
question arose as to who is in charge of the Capital Improvements Program, as it used to be the
Public Works Director. Mayor Harrison said he would discuss that at the staff meeting.. Council -
member Gould said that presentation should go to the Community Services meeting.
Councilmember Hall acknowledged a memo from the Acting Public Works Superintendent regarding the
memorial street trees. Mayor Harrison asked that it not be discussed until next week because there
may be an error in it. Councilmember Kasper said there is a problem with trees in the triangles on
9th because of visibility --that there should be low -growing plants there.
Councilmember Kasper noted there was a letter from the DOT regarding their stance on omitting land-
scaping from -the Park and Ride lot. He thought they should consider why they do not have the
entrance on 72nd.
Council President Jaech said Kathy Turner had called her to say the library wishes to have a concert
in the library on.December 20 (during the City Council meeting) and there will be seven instruments, •
some of them percussion. The Council had no objection to the proposal.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, y Clerk HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor
October 25, 1983.- Work Meeting
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
ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
John Nordquist
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech
Larry Naughten
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Bill Kasper
Art Housler, Finance Director
Laura Hall
Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Supt.
Katherine Allen
^^�rlo poster, 'olice Chief
Ray Gould
Jack Weinz,.Fire Chief
Wendy Wahl, Student Rep.
Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Dir.
Mary Lou.Block, Planning Director
Pat LeMay,.Personnel Director
•