Loading...
19841105 City Council MinutesNovember 5, 1984 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:02 P.M. By Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. 1 V November 5, 1984 - continued PRESENT STAFF PRESENT • Larry Naughten, Mayor Bobby Mills, Act. Public Works Supt. Jo -Anne Jaech Art Housler; Admin. Services Dir. Steve Dwyer Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Laura Hall Jackie Parrett, City Clerk . Bill Kasper Mary Lou Block; Planning Director John Nordquist Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Dir. Jack Wilson Linda Sullivan, Landscape Architect Lloyd Ostrom Jim Jessel, Property Manager Suzanne Adams, Student Rep. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Dan Prinz, Police Chief Jerry Hauth, Hydraulics Engineer Ginger Galloway, Recorder CONSENT AGENDA Item (C), Approval of Residential Rental Agreement:for H.O. Hutt Property, was removed until the November 13th meeting. Item (J) was also removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, 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 OCTOBER 30, 1984 (D) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY HAWK CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., FOR BOYS' CLUB RENOVATION PROJECT, AND SETTING 30-DAY RETENTION PERIOD (E) APPROVAL OF CABARET DANCE LICENSE FOR EDMONDS WEST TAVERN • (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED OCTOBER 24, 1984, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE 1984 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY PROGRAM TO LOW BIDDER, GRADE, INC. ($69,456) (G) PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION 265 CHANGING HEARING DATE OF LID TO CONSTRUCT WATERLINE IN WATERFRONT AREA TO'MARCH 5, 1985 (H) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMES ROBERTS ($29.95), LUCY KORTEN ($85.33), AND MICHAEL MONROE ($2,066.70) (I) SET DATE OF NOVEMBER 20, 1984 FOR HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARD- ING COMPREHENSIVE SIDEWALK PLAN AND REGULATIONS (CDC-11-84) SET DATE FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB APPROVAL OF ADDITION OF STAIRWAY AND LANDING TO OFFICE BUILDING AT 21810 76TH AVE. W. (Item (J) on Consent Agenda) Councilmember Dwyer asked if Mr.. Parsons, the appellant in this case, stepped down. Planning Director Mary Lou.Block stated he had stepped down. City Attorney Scott Snyder.stated he had reviewed this with the Planning Department and confirmed that he had stepped down prior to the hearing and did not participate. He stated that a member of an administrative body cannot challenge the decision of the administrative body. Councilmember Dwyer questioned appeals from ADB, asking if there was a problem with entertaining an.appeal from Mr. Parsons where he has removed himself from the process. He asked if Mr. Parsons was a proper appellant. Mr. Snyder stated that a person who sits as a member of a panel andreaches a decision cannot appeal the decision. He stated Mr. Parsons is a proper appellant, but should it be remanded, he would be barred both on pre -judgmental bias basis and fairness basis. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED PASSAGE OF ITEM (J), SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL. MOTION • CARRIED. AUDIENCE Mark Anderson, 759 Elm Street, expressed concern that the road between 8th Avenue and 7th Avenue South is going to be widened by eight feet. After talking with the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent and receiving minutes from May 29, 1984 meeting, he did not see that there was a parking problem. He stated everyone on the south side of Elm between 7th and 8th has two -car garages and that only one vehicle, a commercial van, consistently parks on the south side of the street. No one parks on the north side because a park is there. He did not feel that widening the street was the answer. He stated there.were three incidents of hot rodders plowing into his lawn and did not want his lawn shortened. Mr. Anderson proposed that the construction be held off, stating he would do leg work to get more informa- tion for the Council. if requested. Mayor Naughten responded that.the Council would get back to Mr. Anderson's proposal. Muriel Medina presented a petition for reduction of the proposed widening of 78th between 236th and 240th to leave that right-of-way at its existing 30 feet. She stated she would like the matter resolved because permanent fencing cannot be placed without getting variance. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 20819 88TH PL. W. (APPELLANT: SCOTT/CU-52-84) Mayor Naughten stated that nineteen people were signed up to talk on this matter but only thirty minutes were scheduled to discuss; he requested that some not speak if they.felt their issue had been adequately covered'by someone else. Each person would be limited to two minutes. November 5, 1984 - continued • Miss Block stated the zoning in this area is RS78; the appellant is Stan Scott. On September 6, 1984, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing regarding this accessory dwelling unit. He denied the application on September 21st. On October:5th the applicants appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision. Miss Block stated that in 1983 the -Community -Development Code was amended to allow accessory dwelling units as a secondary use in a single-family residen- tial zone district. Criteria were established. This application does comply with the criteria specified under Chapter 20.21; it was the staff's recommendation to approve the conditional use permit; also, that the appeal be upheld. Criteria: The accessory unit must be in an existing dwelling which has been constructed for three years or more, the area used must be part of the attached dwelling unit, the unit must not be substantially changed on the exterior, and every effort must be made to put any new -entrance to the side or rear of the property. Three off-street parking places are required, only one accessory unit shall be approved for each family dwelling, either the primary or accessory dwelling must be occupied by the owner of the residence. The permit is not transferable, any changes required by the building code .must be met, and only one elecric and water meter is allowed. The Hearing Examiner did find in his decision that all of the criteria of 20.05.010 had been met. A transparency was shown of the dwelling. Attorney James Allendorfer, 21 Avenue A, Snohomish, passed out two exhibits of the house plan with landscaping and pictures of the house: He stated.the only exterior modification would be replacing the garage door with a window .and an additional door and window added to the south side of the house. The unit would be 614 square feet, a one -bedroom studio apartment, $20,000 in cost. There would be no change in the height or bulk of the building. Mr. Allen- dorfer felt the code requirements had been.met, though he said the Hearing Examiner found the legislation inconsistent with the.single family zone where it states, "All uses in a single family zone must be compatible with the single family concept." He felt the Hearing Examiner was going beyond his role in issuing a conditional use permit; it was in fact re -opening the legislation. He pointed out the difference between an accessory dwelling unit and a duplex. • Carol Scott, 20819 88th Pl. W., told of her family roots in this area, specifically mention- ing her mother because they are adding the accessory dwelling for her to live in, and for an additional means of support when the Scotts are retired. She spoke to a member of the Planning Department who advised her how to apply, following all the ordinance's criteria. She was advised to let her neighbors know of her intent. She wrote letters to them. She summarized by asking why, if there were three publicized public hearings, those who opposed her addition were not present at those hearings. 1 1 1 Stanley Scott, 20819 88th P1. W., pointed out they could not have gotten approval of the Planning Department unless they had complied with the criteria. He reiterated that the discussion was to determine if their application was compatible with single family residential zoning. Mr. Scott felt the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in his denial, injecting his personal bias. He did not feel additional traffic problems would be created.by their accessory dwelling. He stated an additional problem would be alleviated because he and his wife, as landlords, would be living on the property.. Mr. Scott stated he was puzzled by the fact that, because they know they are right under the ordinance of Edmonds Community Development Code, it would be very unjust should they lose thei.r case. Helen Bird, 241 4th Ave. So., Carol Scott's mother, pleaded for this accessory dwelling, as it would be her place to live. Ralph Terry, 20828 88th P1. W., stated that the accessory dwelling was visually separated from the main structure with a duplex appearance: He stated the Hearing Examiner based his conclusions, after visiting the neighborhood; on the fact that this was a duplex -and would not harmonize with.the existing structures in the area and would be detrimental to the nearby properties because of the change of land use. He stated an appraiser advised him that the existence of a duplex in that neighborhood would reduce the value of his hoe. He felt an involuntary assessment was being levied on adjoining property owners to create a rental income opportunity for one individual. Mr. Terry did not feel that the Hearing Examiner's findings should be overruled. Lynn Jamison, 20931 88th P1. W., is concerned that multiple family dwellings will cause loss to others, decreasing the value of their homes. Michael Monroe, 20910 88th P1. W., an attorney for the city of Seattle, referred to Code Section 20.21.030 which states: "In addition to the criteria set forth in Section 20.05.010, all accessory dwelling units shall meet the following criteria:. (1) It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, (2) it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, (3) it is not detri- mental, and (4) the. examiner shall determine whether it is to be transferable." He reiterated Mr. Terry's findings, stating the people who signed the petition realized this accessory dwelling would be detrimental to their property value and would change the character of a single family zone, allowing two units in the place of one. He stated the definition of a duplex: Two separate units on one lot. He passed around a petition signed by sixteen households in the neighborhood. He asked that the Hearing Exami.ner's decision be upheld and that the application be denied. He stated that perhaps in another neighborhood and incident, the criterion could be met, but not in this instance or neighborhood. Council - member Dwyer asked under what circumstances this type of use would be allowable in a single family zone. Mr. Monroe replied that:the individual neighborhood would have to be looked at, i.e., if it were a buffer zone, next to a multiple use type dwelling, mixed -use type zone; this might be a situation where an accessory dwelling unit should be granted. Attorney Allendorfer, rebuttal, feels the opposition speakers have formulated a "Catch 22." He stated that the only neighborhood an accessory dwelling unit is allowed in is a single family neighborhood, according to the zoning code. He stated the Hearing Examiner's words, "The reason I'm compelled to turn this down is I find the word .'compatibility' in the zoning code. I find that duplexes are not compatible with the single family zone." Mr. Allendorfer 17 0 1 November 5, 1984 - continued feels the Hearing Examiner was attempting to re -open the legislation, attempting to call this • accessory dwelling a duplex. He argued that single family neighborhoods can have two boarders in a house so long as they share the same kitchen, that this was not a duplex and had no adverse external impacts, and was compatible with a single family zone.. He stated the Scotts are open to suggestions for landscaping and conditions to meet for conditional use permit. Councilmember Dwyer reiterated his.question, "Under what circumstances this type of use would be allowable in.a single family zone? Attorney Allendorfer replied, "There is no such thing as a variance which would allow a duplex in a single family zone." Ralph Terry stated, as a new resident, realtors did not advise him that single family units were subject to change. Mayor Naughten advised that anyone moving into a community go to the Planning Department and find lout what is allowed in residential zones. Stan Scott reviewed the city ordinance for those not on City Council in 1982. The mayor at that time stated, regarding mother-in-law apartments:- "(1) To provide safe and secure housing for elderly parents in the homes of their families as an alternative to very costly retirement or convalescent homes; (2) to provide some residents who are retired or soon to be retired with a means of remaining in their present homes using such income as may be derived to help pay the mortgage most homes require; and (3) to enhance the safety and security of those folks who may live alone or are elderly by having another person on the premises." Mr. Monroe, rebuttal, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, stating it was to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community, preserve the character of neighborhoods, protec- tion, insurance, public safety and traffic control and community development. He did not feel the Scott's accessory dwelling unit should be granted because it did not, in his opinion, meet the Comprehensive Plan. Hearing closed. Councilmember Hall stated that we are at the time in Edmonds where we are assessing our standard of living and referred to an article in Wall Street Journal about retired persons moving into single family zones. She stated that other cities are adopting accessory • dwelling units into single family zones. Councilmember Dwyer stated that because he was not *present at the February 1983 meeting when the ordinance was passed, he was unaware of the intent; however, he stated that it appeared to him that all the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code 20.21.030 had been met. He stated the following with regard to 20.05.010: (1) That the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that accessory dwelling units are allowed under certain circumstances in single family zone areas; (2) that the proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance in effect for the same reason, that the zoning ordinance restricts uses to those uses which are explicitly allowed; and (3) as to whether the proposal is detrimental to the community, testimony has shown that there is no reason it is detrimental other than the fact that it is an accessory dwelling unit. He did not consider this an allowable consideration when we consider the wording of the preamble to the ordinance. He arrived at the conclusion that in order to turn down a proposal because it is detrimental, it must be detrimental for some reason other than that it is an accessory dwelling unit. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED THAT THE APPEAL BE UPHELD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER'. Councilmember Kasper stated he was.on the Council when the decision was made, that his background is appraising, that the key difference in this from duplexes is owner -occupied. He stated this ordinance was put in primarily for people to be able to stay in their homes, that "owner -occupied" was the key because the owner would help maintain the home and choose tenants wisely. He did not feel that this situation would affect the value of homes in the neighborhood. Councilmember Jaech asked why the Hearing Examiner denied the request. Mr. Snyder stated that prior to now there had been no challenges relating to Chapter 20.21, that the Hearing Examiner found the accessory dwelling unit was not consistent with the RS-8 zone and there- fore failed to meet the second criteria of the conditional use permit ordinance. He additionally found that it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it failed to meet with all the goals of residential development. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING TO REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS OF ACCESS TO LAKE BALLINGER • Mayor Naughten stated this item has been discussed on two or three occasions, and since there are fourteen people signed up to talk, they were asked to limit their testimony to two minutes. Steve Simpson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the City Staff and Planning Board have met a number of times to try and reach a consensus as to what to do with the McAleer street end. It was found that the small parcel of land at the end of McAleer Street has a disproportionate impact on the neighboring private property. Linda Sullivan, Landscape Architect, using transparencies, made the following comments and recommendations: The site is 180' long from the street to the waterfront; bollards would prohibit cars from running into the fence while turning around; wire fencing in the water should be removed as it is unsightly and in need of repair. She further stated that trash cans need to be replaced and that necessary repairs and improvements will not be expensive. A sign added at the west end of the site would show that it is a public access. The drainage ditch should be enclosed at a cost of $1000. Maintenance would be continued as in the past, 80 hours per year. The most important part of the recommendation would be to evaluate the use patterns over the course of a year. Councilmember Kasper asked why a sign could not say, "beach access." Ms. Sullivan stated they were open to suggestions, noting that a sign perhaps should be erected that stated there was private property to the north and south of the road. An aerial view of the area on a slide showed how the road was long and narrow and.the difficulty of cars getting in and out. Councilmember Ostrom asked if meetings were held with the neighbors. Ms. Sullivan stated there had been two meetings. Councilmember Wilson asked how much is being spent on upkeep; reply $1280. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Dennis Russell, 23705 74th Ave. W., stated he agreed with Ms. Sullivan's recommendations. * See Minutes of November 13, 1984 November 5, 1984 - continued • Randy Garvey, 23816 74th Ave. W., speaking for himself and.other neighbors, advised Ms. Sullivan that he did not receive her proposal. He requested that the city install bollards across and a Cyclone fence down either side extending into the lake, distance adequate to protect property rights of the adjacent property owners. The street can be supervised by the police department while on regular patrol without any.cost. He felt a.load/unload zone could be created for cars with boats and proper signage stating tow -away zone, as there have been problems with all -day parking. He requested that at least one year after installation of bollards and fence, no other improvements be made, allowing enough time to evaluate the efficiency as an effort to protect private property. He passed out a copy of Community Development Code 15.37.010 and 15.37.030 to Councilmembers. Toby Howard, 23823 74th Ave. W., agreed with Mr. Garvey that bollards and Cyclone fence be added to the property. Mayor Naughten asked if she felt signs were necessary. She responded affirmatively. She requested that the site not be placed in the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. Wanda Williamson, 23731 74th Ave. W.,.stated her property borders the access. She concurred with Mr. Garvey's and Ms. Howard's recommendations. She stated re Ms. Sullivan's reference that the fence in the water belonged to them, that it was the only way:to keep people off their beach area. She stated the reason it is down is because of the public, that it has been fixed every year. Councilmember Ostrom questioned Mrs. Williamson about unload spaces for cars and boulders to protect the private property. Mrs. Williamson emphasized that the area is not a park, that it is strictly a street end and asked that property owners receive protection from the city. Margaret Johnson, 7804 238th S.W., was in favor of the recommendations being proposed. She indicated her use ove r the years of the access road and asked for empathy from neighbors for those who would like to use the road. • James Chapman, 23321 75th Ave. W., asked a question regarding police protection. Can they take care of drinking and rowdiness on the property? Police Chief Dan Prinz said there was no drinking allowed in a public place. Mr. Chapman stated his personal philosophy: (1) Respect for property and privacy of immediate neighbors, (2) try to keep the property attractive for people in the Ballinger community, and (3) make it accessible to the people in the neighborhood and others in general. 0 1 P Ron Howard, 23923 74th Ave. W., concurs with Mr. Garvey, emphasizing not placing the site within the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. He asked that the City Auditor check with the Parks Department to see how the $1280 in yearly maintenance is being spent. Council - member Dwyer asked Mr. Howard to summarize exactly what he'd like to see happen. Mr. Howard stated he did not see a problem with the latest proposal except the removal -of the private fence. Mr. Howard questioned the $1000 needed to repair the drainage, when the proposal states $810 is needed for the project. Mr. Simpson stated the extra amount was for in-house expense. Carol Chapman, 23321 75th Ave. W., President of Lake Ballinger Community Club, checked with neighbors and found them in agreement with the proposal, and stated members of the Club go along with the recommendations. She stressed that the signage is excellent but asked for an additional sign directing people.over to the Mountlake Terrace Boat Ramp across the lake. It is a larger area and more suitable for boats: She stated that because there was no beach, it should not be called a beach access. She suggested that broken glass littering the area be cleaned up, on the shore and in the water. She stated the Community Club would be in favor of a review or evaluation after one year. She would like to see landscaping added to make it more attractive. Councilmember Hall stated that seemed like a contradiction because that would make it park -like which would not be acceptable to abutting neighbors. Mrs. Chapman responded that landscaping could be considered after the one year evaluation... that rockery and bark be used that would not need constant upkeep. She seconded Ron Howard regarding the maintenance problem, stating she nor anyone she has talked with has seen anyone do any type of maintenance except empty the trash can. Bob Williamson, 23731 74th Ave W., concurs with Mr. Garvey on every issue and asked that the city take care of damaged fences. He stated he received a city permit for the fencing in the lake and that other properties on the lake have the same fencing. Clarance Capon, 7410 McAleer Way, concurs with Mr. Williamson"s comments.= He stated there was a parking problem and more police patrol was needed. Tina Capon, 7410 McAleer Way, concurred with Mr. Garvey's findings. Stella Boshier, south of the access road, stated she concurred completely with Mr. Garvey. Hearing closed. The matter went to the Council for action. Mr. Simpson stated regarding the removal of the fence, that it could only be removed if it were public property. He stated the maintenance on the site is performed by the Public Works Department since Parks and Recreation does not do maintenance. He stated the Parks Department has this site proposed to be declared a park. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED THAT WE IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE ACCESS TO LAKE BALLINGER WITH THE RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, THAT THE EXTRA SIGN DIVERTING BOAT OWNERS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAKE BE PLACED, THAT WE HELP MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SIDE YARD FENCES IF DAMAGED DURING THE NEXT YEAR, THAT WE DO NOT REMOVE EXISTING WIRE FENCES IN THE WATER IF NOT LEGALLY WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, AND THAT WE REVIEW THE IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES IN ONE YEAR TO ASSESS WHETHER OTHER CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE Is 20. November 5, 1984 - continued NEEDED. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH SECONDED THE MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST AMENDED THE MOTION • BY ADDING THAT THIS BE MAINTAINED AS A STREET END RATHER THAN A PARK. COUNCILMEMBER HALL SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED ON THE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Ostrom asked about leaving out the request for the chain link fence; the question was -asked, would the city then pay for any damages to the owner's fences. Mr. Snyder responded: (1) The Washington Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for private purposes (recommending.that.the city put up a fence on city property), and (2) people can always file a claim against.the city if they think it is due to city negligence that their fences have been damaged. Councilmember Ostrom asked regarding a Cyclone fence, what would it cost to install on both sides of the road? Mr. Simpson responded that it would cost around $3000.. He has been working.with the neighbors to come up with a suitable fence design, putting it down the property line. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MADE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CITY CONSTRUCTING A FENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. (THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION.) Councilmember Hall pointed out that might require a survey to determine the property lines; Mr. Simpson agreed. Mr. Snyder stated he could draft a license agreement that would be less expensive, stating that neither party gives up any legal right or objec- tion where the proerpty line is located. Councilmember Wilson asked if it would not be appropriate to wait for a year to determine if this need develops. . Councilmember Kasper asked, if there was a storm line down'the middle of the road, why build another one? Bobby Mills, Public Works Superintendent, stated there was a main line which comes from 76th Avenue down McAleer Way. There was in the neighborhood a small curb inlet which is 6". It runs down the north side about half way to the end of the black top; under- neath that is a 12" inlet which previously existed. He wanted to extend those two.surface lines down to, about middle way, of the north property and set a catch basin which would pick up all the run-off off the black top and make a lot better project. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON REQUESTED THAT HIS COMMENT ABOUT MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FENCES BE REMOVED FROM THE MINUTES; COUNCILMEMBER JAECH AGREED: She questioned the filter going down the culverts. Mr. Mills stated Jim Adams, City Engineer, would have to address that problem but that he was not present to do so. He added it would be quite an extensive program. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist suggested that a date be set for the review one year from now. Councilmember Jaech restated to the City Clerk Jackie Parrett that one year from now this item will be reviewed. HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO VACATE UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 104TH AVE., SOUTH OF 228TH ST. S.W. (ST-3-84/APPLEWICK) Miss Block stated that on September 6, 1984 a public hearing was held to vacate this unopened right-of-way; it is east of the Sherwood Elementary School. The Hearing Examiner recommended vacation of the right-of-way,.subject to the city being compensated for their interest in the property. The staff recommended upholding that decision, and there was no opposition to this action. The petition was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the section of right-of-way is of no use to the city, there are no plans to improve the right-of-way in the future, it is consistent with street vacation .and dedications; the vacation will be consistent with the thoroughfare map, that upon vacation the property that is the right-of-way shall belong to the abutting property owners with one-half of the property belonging to each. The Applicant has expressed approval of the recommendation but requests that no compensation be given to the city. According to the applicant, the petitioners must acquire the right-of-way from the Edmonds School District who will receive.a portion of the vacated right-of-way. It has been city policy that the city be compensated where the right-of-way has not been given by the affected owner; the applicant does contest the compensation. Councilmember Kasper asked if both sides of the property were in the Richmond Beach tract. Miss Block responded they were two different plats. She said the school district is not interested in acquiring the property, so they are willing to sell it to the adjacent property owners on the west side. The applicants feel they will have a double compensation -require- ment. Mr. Snyder stated that in order for it to be vacated, the applicants would have to pay the school district's portion of the compensation. Councilmember Kasper questioned the fact that half the property was in the school district's area, creating a dual situation. Mr. Snyder clarified that there is a provision in the state law that provides that property will revert in equal shares to abutting property owners, but there is a case l.aw exception where if that property has come from one grantor, that it returns to the predecessor's title of that original property. The hearing was opened. Marlin Applewick, 12721 30th Ave. N.E., Seattle, 98125, representing Mr. and Mrs. William Allen, abutting owners on the eastside of the easement that is sought to vacate. The Allens had originally investigated acquiring.an additional 20' from the county when the school district indicated there was an easement on the property. It is the school district's and Planning Staff's belief that the easement was taken wholly out of the Richmond Beach tracts; that no portion of it came out of the tract which the Allens and other petitioners own. Because of that fact, it reverts wholly to the Richmond Beach tract's property, and the school district is the successor and title. The law would require that all this easement goes back to the school district subject to the city being compensated. The difficulty is that the Allens cannot get it from the school district until they pay the city. The school district has stated they will not advance funds for this purpose. The other property owners will not consider buying this property until they know the cost involved; however, they all signed the petition because it incurred no obligation. The property has been appraised under statute for school district purposes; the school board had approved the purchase. They submitted market appraisals of the property and were bound to set the price at not less than 90% of the average of those three market appraisals. It then became apparent that the county had not vacated the whole easement; it had subsequently transferred November 5, 1984 - continued • the easement to the city of Edmonds as part of the annexation process. Mr. Applewick would like to see this parcel. get back onto the tax rolls in a.useful fashion; this means pursuad- ing the other eight property owners to buy it. In summary; he would like to see the problem resolved. He encouraged the Council to set the value at zero because fees had been paid to go through the permit process, and the city benefits because the property ends up back on the tax rolls; also, the city acquired without paying any particular compensation. If this is not possible, he urged that the city set a compensation that is at or less than the compensa- tion that the school district is to charge. The average calculated would be $3133; he urged the city to set it at less than that. He complimented the city for he found the Planning Staff to be extremely helpful and courteous to deal with. Mr. Snyder questioned that if the city found a zero value that the school district would still require the payment of $2820. Mr. Applewick responded, "Yes, by statute it is required to do so." He further stated that the school district is willing to sell the parcel at the average market appraised value, attempting to reach an accommodation for the needs of the neighbors, asking that a uniform boundary be maintained and the legal expenses be funded. Hearing closed. Councilmember Kasper stated he felt the school district should have the same consideration as others in the past. Councilmember Hall asked Councilmember Kasper if he was on the verge of making a motion to vacate -the property. Mr. Snyder clarified that the form of the motion would be to instruct him to draft an ordinance and set a value. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BACK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL. MOTION PASSED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SIGN HEIGHT AT EDMONDS FRESH FOODS (V-20-84/APPELLANT: HERTRICH) Miss Block stated that on September 20, 1984 a hearing was conducted for approval of a variance for Edmonds Fresh Foods, to allow an attached sign to exceed the permitted 14' height limit by 4'6". The variance was granted on October 4th. An appeal has been filed with the city on October 18th by Roger Hertrich. The variance was granted subject to the following conditions: That the proposed sign cannot exceed the dimensions of 18' by 5'6"; the variance will not run with the land; any additional signs to be placed on the building by the applicant or by any predecessor must acquire a new variance; all necessary permits shall be secured from the City of Edmonds. She stated that it is the staff's recommendations that the variance approval be upheld. Councilmember Dwyer asked what was the special circumstance relating to the property. Miss Blcok stated the building was erected in the late 1960's; that the building design is consistent with other buildings on the property; that it was built prior to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder added that if the height were complied with, it would be located at the bottom level of the building which would constitute a safety hazard and would not be aesthetically appealing. Miss Block stated the Hearing Examiner defined the sign as.relatively small and low level and would not be detrimental to the adjoining properties, and would be in conformity with the other signs in the shopping center. The hearing was. opened. Applicant Dennis Bogey, 1240 121st Ave. S.E., Bellevue, Manager of Edmonds Fresh Foods, stated he had gone through all the procedures regarding the sign. He had gone before the Architectural Design Board; they were favorable to the sign on the street and on the building. The Hearing Examiner and Staff approved the signs. The sign is in the same place but smaller than the previous Tradewell sign. Appellant Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, questioned the fact that not all the dimensions were shown on the drawing, i.e., the height of the awning, nor.the height of the adjoining signs; nor is there any indication of other signs on the building. Mr. Hertrich stated he measured and found the bottom of the awning to be approximately 92'. He further stated he • found an error in the applicant's declaration and in the staff's report, and the conclusion by the Hearing Examiner was based on those conclusions and was therefore in error. Mr. Hertrich was asked to state his reasons for opposing the sign. Councilmember Wilson asked if Mr. Hertrich was.at the hearing, to which Mr. Hertrich replied he was unable to attend. He stated he had attended the ADB meeting; he felt the ADB made decisions based upon inade- quate information. He passed around pictures showing various signs in downtown Edmonds and stated his main concern is the visual and aesthetic quality and height in downtown Edmonds. There was some discussion about the length of time needed to complete this item, as one more hearing was on the agenda with members of the Planning Board present to discuss the item. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED THAT ITEM 7 STAY ON THE AGENDA; COUNCILMEMBER HALL SECONDED IT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY; SHE THEREAFTER WITHDREW HER SECOND. MAYOR NAUGHTEN ASKED WHETHER ITEM 7 SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO ANOTHER DATE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, OSTROM AND WILSON.VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, HALL, JAECH AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. THE ITEM WAS NOT CONTINUED TO ANOTHER DATE. MAYOR NAUGHTEN ADJOURNED THE MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED THE MEETING CONTINUE; HALL SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO. Councilmember Ostrom asked Mr. Hertrich to explain further the errors Hertrich stated the presentation.to.the Staff and Hearing Examiner.was the adjoining two signs on the building, the position, what they look problem. Mr. Snyder felt things Mr. Hertrich discussed were actually declaration. Mr. Hertrich read the declaration which stated: "This i businesses whose signs are the same height as we wish to put ours." M there was no way to determine the height of the other signs or height further feels the variance is detrimental in that it is lit as well as in this case. Mr. incomplete regarding like, and the height addressed in the s similar to adjacent r. Hertrich stated of the letters. He overheight and that 21 22 November 5, 1984 - continued this would be.a detriment.to people with a westward view. He brought up the fact that there • is a freestanding sign which takes care of the fact that the store is lower and far back from the street. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan, 15.15.030, that signs should be small and low level., as simple as possible, and that multiple businesses operating from a central location are encouraged to -coordinate their signing to avoid clutter and confusion. Mr. Hertri.ch felt the sign could be.lower than what was being asked for and that the building being constructed in 1960 was.not a factor in the variance. Councilmember Hall referred to the correct.position and symmetry of the sign and that putting it elsewhere did not make sense. Mayor Naughten asked Mr. Hertrich to summarize, which he did. Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street, stated he did not feel that this variance was consistent with . the variance policy of the city. He said the special circumstance can be an extra expense to the owner, it cannot be predicated upon a decision by a previous owner and.cannot be for a situation more profitable for the land. Mr. Tupper gave this definition:to the Hearing Exam- iner when the variance was heard; he felt the findings of fact misinterpreted what he said regarding the definition. He felt that the sign was entirely changed from the previous one with lighted letters and boxed sign. Miss Block stated that the applicant would only not have had to come for a new sign if he had used exactly the same layout. Mr. Tupper stated the definition of what is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be set into the parameters set forth in terms of height and square area. He stated this sign is one foot less than allowed maximum square area and that it is over 18'. He questioned how the Hearing Examiner could find it low and small scale. He stated it is not the minimum variance because there is space on the building below the awning where the same design will fit. He felt the Council should deny this variance and refer it back to the ADB with a new application. Councilmember Dwyer wanted to clarify Mr. Tupper's remarks and asked if the design of the building was a factor resulting from the action of the owner. Mr. Tupper replied affirma- tively but that the owner does not have to live with it but modify the awning to make room for the sign. Councilmember Dwyer understood that the owner felt the logical place for the sign was above the awning, whereas Mr. Tupper did not agree. Councilmember Dwyer asked how this would apply to a restored building. Mr. Tupper responded that a sign painted on the building did not come under the height restriction. He further stated that he would not object to the Edmonds Fresh Foods sign if it were a non -lit sign. Applicant Mr. Bogey gave a rebuttal, stating he was not aware previously what specific facts were being appealed so had no concrete information to give in his first presentation. He stated regarding the height of the building, the bottom of the awning is 11'; the awning is approximately 16" in height; it runs the entire length of the building and is 7' in depth. He stated the current signs on the buildings are between 15' and 16' in height on center and that the center line of his sign would be the same, though it is taller than the letters other businesses are using, and the height higher. The square footage of the two signs (the one on the street and the one being asked for) falls within the square footage allowed by the city sign code. He further stated that the Tradewell signs were lit; that he could have put "Fresh Food"in the place of the previous letters but decided to modify their sign. He stated that removing the awning would be practically impossible because it is attached to the building and includes lighting and plumbing. He felt the special circumstance of the buil.ding is that it is set far back from the street and slopes down from the street level, perhaps 6' to 8'. Therefore, at street height the sign is not 18'. Hearing closed. Councilmember Hall referred to a letter received by the City Council; it was marked as an exhibit. Councilmember Kasper felt the recommendation by the Hearing Examiner should be upheld. Councilmember Ostrom wondered how an honest decision could be made because he was, unsure of the accuracy of the drawings, dimensions and other actual facts. He felt drawings of the existing buildings with signs and with the proposed sign would help him make an accurate decision. Councilmember Hall responded that the findings of the Planning Department were accurate in that the sign was 4'6" over height, that because of the slope of the property it would be difficult to tell the difference in height from the street: Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Hearing Examiner and the ADB had the right measurements, heights and • distances. Miss Block responded she has no reason to doubt that the measurements were inaccurate. Councilmember Kasper asked Miss Block if she had any comments on Mr. Hertrich's presentation. She found nothing in the testimony or staff report showing inaccurate measure- ments, that other figures not on the drawing were not mentioned. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD THE VARIANCE STAND. COUNCIL - MEMBER KASPER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Snyder stated one way to make the motion would be to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Dwyer stated: "This is to my know- ledge the first appeal we have had under the variance procedure reviewing signs, and we have one problem that I see that is glaring. I believe Mr. Tupper is correct in reading the code when he states the past action of the property owner cannot form the basis for special circum- stances. I also think that is something we cannot live with if we are going to succeed in restoring buildings because we will end up having a project that is going to fail because it cannot pass. There is a problem here in the way we have things worded.. I believe the Hearing Examiner based his decision on the architecture of the building, and because that is the action of the past owner, I will not vote in favor of a motion incorporating that as a reason." Councilmember Hall mentioned that the only reason they are getting a variance is because it is a different sign; that they could have used the same sign with different letters. Mr. Snyder reiterated the motion: to approve the variance and adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, KASPER, NORDQUIST AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, JAECH AND OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer suggested the policies be reworded. Mr. Snyder stated the Planning Board should take care of that. He stated one other problem is that it definitely discourages people who attempt to make reductions of those existing non-conf roming uses. Councilmember Kasper was excused at 10:40 P.M. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ON HIGHWAY 99 CONCEPTS AS SET FORTH IN PLANNING BOARD POSITION PAPER 23 November 5, 1984 - continued • Miss Block re -introduced Reid Shockey, Planning Consultant, who was at a previous meeting. She stated most of the members of the Planningi�Board were present for discussion. Mr. Shockey stated he was "brought on board" because the study on Highway 99 was completed and there was a desire to get it implemented; he,is working with the Planning Board in this area. Phase one is a development scenario showing how Highway 99 could develop over the next 15-20 years. This position paper was adopted by the Planning Board on October 24, 1984. Phase two states specific things that.can be done on the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, other poli- cies and codes of the city to accomplish phase one: The third stage would be to come up.with code.amendmehts and policy documents. He opened the floor -up to questions from the Council to the Board: Councilmember Nordquist reminisced over the changes Highway 99 has gone through over the years, citing a sentence from the paper on page 7: "The road itself is no longer an exclusive transportation facility.. Design and traffic lane improvements have transformed it into a joint through -traffic and local access road." He mentioned various other roads and factors that would have an impact on Highway-99. He felt one thing was missing, the concept of development on both sides of the road.. He felt some of the analogies were correct, that o-ur highest sales tax base for many years came from Highway 99. Mr. Shockey responded: (1) He felt the highway has always short -changed -the private commercial value of both sides of the street. (2) We tend to apologize for Highway 99, but it is one of the major 'commercial centers in the city of Edmonds. Councilmember Nordquist continued that 16 to 17 years ago the intersection of Highway 99 and 205th was considered the third busiest intersection in the state of Washington. Councilmember Ostrom stated he was impressed by the study but that there was an awful lot to discuss...that it would be best to go through in detail with the Planning Board. Mr. Shockey stated it would be good to get some one-way observations so the Planning Board could see if their ideas are being accepted. He felt a sit-down meeting would be helpful such as the work session next week. Mayor Naughten suggested that questions be asked during the next 20 minutes; the rest could be extended to another date. Councilmember Hall stated it was • great to be transformed to 1999 as the title indicated. The Mayor asked for comments and questions from 4 and 5. Mr. Shockey stated basic are listed on 5. page principles page Councilmember Dwyer had.questions revolving around the key intersection nodes: How many intersections, how many high rises, maximum structures, how many people and how much traffic, utilities capabilities to make sure the maximum can be reached, and identifying possibil- ities. He questioned a sentence on page 7 regarding permits for buildings over four stories; would they be placed at key intersection nodes? Mr. Shockey responded that Councilmember Dwyer's interpretations were correct, that the conditional use approach is intended to be at the nodes. He stated they were intentionally vague on some areas and that at the next meeting they- ,would be taking up the criteria and determine what intersections are being referred to. Eventually there will be very specific proposals. Councilmember Dwyer ques- tioned the statement on page 5: "...development would be held to existing boundaries and would not encroach onto any currently zoned single family lands." He questioned why it stated family zoned areas as it would seem logical to put multiple family zones as a buffer. Mr. Shockey stated the intent of that paragraph was that once boundaries were reviewed, a.policy would be stated that commercial lands would not invade single family neighborhoods; through multiple family buffers could be between commercial and single family neighbhroods. This is to insure there will not be a continual rezoning into those neighborhoods. He cited -the important footnote on page 5 referring to this: "It would have to recognize the inability of any one Council to permanently commit some future -Council to a binding requirement." Miss Block stated regarding the commercial zoning: There should be a predictability whether this would happen in a specific location. Mayor Naughten asked for comments and questions on page 6. Councilmember Nordquist ques- tioned the statement: "Several high rise buildings of between six to nine stories..." Mr. Shockey brought up the node concept, stating the essence is high rise buildings. Six to nine stories was purposely broad because a standard has not yet been proposed. Councilmember Ostrom asked about incentives. Mr. Shockey replied that'it is better to go the incentive approach so that the public could see the economic benefit in doing something rather than the regulatory approach which is very slow. Greater developability was possible this way. 1 1 Page 7. Councilmember Ostrom questioned the footnotes regarding potential proposals. Mr. Shockey stated the Planning Board has already seen the preliminary list of measures, actually some specific ideas. Now ready are specific ordinance amendments; those will be discussed at the next meeting. An explanation was asked for the sentence: "The road itself is no longer an exclusive transportation facility." Mr: Shockey explained that through lobbying efforts, the idea.will be promoted that that is also a viable commercial district. Council - member Ostrom questioned, "Sidewalks have been developed along both sides of the road." He felt this was not necessarily a pedestrian area. Mr. Shockey stated that at the Planning Board level, the sidewalk policy was developed a few weeks ago. Page 8. Councilmember Wilson questioned the sentence: "Multiple family units in the commercially -zoned areas have been prohibited below the third floors of structures." Does this intimate that there will be,apartments on the nodes? Mr. Shockey said though this received a minority opinion from a Board member, other members felt commercial floor area is of paramount importance along the district, that the first and second floors where retail activity occurs have to be protected for commercial use. Parking structures will not be considered in the height computation; that if parking is put indoors under cover as part of the building, one can still go the height number above that. Councilmember Ostrom asked if there was any way of getting away from the saw -tooth effect, the series of parking lots in front of buildings. Mr. Shockey replied that there are incentives for planned business centers which would solve that problem and for joint agreements on parking. 24 November 5, 1984 - continued Page 9. Councilmember Ostrom asked about the sentence: ."Density limits per se, have been removed from Multiple Family districts." Mr. Shockey replied that as.buffers, because we are prohibiting them in the commercial district,.the density should not.be a factor in those buffer zones between the residential areas. Keep in:.mind that parking setback, height, and other requirements are going to restrict a number of units one can get on a piece of property. Councilmember Jaech asked if that.was only along Highway 99 or included other areas. The' response was that everything in the paper related to Highway 99. Councilmember Nordquist questioned drainage control, whether detention or retention. Mr. Shockey clarified the difference: detention is where it dries up, -retention is where it is let go. Councilmember Ostrom brought up the sentence which states: "Generally speaking, if.it looks good, or hides what does not, it is allowed. Mr. Shockey stated there would not be any use prohibitions. as long as it is commercial in nature. There could be performance standards on screening, storage areas; etc. Adult entertainment would be limited to another zoned area. Council-. member Ostrom questioned whether drainage.control would be the responsibility-- of the developer or the city. Response: "Both." Private developers and property owners should be responsible to the extent that the overall community benefits from an improvement; this could be sewer or'water mains, etc. An alternative to the tax dollar approach is to have the city cooperate in grants, assisting in LIDs, getting property owners together so that the cost of any one property owner is reduced. Councilmember Ostrom responded with the fact that there seems to be a breakdown in making this drainage control a part of the city. Mr. Shockey stated there was a comment about promoting regional retention and detention systems. Mayor Naughten stated page 10 would be taken up at the November 27th meeting. MAYOR Mayor Naughten informed the Council that on November 15th between 6:30 and 8:30 P.M., there will be an Open House at the Frances Anderson Center. Mayor Naughten stated there was no asbestos in the buildings in Edmonds. He read a proclamation: "Whereas the sale of Buddy Poppies by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, endorsed by government leaders since 1922, the basic purpose of Buddy Poppies being to honor and help the living, we hereby proclaim November Buddy Poppy Month." Mayor Naughten asked for a reappointment of Kwang H. Baeck to the Architectural Design Board. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF KWANG H. BAECK TO POSITION SEVEN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD, .TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1988. SECONDED BY COUNCIL - MEMBER NORDQUIST. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughter noted that the school district would like to know if the City would share the cost of an appraisal. A discussion ensued. The issue revolved around the feeling that should the school district choose an appraiser, the appraisal may not be a fair one. The consensus was that. the City would retain its own appraiser. MAYOR NAUGHTEN REQUESTED A CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF TOM SNYDER TO THE ALTERNATE POSITION ON THE PLANNING BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985. SO MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER JEACH; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist asked about the resignation of Jim Shields. The Mayor stated he had appointed Don Stay to replace Jim Shields in Position 2 of the Civil Service Commission, term to expire December 31, 1984. This appointment does not require Council confirmation. COUNCIL Councilmember Hall referred to a letter from the Council Resource person regarding part-time employment she had taken at a bank working with the Council President and asked if this presented any conflict. Councilmember Hall indicated she had no problem with it, as did Councilmember Dwyer. There was no other comment from the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 11:5 P.M. J CQU LINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk LARRY S.'NAUGHTEN, Mayor I 1 0