Loading...
03/18/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 18, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Michelle Trias, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 3/5/03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2003. Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #61301 THROUGH #61438 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve MARCH 3, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $295,447.55. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Checks #61439 THROUGH #61560 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 10, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $390,193.02. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #35191 THROUGH #35272 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $771,243.53. laims for Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM EDMUND GREGERSEN ($3,119.55), MARY E. KRZYSIAK ($273.42) AND STELLA'S LANDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ($168.64). Fire Stations (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FEBRUARY 18, 2003, FOR FIRE STATIONS 16 AND 20 16 & 20 EMERGENCY - VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO Traffic TRANSTECH ELECTRIC ($143,017.00). Signals Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 1 isinfection (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MARCH 4, 2003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ion roject ect DISINFECTION CONVERSION PROJECT AT THE TREATMENT PLANT AND AWARD TO ANTHONY CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($157,810.00, INCLUDING SALES TAX). aterline eplace- (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2003 WATERLINE ent rogram REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. rd# 3442 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3442 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO DEPICT mend REALIGNED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF SR -104 SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, Street Map / SR104 AND AUTHORIZING PHYSICAL AMENDMENT OF A MAP. rd# 3443 (1) ORDINANCE NO. 3443 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.50, eeting MISCELLANEIOUS CHARGES, TO ENACT A NEW SECTION 3.50.040 RELATING TO Room MEETING ROOM CHARGES. Charges 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Planned DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.35, CONCERNING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Residential DEVELOPMENTS (PRDS), AND CHAPTER 16.20, REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY Develop - RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ents CLARIFY THE PURPOSES, STANDARDS, AND PROCESS FOR APPROVING PRDS, WOULD ADD PROVISIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD CLARIFY THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES PERMITTED IN ALL SINGLE FAMILY ZONES. PRDS WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED IN ALL ZONES AND WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY'S HEARING EXAMINER. PRDS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE USES AND DENSITIES PERMITTED IN EACH ZONE AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE A REZONE REQUIRING REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL: APPEALS OF PRD DECISIONS WOULD BE TO SUPERIOR COURT (FILE NO. CDC -02 -221). Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this item was a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council on proposed code amendments to the existing provisions regarding Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). He explained that following an initial report given to the Council in October 2002, the Planning Board held a joint meeting with the Council in November, and began working on code amendments and held a public hearing in January 2003. Mr. Chave highlighted the following changes the Planning Board proposed to the existing code: • Clarifying that PRDs are an alternative form of development and therefore not a rezone. Removes the possibility of attached units (change of use) which the current code provided an opportunity for and defines the maximum density allowable in each single family zone through standard or alternative subdivision method (change in density). Mr. Chave explained currently density for PRDs was calculated via equating the lot size in a single family zone to a number and dividing that number into the total property area to obtain the number of units. He noted this provided a potential benefit to a developer of a PRD by allowing the calculation of density on the entire property area versus the calculation of density for a standard subdivision which requires the area for access be deducted before the number of lots was calculated. • Requiring a pre - application neighborhood meeting. • Establishing criteria to establish alternate development standards such as compatibility with surrounding property including increased buffering for clustered lots, perimeter setback or established rear setback, minimizing visual impact, preserving unique natural features, reducing impervious surfaces, etc. • Decision criteria for PRD — meeting all the criteria means the project provides a benefit to the public that balances the flexibility in design being granted. The decision criterion focuses on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 2 design criteria, public facilities, perimeter design, specific description of open space and recreation. Mr. Chave noted if development in a PRD was clustered and lot sizes were reduced accordingly, the amount the lot sizes were reduced must be dedicated to open space. • The Hearing Examiner makes the decision on preliminary PRD approvals. • Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner decision may be requested. • Appeal to Superior Court. With regard to density, Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board considered three alternative density approaches, (1) gross density (current code language), (2) net density with a varied road set - aside, and (3) net density with a fixed road set -aside (15 %). The Planning Board recommended the third option. Mr. Chave displayed a chart illustrating the density that could be obtained in various zones via a standard subdivision and a PRD with the 15% road set - aside. Mayor Haakenson opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso remarked she had been asked by residents to pose several questions prior to public comment. Council President Earling recommended proceeding with public comment. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged receipt of correspondence from (1) the Talbot Group indicating their concern with rezone and compatibility and their finding that the revised PRD ordinance remained a rezone and recommending that the ordinance contain specific measurable standards, clarifications, and purposes regarding compatibility, and 2) the Snohomish County Camano Association of Realtors requesting the Council reject or postpone consideration of the changes to the PRD code because the changes would result in less dense development. Councilmember Wilson inquired about a fax from the Master Builder's Association. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised that document was attached to Agenda Item #4 as it addressed Ordinance No. 3440. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested incorporating the Master Builder Association's letter of March 12, 2003 into the record of both proceedings. Mike Pattison, Snohomish County Camano Association of Realtors, 3201 Broadway, Suite E, Everett, requested the Council table the PRD ordinance, pointing out the City was in the process of adopting updated population forecasts as required by GMA that would require Edmonds to accommodate between 5,336 to 8,116 new residents over the next planning period. In addition, the City was undertaking a reasonable measures ordinance where the City would adopt a list of measures that assisted in achieving the densities to accommodate this increased population. A PRD was one of the tools in the list of reasonable measures to achieve the required density and adopting this ordinance would eliminate that tool. He recommended completing the reasonable measures process prior to adopting the PRD ordinance. Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street, Edmonds, expressed concern with the Council no longer making decisions regarding PRDs and the appeal to Superior Court. He recalled his experience with an unsuccessful appeal of a land use decision to Superior Court. He was also concerned with the proposed criteria, noting PRDs should not be an alternative form of development but a form of development that was specific to areas where there were steep slopes, topography or geological features, or where a historical building could be preserved, and not available to all parcels. Bill McNault, Eagle Crest Subdivision, (a PRD), commented that 15 years after development, the homeowners in Eagle Crest were about to complete the process that began when the homes were built. He described homeowners' efforts to deed the common areas to homeowners, fund the reserves, ensure adequate insurance, etc., alleging the City did not appropriately administer these issues when the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 3 development was completed. He pointed out the proposed process would require an appeal to Superior Court to resolve such issues. He urged the Council to consider what was left behind when a developer completed a PRD. Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, Edmonds, referred to a letter from the Talbot Group's attorney Gerald Steel, asserting that PRDs would remain a rezone under the revised PRD ordinance and explained the reasons as referenced in Mr. Steel's letter and Mr. Snyder's letter. She pointed out flexible bulk standards would result in a special zone which must be handled as a rezone requiring a final decision by the Council. The Talbot Group was also concerned with compatibility, noting the criteria required compatibility with the surrounding property but the ordinance must contain clear direction to staff, developers, the Hearing Examiner and the Council including specific measurable standards, clarifications and purposes. She also recommended several terms in the ordinance be clarified including adequate public facilities, usable open space, and substantial. She summarized the Talbot Group recommended three items be addressed in the PRD ordinance, visual screening, traffic and transportation, and parking. James Metcalf, 17127 Sea Lawn Drive, Edmonds, concurred with Ms. Azar's comments. He commented the intent of a PRD was to benefit the developer and the property owner and to accommodate development on property that was not easily developed. He urged the Council to ensure the result of the PRD ordinance fit the zoning laws and the City's established regulations. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, urged Mayor Haakenson to become involved in resolving the PRD issue. He recommended the PRD ordinance emphasize neighborhood characteristics and compatibility. He recommended retaining the language regarding compatibility in the original ordinance. He questioned the cost of revising the PRD ordinance and preferred updating the original PRD ordinance with GMA requirements rather than drafting a new ordinance. Janice Noe, 9105 242nd Street SW, Edmonds, described her experience with development that was occurring next door to her home, a process that had resulted in many challenges and changes. She urged the Council to represent the community's interest and carry out the community's will. She requested the Council not remove themselves from the PRD approval process and remain involved in the community's concern with increased density in neighborhoods. She recommended pre - application neighborhood meetings be held at times that would allow for reasonable attendance. She objected to the Hearing Examiner making the final decision as well as the appeal to Superior Court. Peter Beck, 723 Hanna Park Road, Edmonds, referred to City Council minutes where Mr. Chave recalled the Council amended the PRD regulations in December 2001 and amended the provisions in August 2002, pointing out the regulations were only one year old. He pointed out Edmonds needed revenue and the only consistent method appeared to be via property taxes from more dense development. He alleged the City did not have a Comprehensive Plan. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the ordinance lacked criteria and would not result in all staff members making the same decision based on the criteria in the ordinance. He agreed with the changes to the open space requirement but objected to the Hearing Examiner making the final decision. He commented there was no basis for the 15% road set -aside recommended by the Planning Board. He referred to the City Attorney's reference to Lutz v. City (page 153 of the Council packet) regarding whether PRDs constituted a rezone. Mr. Hertrich summarized PRDs were rezones and the Council should make the decision. Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place West, Edmonds, expressed support for the Council rather than the Hearing Examiner making decisions on PRDs, noting the process was assessable to citizens and accountable. He commented on the cost to appeal a decision to Superior Court compared to an appeal to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 4 the City Council. He recalled a process when sidewalks were proposed in their neighborhood and the compromise that resulted after the issue was reviewed by the Council. Sandra Radcliff -Beek, 723 Hanna Park Road, Edmonds, noted citizens demonstrated they wanted the proposed PRD ordinance tabled or stricken as the PRD ordinance as revised in December 2001 appeared to work. She objected to the proposed amendments as a bandaid to the PRD regulations. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the hearing. In response to Mr. Beck's question, Mr. Snyder explained when the PRD ordinance was passed, the ordinance indicated decisions would be referred to the Hearing Examiner; however, another section of the code was not amended that required the City Council to make the decision. He noted the amendments began with considering which entity should make the decision. He explained another issue that has driven the process was an effort to expand the criteria. The proposed amendments included additional criteria with more detail. He commented staff would welcome recommendations regarding additional criteria or how the criteria could be enhanced to make them more clear or easily applied. With regard to Mr. McNault's comments regarding the Eagle Crest development, Mr. Snyder pointed out neither Edmonds nor any other city did consumer evaluation such as evaluating the reserves of a homeowner's association or other homeowner's association documents other than to ensure the common elements could be administered by the homeowner's association and met the required criteria. With regard to comments on criteria, specifically the review of density and the City's ability to meet GMA population targets, Mr. Snyder explained the City must demonstrate the ability to meet population targets as well as that densities in the ordinance meet minimum urban standards. He emphasized that the minimum urban density as defined by the Growth Management Hearings Board was four units per acre. The review and subsequent update of the Comprehensive Plan would likely eliminate RS -20 and RS -12 density to meet the minimum urban density required by the Growth Management Hearings Board. In response to Mr. Martin's comments, Mayor Haakenson stated the Council and he were aware of their responsibilities; his were to run the City on a day -to -day basis and the Council's were to set policy. He assured the Council appreciated his (the Mayor) not becoming involved in setting policy as he appreciated the Council not becoming involved in the day -to -day operation of the City. Councilmember Petso inquired whether PRDs would be allowed in all zones including commercial zones. Mr. Chave answered PRDs were not restricted to only residential zones and theoretically could be allowed in the BC zone. Councilmember Petso asked whether the buffer required for clustered development was anything more than a measured setback distance or was buffering such as a fence or landscaping required. Mr. Chave answered buffering outside clustered development could be achieved via reducing the bulk of the buildings or landscaping to screen. He noted a perimeter buffer was generally setback. Councilmember Petso stated this would equate to a measured distance and not landscape screening. Mr. Chave explained the logic was that if the lots provided along the perimeter had the same setback dimensions as were required in the underlying zoning, it was the same as would be allowed in a standard subdivision. He noted in a PRD, more was provided via a rear setback which would be larger than if the side setbacks of a standard subdivision adjoined adjacent properties. Councilmember Petso inquired whether buffering would be provided around the perimeter of PRDs, recalling some previous PRDs had a larger buffer on one side due to a critical area and no buffering on other sides. Mr. Chave answered the perimeter applied to the entire perimeter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Petso acknowledged the effort to increase the public benefit provided by PRDs and inquired why "improved circulation" was listed as a public benefit. Mr. Chave explained that was counter to the concept in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and bikeway and walkway plans which reference connections between transportation systems. Councilmember Petso inquired whether, for example, there was any risk of a PRD opening a new access to Olympic View Drive from a previously closed cul -de -sac. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to improve circulation patterns and connections and any proposed improvements would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. He noted a proposed connection would not necessarily improve circulation and would not necessarily satisfy that criteria. Mr. Snyder encouraged the Council to identify areas in the proposed text that needed to be clarified. He explained that although improved circulation and connections was one of the criteria, the City could not require developers to extend roads to property lines to make connections for planned line right -of -way. The courts have held that anything not triggered by the impacts of the development itself cannot be required unless compensation is paid. He clarified this was an example of a connection that the City could not be required but could be acquired via the PRD process. Councilmember Petso suggested the text be clarified to reflect that intent. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the Planning Board discussed requiring a pre- application meeting for PRDs in a multifamily zone, pointing out many multifamily zones were adjacent to single family zones. Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board only discussed a pre - application meeting for PRDs in a single family zone. Councilmember Petso asked whether a requirement for a pre - application meeting for PRD development immediately adjacent to single family could be included in the ordinance. Mr. Chave agreed the Council could provide direction requiring a mandatory pre - application meeting for zones immediately adjacent to single family zones in the ordinance. Mr. Chave pointed out development in multifamily zones already required design review which would include notice to surrounding property owners. He noted the design review process may provide a more detailed review than the PRD process, thus the focus on pre - application meetings for PRDs in single family. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the PRD ordinance could be used to reduce parking requirements in commercial zones. Mr. Chave answered parking was not on the list of items that could be varied. Councilmember Petso relayed a question from a citizen whether the proposed PRD ordinance would potentially allow buildings to be 3 feet apart. Mr. Chave answered building standards would apply; there was no restriction on the setback or variation in lot sizes. However, if that was proposed, clustering provisions, buffering, etc. would be considered. Councilmember Petso referred to comments made by the public regarding where residents would park in a clustered development. She inquired whether the City could require a clustered development to provide additional parking. Mr. Chave answered there would need to be a reason to require additional parking. The only parking standards for single family development were two spaces on the lot. Mr. Snyder answered it was within the City Council's discretion to establish that as a development criteria. Councilmember Petso explained when dwellings were clustered, there was often no street frontage for parking thus it may be appropriate to require additional parking for clustered housing. Mr. Snyder answered the City Council's determination need only have a presumption of validity and a rational basis for the requirement and Councilmember Petso's suggestion would meet that test. Councilmember Petso inquired about public notice requirements for the Hearing Examiner meeting and the pre - application meeting. Mr. Chave answered it would be the standard noticing requirement of properties within 300 feet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 6 Councilmember Petso recalled an ordinance from another City which she reviewed that limited lot size reductions. She asked whether this was discussed by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board had that information but he did not recall any specific discussion. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board considered the Hearing Examiner holding hearings in the evening. Mr. Chave answered it was not specifically discussed. Mr. Chave advised he spoke with the Hearing Examiner who indicated he would have no objection with holding evening meetings. Mr. Chave recommended that issue not be placed in the Code as it was an administrative function. He explained the adopting ordinance could indicate the Council's direction to staff to hold meetings in the late afternoon to provide additional opportunity for public input. Mr. Chave recalled the Hearing Examiner suggested holding meetings in the late afternoon rather than in the evening to allow sufficient time for the hearing to be concluded and avoid meetings extending late into the evening. Councilmember Plunkett requested clarification of a statement in Mr. Snyder's March 17, 2003 memo, "Therefore RS -20 and RS -12 zones probably will not survive." Mr. Snyder explained GMA established a route of appeal to the Growth Planning Hearings Board whose function was to ensure Comprehensive Plan changes were compatible with the GMA objectives and that development regulations were consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans. The Board has reviewed 103 decisions regarding urban/rural density and in excess of 70 of their decisions established the minimum urban density as four units per acre. The only reason the City's current zoning existed was because there was no appeal of the City's Comprehensive Plan and because the majority of the Board's hearings had occurred after the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. He recommended the City assume . the City's Comprehensive Plan would be subject to a challenge, a challenge the City would likely lose, if the overall minimum urban density was not established at four units per acre. He noted his reference to overall density as there would be certain instances such as steep slope environments, etc. where the City could potentially justify lower density. However, in those instances, the Board then looked to techniques such as PRDs and critical area ordinances that provide reasonable use exceptions and variances to allow maximum density and use of property in those zones. Responding further to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained the City was required by the end of 2004 to update the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the update, the City was also required to ensure critical area regulations complied with best available science. The Comprehensive Plan review would also include accepting new growth targets. If during the Comprehensive Plan review the RS -20 and RS- 12 zones were retained, the City would need to demonstrate that zones that did not meet the four dwelling unit per acre standard were justifiable. The only basis for some of the large lot zoning in the City was that it had historically been zoned in that manner. The Comprehensive Plan would include an evaluation of zoning, density, critical areas, buildable lands, reasonable measures, etc. to develop a revised zoning scheme that met all the required tests. Councilmember Plunkett noted that if the RS -20 and RS -12 zones were being threatened, it was due to the City's response to State law and the Growth Hearings Board's past decisions. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a PRD, via the ordinance in place or the amended ordinance, would minimize the threat to RS -20 and RS -12 zones. Mr. Chave stated PRDs provided a tool that allowed infill development to occur to a density that may not be achievable under the current zoning. To that extent, PRDs would assist in showing the City was providing sufficient infill density to meet the standards. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Chave advised PRDs were allowed in single family and multifamily zones but did not recall whether they were allowed in commercial zones. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 7 Responding to Councilmember Petso's questions, Mr. Chave noted the criteria in the proposed ordinance went further in minimizing impacts than the existing ordinance and resulted in a better development. He described the challenge of subdividing a large lot with a house in the center in a manner that allowed the existing house to be retained and still meet the minimum lot size requirement. He noted this may provide an opportunity to retain existing housing stock and avoid impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder commented that if RS -10 became the largest zoning in the City, many of the RS -20 lots would be available for short subdivision. The question that needed to be asked in the upcoming planning process was whether the short subdivision process which had virtually no control over issues such as landscaping, lots, and setback was preferable to the PRD process that had more specific requirements than a short subdivision. Councilmember Petso commented she would have preferred to ask these questions prior to the public comment to allow members of the public to indicate which they preferred, a house in the front yard or removing the existing house and developing two lots. She encouraged the public to call her to indicate their preference. In response to Councilmember Petso's earlier question regarding PRDs in commercial zones, Mr. Snyder referred to Section 20.35.020.A which indicated PRDs may be located in any residential zone of the City. He noted the tool for the equivalent of a PRD in a commercial zone was the master planning process. Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Chave's example of retaining an existing structure, inquiring whether a PRD could be used to retain a historic structure via allowing some flexibility for a smaller lot. Mr. Chave answered yes and referred to Decision Criteria for PRDs (page 5 of the record), noting one of the criteria was preserving unique natural features or historic or landmark structures. Councilmember Wilson referred to the table (Exhibit A, page 1 of the record) where the minimum parking standard for the single family zone was indicated as one. Mr. Chave advised the correct standard was two parking spaces. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 20.35.040.E, reduction of impervious surfaces through the use of on -site or common parking facilities rather than street parking, observing the intent was to minimize the amount of impervious surface in the right -of -way which would result in limited on- street parking. He inquired whether additional off - street could be required for the general use of the PRD. Mr. Chave explained the criteria referred to reduction of impervious surfaces via the use of on -site or common parking facilities. The intent was to consolidate parking which would result in overall less parking area. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the Planning Board considered establishing a requirement for overflow parking for clustered PRDs due to the potential for limited on- street parking. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board discussed it in general and concluded they did not want to create a higher standard for a PRD for a situation that was similar to a standard subdivision. He explained standard subdivisions did not have a requirement for on- street parking and the street width in a standard subdivision may not allow for on- street parking. Therefore the Planning Board did not find it appropriate to require on- street parking or overflow parking for PRDs. Councilmember Wilson recalled a concern when the Council reviewed a PRD in the past where the site design resulted in several units having less than a 20 foot setback from the internal street. He reiterated the concern he expressed at that time that if additional on- street parking was not available and there was no requirement for overflow parking, residences could not accommodate overflow parking in their driveway in front of their garage. Mr. Chave explained the City's standard was two parking spaces per Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 8 single family dwelling unit, thus a house with a single -car garage with a parking space in front of the garage would meet the standard as would two parking spaces on the property or a 2 -car garage without space for additional parking in the driveway. The Planning Board did not want to make a PRD more onerous than a single family dwelling in a subdivision. Councilmember Wilson referred to 20.35.040A with regard to compatibility with surrounding properties, noting there was discussion regarding providing more landscaping, greater buffering, parking areas, etc. but how this test would be met was not quantified. He pointed out the importance of developing the criteria so that everyone could reach the same conclusion regarding the outcome. He referred to other sections that addressed increased buffering but did not specify a percentage. He preferred objective standards of measurement to avoid inconsistent application. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board's recommendation included more specific standards in the decision criteria such as in the open space and recreation requirement. He noted the Planning Board wanted to avoid prescribing so much detail in the ordinance that it became unwieldy or unworkable and targeted specifics in areas they found most important such as perimeter design and open space, thereby providing as much guidance as possible without prescribing a uniform design. Councilmember Wilson referred to the decision criteria in Section 20.35.050.A.3, minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials and 20.35.050.A.4, substantially increase usable open space. Mr. Chave agreed 20.35.050.A.4 could use more definition. Mr. Snyder suggested selecting a minimum percentage. Councilmember Dawson referred to 20.35.050, Decision Criteria for PRDs, pointing out a development needed to meet only two of the criteria. She questioned why only two of the criteria had to be met or why the fifth criteria (Preserve, enhance or rehabilitate significant natural features of the subject property such as woodlands, wildlife habitats or steams, historic or landmark structures or other unique features of the site not otherwise protected by the Community Development Code) was not a required criteria. Mr. Chave responded a project must comply with the city's urban design guidelines and in addition must comply with two of the additional four criteria. The criteria would result in improvements the city could not otherwise require. Mr. Snyder advised the existing ordinance required compliance with two of six criteria. During their review, the Planning Board realized some of the existing criteria were things that had to be done thus eliminating some criteria actually made the criteria more stringent. Councilmember Dawson noted "minimizing impervious surface" would likely be done in a PRD; therefore, the development only had to comply with one other criterion. Mr. Chave explained the logic for not mandating the fifth criteria was there may not be any natural features to preserve on the site. Mr. Snyder explained two significant improvements in the open space requirement were defining the "usable open space" and specifying that the Homeowners Association shall be the sole owner of all common open space and critical areas within the PRD. Further, the current ordinance refers only to increased open space which the Planning Board recommended be strengthened to require substantial open space. He reiterated the addition of percentages may strengthen the criteria. Councilmember Dawson commented a developer was obtaining a benefit via the flexibility provided by a PRD and the developer should give something back to the city other than what they would do via a standard subdivision. She inquired about the Planning Board's discussion regarding compatibility. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board attempted to determine what aspects of compatibility mattered most to the public. They found via the testimony provided that the most important aspect of compatibility to the public was what the PRD looked like from the surrounding area. Therefore, the Planning Board clarified the perimeter buffer standard and if dwelling units were clustered, required it be addressed via structure volumes or providing buffering such as landscaping or visual screening so that the development was not as apparent to the surrounding area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Dawson summarized either the PRD had to be compatible or not be seen. Mr. Snyder pointed out compatibility needed to be judged with the Comprehensive Plan vision for the neighborhood, not necessarily what currently exists. If the desire was to increase the compatibility criteria, it must be tied to the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the trap of requiring a development to be compatible with a neighborhood which itself was not compatible with GMA. Councilmember Dawson referred to Section 20.35.040.A.3 requiring PRDs be compatible via architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials as determined by the ADB, questioning whether this was design and materials that were consistent with each other or with the surrounding area. In the past, the concern with PRDs was the fact that the houses looked the same made them incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Chave referred to the single family design criteria in Section 20.35.060, noting the intent was compatibility internal to the development rather than the surrounding neighborhood. Councilmember Dawson commented houses that were consistent with each other may make them incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to varying housing styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Chave pointed out the difficulty in legislating design. Mr. Snyder stated single family development was currently exempt from ADB review. The intent of this section was to defer to the ADB standards. He acknowledged there would be homogeneous/harmonious development but this was contrasted with single family development where design was not controlled in any manner. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's recommendation was subtracting 15% from a property for road set -aside and then applying the density to the remaining property. Councilmember Dawson requested clarification regarding the maximum density indicated on the table in Exhibit A. Mr. Chave suggested staff prepare language that clarified how the maximum density would be determined. He explained the intent of the table was for the maximum density per zone to be used to determine the number of dwelling units after the 15% road set -aside had been subtracted. Councilmember Dawson asked why the Planning Board was adamant that PRDs were not rezones and that the Hearing Examiner should make the final decision. She recalled most of the public providing testimony preferred the Council make that decision. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's position was that a PRD process should be similar to a subdivision and considered an alternate form of development that was no more onerous to obtain approval for than a standard subdivision. The Planning Board felt that if sufficient standards, criteria and clarity were provided in the ordinance, it would be clear how the development should be designed and the decision process should not be any more onerous. The Planning Board felt that via the Hearing Examiner making the decision, the same as a standard subdivision, a PRD would not be considered a hindrance and would not be discouraged. Mr. Snyder recalled when the Council referred this to the Planning Board, staff understood the Council's direction to be to have the Hearing Examiner make the final decision. He referred to the Master Builders Association's assertion that the state statute gave the Council unlimited discretion to assign the decision to the Hearing Examiner. However, the second half of the statute that the Master Builders Association failed to cite states that when each city legislative body elects to use the Hearing Examiner, they will do so by ordinance and pick one of three ways to have decisions made, the decision be given the effect of a recommendation, the decision can be appealable to the Council or, except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the effect of a final decision of the legislative body. Thus he did not find the Master Builders Association's argument that the statute authorized the Council to have the Hearing Examiner make the decision persuasive. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Snyder pointed out another argument that has been made is that state statute indicates PRDs are rezones and therefore the Council must make the final decision. He noted court decisions have stated that PRDs that act like rezones must have a decision rendered by the Council. A PRD that acted like a rezone was one that changed the rights a developer had within the zone. Thus the reason the ability to capture additional density and the ability to have any additional uses were eliminated. Further, in terms of development requirements, any subdivision or development in each zone would be allowed to use the same development techniques. He summarized this was defensible because if the Council enacted the proposed provisions, someone developing under a PRD would not have any different rights than someone developing in the zone via subdivision or building a house on a single lot. This was a matter for Council policy direction. With regard to defensibility, Councilmember Dawson pointed out there were no cases in Washington State that had not found a PRD a rezone. She noted it could be argued that because the proposed ordinance was different it was not a rezone but there was no cases to support that defense. Mr. Snyder agreed his argument was based on the facts from the individual appellant decisions. He agreed in every case when a PRD was considered it was categorized as a rezone, however, the court found the PRD to be a rezone because it granted rights over and above those that could be enjoyed in the zone. Councilmember Dawson stated it could be argued that clustering allowed in a PRD was a rezone. Mr. Snyder pointed out the same development techniques would be available for any development in the zone. The PRD and subdivision were techniques that could be employed. in every zone and the developer had the option of using either. Councilmember Dawson commented there were some elements of a PRD that would not be allowed in a traditional subdivision such as zero lot lime. Mr. Snyder agreed, pointing out by that argument variances and reasonable use exceptions via critical area ordinances that could vary setbacks and buffering would have to be decided by the Council, however, those decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Dawson concluded it was an open question and it was unknown how a court would rule. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Wilson referred to the decision criteria in Section 20.35.050, recalling the first criteria (design review) was required and the applicant must comply with two of the remaining four criteria. He inquired whether the Planning Board had any discussion regarding ensuring that each criteria was equally weighted so that any two would provide equitable public benefit., Mr. Chave answered specific weighting of criteria was not discussed by the Planning Board; they concluded that complying with two of the criterion would provide sufficient public benefit. Councilmember Orvis commented that if upon reading the code, the court determined that two reasonable people could come to two different decisions, the conclusion that favored the developer would likely be upheld. Mr. Snyder agreed that in the event of ambiguity, zoning laws were interpreted in favor of the property owner or, in this case, the developer. Councilmember Orvis recalled the old ordinance did not attempt to define compatibility. He commented the current ordinance had specific sections regarding compatibility and attempted to define compatibility but the proposed ordinance had more specifics regarding compatibility. Council President Earling referred to the issue raised by the Association of Realtors and asked whether the review process required by GMA would be impacted by the Council's decision regarding the PRD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page I 1 ordinance. Mr. Chave explained the intent of the proposed amendments was to correct internal inconsistencies in the ordinance and to the extent that the ordinance would be more defensible, it was an effort worth concluding. With regard to the PRD regulations and how they fit with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable measures, Mr. Chave noted all those issues would be considered during the Comprehensive Plan update process. He explained the City would be required via that process to evaluate existing regulations to ensure they were consistent with the city policy and that they furthered city policies. He acknowledged the PRD ordinance may need to be reviewed again during that process. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED TO EXTEND THIS ITEM TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW AND STUDY IT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Earling recalled there had been testimony recommending the ordinance be delayed for a variety of reasons. As the Planning Board had made significant changes in the ordinance, he suggested scheduling a Council workshop that would include an exercise where the changes the Planning Board proposed were applied to previously approved projects to illustrate how the proposed changes could potentially alter the project. He noted the workshop would also allow staff to address issues raised by the Council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THIS AGENDA ITEM AND SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP ON APRIL 22 TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHANGES THE PLANNING BOARD PROPOSED AND TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THE COUNCIL HAS RAISED. Councilmember Petso requested the workshop also address the following: 1) notice requirements, 2) requiring a neighborhood meeting for all PRDs, not only in single family zones, 3) consideration of how an enhanced parking requirement for clustered housing could be crafted, and 4) discussion regarding how the density provisions applied. Councilmember Dawson agreed with the proposed workshop. Recognizing that the proposed changes were better than the existing ordinance, she recommended the Council consider a moratorium on PRDs for the next month while the ordinance was being reviewed. Mayor Haakenson asked Council President Earling for clarification whether the workshop would be open for public comment. Council President Earling answered the intent would be a workshop and depending on the outcome, the Council would determine whether additional public comment was appropriate. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SOME CHANGES WOULD BE MADE TO THE PRD ORDINANCE, PLACE A MORATORIUM ON PRDS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ISSUE WAS RESOLVED AND THE PRD ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the impact the moratorium would have on applications in the pipeline. Mr. Snyder answered an ordinance would need to be approved on the Council's next agenda that determined whether new applications would be prohibited or applications in process would be frozen. Mr. Snyder pointed out freezing applications in the process had risks. Councilmember Dawson clarified her intent was that the moratorium be on new PRD applications. Councilmember Wilson inquired about vesting for a project prior to adoption of the moratorium. Mr. Snyder advised a moratorium could be effective immediately upon a super majority vote of the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 12 He noted a developer would need to submit a fully complete application along with all fees prior to the adoption of a moratorium. Councilmember Wilson noted staff would also need to review the application and issue a letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application. Development Services Manager Duane Bowman advised staff had 28 days to issue such a letter. Council President Earling indicated he would vote against the motion because it presumed the review would be complete in 30 days and there may be other transactions in progress such as purchase of property, etc. that would be impacted by a moratorium. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would also vote against the motion, pointing out under the current regulations, the Council made the decision regarding PRDs. Mr. Snyder explained an ordinance would be drafted establishing a moratorium for a maximum of six months. He pointed out the Council could repeal it if the matter were resolved sooner. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND PETSO IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WILSON, ORVIS, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Extending Interim 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3440 EXTENDING A SIX MONTH INTERIM Ordinance — ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION Council 20.35.080 IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD OF THE HEARING Makes Final EXAMINER, SHALL MAKE FINAL DECISIONS ON PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Decisions n PRDs DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this public hearing was a required follow -up to the adoption of the interim ordinance and no Council action was required. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the ordinance was adopted in February; the Council was allowed to adopt moratoria and interim zoning ordinances and then hold a public hearing within a specified period of time. This was the required public hearing. If the Council chose to do nothing, the interim zoning ordinance would remain in effect for the remaining four months. Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance clarified that the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner made the final decision on PRDs. Councilmember Dawson stated that under the current PRD ordinance, PRDs were a rezone and the Council was required to make the final decision. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the primary reason was conflicting provisions. One section of the code indicated the Hearing Examiner made the decision and the other that the Planning Board would make a recommendation and the Council would make the decision. He noted until other issues were ironed out, the only appeal -proof position was to have the Council make the final decision. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He referred to a letter received from the Master Builders Association recommending the Council delegate authority to the Hearing Examiner to make decisions on PRDs. James Metcalf, 17127 Sea Lawn Drive, Edmonds, urged the Council to continue their oversight until the policy issues were ironed out. Ray Martin, 18704 94 'h Avenue W, Edmonds, commented Council President Earling and Councilmembers Plunkett and Marin likely would support the Hearing Examiner making the final Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 13 decision on PRDs. He recalled the public preferred the Council, their elected officials, make the final decision on PRDs. He urged the Council to consider the cost of an appeal to Superior Court both for the applicant and the City. Peter Beck, 723 Hanna Park Road, asked whether this public hearing was related to the December 21, 2001 ordinance or the proposed ordinance. He questioned what Mr. Snyder referred to as the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder explained the City had an adopted Comprehensive Plan that was available at City Hall and the library. Mr. Snyder advised the extension of the interim ordinance related to the adopted ordinance. He explained the interim ordinance delegated decision making authority to the City Council until other issues were resolved. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, supported the continuation of the interim ordinance. He urged the Council to permanently change the ordinance to require the Council make the decision on PRDs. Don Kreiman, 24006 96th Place W, Edmonds, commented every situation was different and the issues complex, thus the need for an open forum to discuss issues. He preferred the Council make the final decision on PRDs. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. No further action was taken regarding this item. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Councilmember Dawson referred to the Council rules that the audience was not permitted to comment on issues that were the subject of the previous public hearings. Planned Ray Martin 18704 94th Avenue W Edmonds commented it was Mayor Haakenson's responsibility as Residential y > > > y p ty Develop- the CEO of the City to take the lead in resolving the PRD issues and get staff the help they needed. ents James Metcalf, 17127 Sea Lawn Drive, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity for the public to speak. Planned Rich Demeroutis 921 Pine Street Edmonds suggested as art of the PRD workshop that staff contact Residential > > , gg p p Develop- other cities who have addressed PRDs and obtain copies of their ordinances in an effort to learn from ents other cities' mistakes. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the Planning Board considered other cities' PRD ordinances. Mr. Snyder answered early in the process staff inventoried other cities' PRD processes. 6. REPORT ON THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 11 2003 Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee mentlOp Councilmember Marin reported the committee was provided an update on the street overlay program. He Services explained that due to the passage of I -776, only two streets would be overlaid this year on the streets that Committee had waterline replacement work done last year. Next, the committee discussed the formation of an Appeals Board and the committee recommended moving forward with establishing an Appeals Board and holding a public hearing at the April 15 City Council meeting. The committee then received a petition signed by 400+ citizens in support of a mid -block crosswalk in front of the Frances Anderson Center. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 14 The committee discussed the merits, dangers, and alternatives and recommended the Traffic Engineer present options to the full Council at the April 15 meeting. The committee then discussed methadone clinic siting regulations and requested that staff contact the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for full Council review recommending a moratorium on location of methadone clinics in Edmonds and requesting the Planning Board study current zoning codes allowing the clinics. The final item the committee discussed was paid parking at the Fishing Pier parking lot and recommended that a proposal for implementing paid parking be brought back to the full Council after Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde and Port Executive Director Chris Keuss work out logistical details. mance Finance Committee ommittee Councilmember Orvis reported the committee reviewed the budget for the Yost Pool and instructed staff to present a proposal that included a range of scenarios to the full Council at the March 25 meeting. The committee then discussed the Library Maintenance Reserve with members of the Sno -Isle Library and directed the finance directors to update the financial model for the reserve fund for the April committee meeting. Next, the committee discussed a proposal to create a flower donation trust fund and the committee directed the Parks & Recreation Director to work with the City Attorney to develop the required ordinances. Public Public Safety Committee Safety Councilmember Dawson reported the committee first discussed a fire code permitting fee increase Committee proposal. She explained staff suggested an increase in permit fees from $5 to $30 to better reflect the actual costs of issuing the permit. The committee recommended that an ordinance amending permit fees be placed on the Council agenda on April 22. Next, the committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code to add a new chapter regarding miscellaneous leave and break provisions. She explained State law requires that unless the city had an opt -out ordinance, breaks and lunches be taken on a set schedule. Police Chief Stern indicated the Police Department preferred to have some flexibility and other departments indicated a desire for this flexibility as well. The committee recommended that an ordinance amending the break and leave provisions be referred to the full Council. The committee then continued their discussion of the Public Safety levy lid lift. A special meeting of the Council has been scheduled for Monday, March 24 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the levy lid lift. The committee requested staff submit items for potential inclusion in the public safety levy lid lift and the committee reviewed that information prior to tonight's Council meeting. She advised that under the current proposal, a typical resident of Edmonds living in a $250,000 home would have an additional annual tax of approximately $138. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Disaster Mayor Haakenson advised that due to the current world climate, City Hall has been receiving many IP reparedness questions from residents regarding the alert system, preparedness, etc. Therefore, staff has posted locations for citizens to obtain preparedness information on Channel 21 as well as the City's website. He invited residents to call City Hall if that information was not sufficient. Mayor Haakenson urged the Council to advise him if they felt staff had become an obstacle in their ability to make a decision on the PRD ordinance. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Memorial Council President Earling reported the memorial service for John Wilkins at the former PSCC, soon to Service for become the Edmonds Center for the Arts, on March 23 was very moving. He advised the service was John Wilkins attended by approximately 600 people and included music, dance, and personal testimonials. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 15 Council President Earling advised when he was elected to the Council over 11 years ago, one of the biggest thrills he had was the value of his vote. He stressed that he voted the way he saw issues and anyone forecasting votes on his behalf should be cautious. Councilmember Wilson commented tonight's discussion regarding the PRD ordinance was a good example of public involvement, observing public involvement helped the Council formulate good policy. He thanked those who participated in the discussion and encouraged the public to participate in Planning Board discussions early in the process. Lodging Tax Councilmember Petso advised there were multiple applicants for the vacant position on the Lodging Tax Advisory Advisory Committee. As there was no procedure for filling the vacancy, unless the Council objected, the Committee Committee would review the applicants and make a recommendation to the Council. Health Councilmember Marin advised that as a member of the Snohomish County Health Board, he was ;strict concerned with the possibility of West Nile Virus affecting the community. Therefore, the City's website now has links to websites where more information was available regarding protection from the virus. He urged the public to avail themselves of this information. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. GARY ENSON, MAYOR 1dR.K f7. //tb� I/- &z a . . SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 18, 2003 Page 16 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. March 18, 2003 6:30 p.m.: Special Meeting of the City Council Public Safety Committee. The topic of discussion will be the public safety levy lid lift. The Committee meeting will be held in the Police Training Room and is scheduled for 30 minutes. 7:00 p.m. - City Council Meeting Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (6) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #61301 through #61438 for the week of March 3, 2003, in the amount of $295,447.55. Approval of claim checks #61439 through #61560 for the week of March 10, 2003, in the amount of $390,193.02. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #35191 through #35272 for the period February 16 through February 28, 2003, in the amount of $771,243.53. (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for. Damages from Edmund Gregersen ($3,119.55), Mary E. Krzysiak ($273.42), and Stella's Landing Condominium Association ($168.64). (E) Report on bids opened February 18, 2003, for Fire Stations 16 and 20 Emergency - Vehicle Traffic Signals, and award of contract to Transtech Electric ($143,017.00). (F) Report on bids opened March 4, 2003, for the construction of the Disinfection Conversion Project at the Treatment Plant and award to Anthony Construction, Inc. ($157,810.00, including sales tax). (G) Authorization to call for bids for the 2003 Waterline Replacement Program. Page 1 of 2 [1 �J CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 18, 2003 - Page 2 of 2 (H) Proposed Ordinance amending the Official Street Map to depict realigned right - of -way of SR 104 subject to certain conditions, and authorizing physical amendment of a map. (1) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Chapter 3.50, Miscellaneous Charges, to enact a new Section 3.50.040 relating to Meeting Room Charges. 3. (2 Hours) Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.35, concerning Planned Residential Developments (PRDs), and Chapter 16.20, regarding Single Family Residential zoning classifications. The proposed amendment would clarify the purposes, standards, and process for approving PRDs, would add provisions for compatibility with surrounding development, and would clarify the maximum densities permitted in all single family zones. PRDs would be an alternative form of development permitted in all zones and would require a public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner. PRDs would be consistent with the uses and densities permitted in each zone and would therefore not be a rezone requiring review by the City Council; appeals of PRD decisions would be to Superior Court. (File No. CDC -02 -221) 4. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3440 extending a six month interim Ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.35.080 in order to clarify that the City Council instead of the Hearing Examiner, shall make final decisions on Planned Residential Development applications. 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. ( 5 Min.) Report on the City Council Committee Meetings of March 11, 2003. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments S. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT &T Cable, Channel 21.