Loading...
06/03/2003 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 3, 2003 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview candidates for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with 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 STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Specialist Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Meg Gruwell, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO Benda ADD A PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPERTY REASSESSMENT AS AGENDA ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL fcks(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2003. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #62992 THROUGH #63095 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 26, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $872,162.35. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 1 rd# 3457 Monthly Service Seice (E) ORDINANCE NO. 3457 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 7.40.040 IN ORDER Charges TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES ECC IMPOSED BY EDMONDS ORDINANCE NO. 2361 AND THOSE IMPOSED BY THE 7.40.040 CURRENT ECC 7.40.040. Hire a Veteran (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF HIRE -A- VETERAN MONTH, JUNE 2003 Month Item D: Confirmation of Council Appointments of Chris Burdett and Roberta McBride to the Lodaina Tax Advisory Committee, and Yearly Reappointment of Current Members Councilmember Petso explained she pulled this item to introduce the new members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. She briefly described Mr. Burdett and Ms. McBride's backgrounds and expressed her appreciation to them for offering their services to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: Lodging Tax (D) CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS OF CHRIS BURDETT AND Committee ROBERTA McBRIDE TO THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND YEARLY REAPPOINTMENT OF CURRENT MEMBERS Maplewood 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MAPLEWOOD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 50TH Presbyterian ANNIVERSARY, JUNE 7, 2003 Church 50`" Anniversary Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation in Honor of Maplewood Presbyterian Church's 50th Anniversary on June 7, 2003. He presented the proclamation to Pastor Barry Keating, and members John Barker, Larry Merwin, and Tracy Little. Pastor Barry Keating commented that although he was new to the community and the United States, those accompanying him had been members of the community much longer. He noted it was an honor to accept the Proclamation and it was a privilege to be involved with Maplewood Presbyterian Church in such a beautiful part of the world. He invited the Council to join their celebration on June 7. Street Map 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR AN OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT Amendment BY THOMAS AND MICHELLE SAWTELL TO ELIMINATE THE THROUGH STREET on 215' STATUS OF 215TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FROM 215TH PLACE SOUTHWEST TO 98TH AVENUE Place SW WEST. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8) Mayor Haakenson advised this was a legislative matter, not quasi judicial, therefore Councilmembers were not required to make any disclosures. Planner Meg Gruwell explained this was initially a request to eliminate the portion of 215' Place SW that had not been dedicated between 95th Avenue West and 98th Avenue West. Since the Hearing Examiner's review, it has been reduced to only the west half of 215''' Place SW as proposed on the Official Street Map. She explained when the applicant submitted their request, they cited a number of reasons for not having a through street and the benefits of living on a cul -de -sac street. Ms. Gruwell explained the initial staff recommendation was to urge denial because there was already an application for a short subdivision of four lots on the eastern portion of the street and one of the conditions of approval was that they dedicate the 20 feet for the north half of 215th Place SW. Further, because there were three large lots on the west side with the potential for development of up to eight lots, engineering wanted to reserve the right -of -way in the event it was needed for future development. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 2 �1 Ms. Gruwell explained the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on May 1 where seven people in addition to the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed Street Map amendment. The Hearing Examiner considered staff's recommendation and the testimony, noting the significance of all property owners potentially impacted by development of 215"' Place SW had signed a petition in support of the amendment and indicating their desire to maintain the quality and character of their neighborhood. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the proposed Street Map amendment. Upon reviewing the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, the Engineering Division agreed to accept the recommendation and urge support of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Ms. Gruwell advised staff's recommendation was to uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve the request to amend the Official Street Map to remove the west half of 215th Place SW between 96'h Avenue W and 98th Avenue W. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the proposed amendment had the support of the Police and Fire Departments. Ms. Gruwell answered the Fire Department was provided the proposal for review and they had no comments. Ap lip cant Tom Sawtell requested the Council approve their application and remove the proposed right -of -way at the west end of 215th Place SW from the Official Street Map. Mr. Sawtell displayed a map of their neighborhood, pointing out that 30 -40% of the properties were located on cul -de -sacs or dead -ends. He noted this map was provided to the Hearing Examiner to support their contention that a through street would be contradictory to this important characteristic of many of the homes in this area of Edmonds. Mr. Sawtell displayed a portion of the Official Street Map (page 58 of the record), illustrating their neighborhood as well as an area map showing the layout of the homes and the affected properties. He identified his property, pointing out it was a flag lot by design. He explained their primary interest was to retain the exceptional character of their property and prevent the degradation of unnecessary through street construction. He commented a through street on their property would substantially degrade the elements they value and any advantage of a through street would be lost by the negative impact of non- resident through traffic, fast moving vehicles, and threats to pedestrian safety and property security. He referred to the Hearing Examiner's statement that the benefits to their property and their neighbors of a through street were minimal compared to the substantial negative impacts that would occur. Mr. Sawtell explained they circulated a petition, signed by 68 residents including each of the property owners, as it was believed a street vacancy process would be required. He pointed out that with the exception of his property, all the property owners on 215'h Street SW were the original owners. Mr. Sawtell expressed concern that the existence of the planned through street on the Official Street Map was previously unknown to residents until they commented on the recently approved subdivision. He recommended consideration be given to determining how such discoveries could be avoided in the future. Mr. Sawtell advised he inventoried the trees in the right -of -way, 22 of the 36 trees were over 13" in diameter and the largest is 34" in diameter. He noted the layout of the proposed through street would have taken out all the trees on the Hillis' property. He noted the Davis property was clear cut yesterday. He concluded the unknown issues with regard to streets and access were the reason for the neighborhood's concern. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received a letter from Tom Belt encouraging the Council to make a decision that the 40 -foot wide road between 96th Avenue S and 98th Avenue S was not needed for future development on 98"' Avenue S. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 3 Jimmy Bartlett, 21420 96th Avenue W, Edmonds, stated when circulating the petition, there were no negative comments regarding their desire to amend the Official Street Map. He described the peace and quiet of their neighborhood which the proposed amendment to the Official Street Map would retain. Jack Paxson, 938 Pine Street, Edmonds, commented when one drove up Pine Street from 9th Avenue, there were four stop signs in the first block and traffic volumes and speeds were horrible. He supported the amendment to the Official Street Map to prevent 215th Place SW becoming a through street. Mary Pease, 21526 96th Avenue W, Edmonds, urged the Council not to allow 215th Place SW to become a through street. She commented on the removal of all the trees on the Davis property except for three trees where the road would have been located. Brian Kolstad, speaking on behalf of his parents who live at 21524 96th Avenue W, Edmonds, described the tranquility he experienced while living in the neighborhood recovering from an accident. He commented on vandalism that occurs in the surrounding neighborhoods that did not occur in their neighborhood because 215th Place SW was not a through street. Janice Kolstad, 9610 215th Place SW, Edmonds, identified the location of a bus stop on 216th, noting traffic from a through street would impact bus riders and children in the area. She commented on the tree removal on the Davis property. John Kolstad, 9610 215th Place SW, Edmonds, thanked the planners for giving consideration to not having a through street on 215th Place SW. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REMOVE THE WEST HALF OF 215TH PLACE SW BETWEEN 96TH AVENUE WAND 98TH AVENUE W. Councilmember Petso expressed her pleasure with this action, noting the City did not need the street and the neighbors did not want the street. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Planned Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, Edmonds, explained she attended the public hearing the Planning Residential Develop- Board held as directed by the City Council to gather public information in regard to PRDs. Her ents observation at the public hearing was that the Planning Board had not yet collected sufficient information to formulate a recommendation to the Council. Therefore, she requested the Council wait until the Planning Board had the information they needed to make a recommendation to the Council. The Council would then have the necessary information to revise the PRD ordinance. Hearing Karen Biermanski, 8129 Frederick Place, Edmonds, commented it was the responsibility of the City Examiner / Council to make final decisions on matters that would have a lasting impact on the city. She commented ncil on her experience before the Hearing Examiner on a land use issue, noting the Hearing Examiner was not Decisions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 4 an elected official. As the Hearing Examiner's decision was not in their favor in that instance, it was appealed to the City Council due to their belief they would receive a fair hearing which she indicated they did. As a citizen she hoped the Council would have a deep interest for the City and rule with justice for citizens as she had witnessed in the previous agenda item. She concluded a Hearing Examiner or Superior Court Judge would not have the vested interest in the City that the elected Councilmembers had. She felt the Council not being responsible for final decisions was an abdication of responsibility. Baring Janis Noe, 9105 242 "d Street SW, Edmonds, referred to the PRD in their neighborhood, noting the Examiner / previous agenda item illustrated the importance of citizens providing input to the Council. She explained 't' citizens in Edmonds cared about their community and their neighborhoods, noting once neighborhoods Council Decisions changed, they were changed forever. She expressed concern that the Council appeared to be interested in removing the ability for residents to state their concerns regarding change occurring in the neighborhood, particularly in the PRD process. She urged the Council not to have appeals from the Hearing Examiner be made to Superior Court. Hearing Ray Martin 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, cited numerous reasons the Council should reject the Examiner / Ty changes in the proposed PRD ordinance including that 80% of informed residents did not want it and Council 90% of the public input to the Council and Planning Board was not in favor of the change. He objected Decisions to requiring an appeal to Superior Court because of the 6 -8 month wait for an appeal to be heard, it was highly expensive for all parties, it would further clog the overloaded court system, and it would remove local control. He objected to the proposed changes to the PRD ordinance, pointing out the ordinance would likely be determined to be a rezone due to the reference in the ordinance to attached dwelling Hearing units, thereby creating a rezone. Examiner / Diane Tiegs, 16911 Talbot Road, Edmonds, commented that as elected officials, the City Council sions should make decisions and not abdicate that responsibility. Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, noted Edmonds was comprised of a cluster of Hearing Examiner neighborhoods, all with irregular parcels and the residents needed the Council's wisdom to consider all / city the exceptions and make a wise decision. He questioned why the Hearing Examiner rather than the Council Council should make the decision on PRDs and why neighborhoods should pay for an attorney to process Decisions an appeal. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council received a letter from David Toyer, Master Builders Association, with regard to the next agenda item that had been distributed to Councilmembers. Planned 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS Residential Develop - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ents DEVELOPMENTS (PRDS) Mayor Haakenson advised the intent of this item was for the Council to provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for final Council adoption. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this matter is a continued Council discussion on the proposed amendments to the PRD ordinance originally recommended to the Council by the Planning Board. He recalled the Council held a work session in late April and provided direction regarding some issues; staff attempted to draft amendments on other issues for further Council discussion and direction to staff. Mr. Chave recalled the Council's previous review included a request for an example of how PRDs might be impacted by critical areas. He displayed and reviewed a PRD developed under the previous ordinance in 1990 with a stream and depression on the northwest corner of the site. He identified the six lots in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 5 PRD and the stream and depression that were set aside in a separate tract. He explained in this instance, the lot sizes were reduced from a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet to lots that varied from 7,000 to over 8,000 square feet and the open space tract was 9,000 square feet. He explained if the critical area was distributed among the six lots, each would exceed 8,000 square feet; therefore, there would be sufficient property to obtain the same six lots via development of a standard subdivision. The difference would be that the lot lines would likely extend over the stream area. He concluded in this instance what the City gained via the PRD process was no difference in lots but protection for the critical area. Mr. Chave displayed an example of an access configuration with a PRD and a standard subdivision, noting a standard subdivision, in an effort to avoid dedication of a great deal of right -of -way, often would have a small access drive with numerous flag lots. Conversely, in a PRD which is not as constrained by lot sizes, a more logical access road may be provided. Mr. Chave compared density in a standard subdivision with a PRD, explaining that both PRDs and subdivisions occupy a continuum in how much actual density can be achieved on a given property. At the high end, when no new roads are required, the maximum density specified by the underlying zoning can be achieved by both a PRD and a standard subdivision. When roads are required to serve the development, a PRD may be able to gain an additional lot as opposed to a standard subdivision but this is balanced by the additional costs of design and the additional buffers and other potential benefits that a PRD provides. The Planning Board's approach had the opposite effect — PRDs could achieve the same density as a standard subdivision only when more than 15% of the site was devoted to roads, otherwise the PRD was likely to receive a density penalty which because of the added development costs, would not be chosen as a development option. Mr. Chave referred to Section 20.35.060(A)(1)(c) of the ordinance, as pointed out by Mr. Martin, explaining the reference to attached dwelling units should be eliminated. He made another correction as suggested by David Toyer, Master Builders Association, deleting a duplication of Section A, B and C in section 20.35.080 (page 12 of the ordinance) and moving Section D on pages 12 to 13 of the ordinance. Councilmember Marin referred to Section 20.35.080(A)(2), recommending the paragraph be revised to read, Optional Mandatory Pre - Application Neighborhood Meeting, "if the „rOjeet e0ntains tl- i•fsUal of . r-enmental problems or- unusual eempatibility problems with adjoining pr-epei4ies the applicant shall host a public pre - application neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal." Councilmember Petso recalled the Council had previously agreed notice of the pre - application meeting would be provided to property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave advised if that was not contained in the ordinance, it would be added. Councilmember Petso expressed concern there were four major errors in tonight's draft. She referred to public comment regarding a Planning Board meeting on May 28 regarding this topic, inquiring whether minutes from the meeting were available. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board meeting was not regarding this topic but the general issue of decisions on land use issues — City Council versus the Hearing Examiner. He explained the Planning Board held a preliminary public hearing on whether appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision should be to Superior Court or the City Council. He clarified the issue before the Council tonight was with regard to PRDs only. Councilmember Petso commented she would find it useful in making tonight's decision to review the comments made to the Planning Board on May 28. She asked when the material would be available. Mr. Chave answered minutes were typically available within two weeks of the meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 6 Councilmember Dawson pointed out that although the Planning Board would not be making a final decision regarding the Hearing Examiner versus the City Council making decisions for some time, the comments provided by the public may be helpful to the Council's decision. She noted if the Council made a decision regarding who provided the final decision on PRDs, the Council or the Hearing Examiner, the Planning Board could continue to discuss the remaining decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Dawson noted PRDs were the most controversial of the Hearing Examiner's decisions in view of the courts' decisions that PRDs were rezones. Mr. Chave advised it was up to the Council whether to make a decision on that issue or wait for the Planning Board recommendation. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was public comment at the Planning Board's public hearing regarding PRD issues. Mr. Chave answered most of the public comment was on PRDs specifically rather than the Hearing Examiner versus the City Council in general. Councilmember Orvis observed the proposed ordinance contained the Hearing Examiner making the final decision and appeals to Superior Court as well as language that did not allow attached dwelling units. He asked whether the ordinance prohibited ADUs in PRDs. Mr. Chave responded the intent when prohibiting ADUs in PRDs was due to attached dwelling unit. When the units were detached, which was similar to single family lots, ADUs would be permitted. Councilmember Orvis noted his understanding was that how density was calculated was being changed; however, mathematically the proposed ordinance was equivalent to the existing ordinance with the exception of rounding up. Mr. Chave agreed density could no longer be rounded up; therefore, the basic calculation was the same as the existing ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the letter from the Master Builders Association and their indication that 20.35.040(A)(3) and 20.35.050(A)(4) did not reference the requirements. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested cross referencing the appropriate sections. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 20.35.030(1)(a), suggesting it would be appropriate to cross - reference the provisions in 20.35.040(B) related to perimeter setbacks and buffer areas. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 20.35.030(1)(d), specifically the verbiage "entire project complies with the lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning" inquiring whether critical areas were included or excluded from the calculation of lot coverage. Mr. Chave stated the intent of the language was that the entire project would include critical areas. Mr. Snyder noted if that was not done, the problem the Council encountered with regard to the 15% would arise again, not appropriately encouraging the use of PRDs. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with the potential for subjectivity with the reference to "more landscaping" in Section 20.35.040(A)(1), "minimize" in Section 20.35.050(A)(3) and "substantially increase" in Section 20.35.050(A)(4), expressing his preference to quantify the standards and remove as much subjectivity as possible. He pointed out the importance of anyone reading the ordinance to understand what was expected with regard to the amount of additional landscaping, etc. Mr. Snyder stated the intent when the language was drafted was that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) review would ensure the requirements were met, noting subdivisions did not have ADB review. Mr. Chave noted that although the decision criteria must be met, the specifics reference elsewhere must also be met. Councilmember Wilson commented that if the Hearing Examiner were to be the sole decision maker, the standards should be as objective as possible because it was the subjectivity that led to confusion and the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 7 more subjective the criteria was, the more likely there were to be appeals. He clarified his intent was not to penalize the PRD applicant but to ensure the criteria were interpreted the same by all. Mr. Snyder explained Washington Courts require there be sufficient specificity that an applicant can understand the requirements and have repeatedly struck down aesthetic type standards. The ordinance should be susceptible to the same interpretation of whether a project is reviewed by the Council or Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 20.35.040(D), "preserve unique natural features or historic buildings or structures...," inquiring whether that was obligatory in all instances or would be determined on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Chave stated it was a factor that would be considered in the review of the PRD. He envisioned there would be instances where there would be conflicting goals such as a historic house and also critical areas. Mr. Snyder pointed out the need to determine whether "and" or "and/or" should be inserted between D and E to clarify whether all criteria were to be met or balanced. Mr. Chave clarified the criteria in Section 20.35.040 applied only to alternative development standards such as reducing lot sizes. Councilmember Wilson agreed, reiterating the need to provide objective criteria. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO DIRECT STAFF TO FINALIZE EXHIBIT 1 (ORDINANCE) WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, WITH THE LANGUAGE ADDING THE MANDATORY PRE- APPLICATION MEETING AND NOTICE FOR THE PRE- APPLICATION MEETING, ADD LANGUAGE ELIMINATING ADUs FOR PRDs REGARDLESS OF SIZE, AND ADDING THE CROSS REFERENCE MENTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting the majority of the Council supported the concept of PRDs although often he noticed when PRDs were discussed, the debate returned to the concept and it often became political. He recalled the Council's previous review of a PRD project that had a great deal of material, noting much of the material provided by citizens was emotional rather than factual and ignored the big picture. He pointed out the Council's obligation to fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). He pointed out few of the Councilmembers had any building expertise thus the importance of the Council looking at the big picture rather than discussing the minutia. He concluded the Council needed the Hearing Examiner's expertise in interpreting ordinances. With regard to comments that the Council would be abdicating their responsibility, he pointed out the Council could not enforce all the City's laws. Councilmember Petso urged Councilmember Orvis to withdraw his motion until, 1) an ordinance was provided that did not have four major errors, and 2) the minutes of the Planning Board public hearing were available for review. She emphasized the reason for this extensive review was not because the Council did not want PRDs but to avoid bad PRDs. She expressed her preference for the following: a provision in the ordinance that required additional parking if lot sizes were reduced, removing the provision that a PRD was not a rezone, and stating who would make the final decision. Councilmember Dawson agreed the Council should have an opportunity to review the public comments made at the Planning Board's public hearing as those providing testimony believed the Council would consider their comments before making a decision. It would be a substantial change to have the Hearing Examiner make the final decision and have appeals go to Superior Court. She reiterated her concern that this was a "risky move" for the City as courts have held that PRDs, or PUDs as they are termed in other areas, are rezones and the decision must be made by the City Council and not the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Dawson disagreed with the assertion that Council's review of PRDs became political, noting she did not vote based on political pressure but based on whether a PRD project complied with the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 8 ordinance. She disagreed that the Hearing Examiner had greater expertise on PRDs than the Council. She urged the Council to listen to the comments made to the Planning Board prior to making a decision and to listen to the comments made to the Council that expressed a preference for the Council to make the final decision. She agreed that some of the criteria in the ordinance was still too subjective. If there was not consensus on the Council to have the Council rather than the Hearing Examiner make the final decision, she requested the Council consider adopting the PRD ordinance with the changes but allow the Council to make the final decision for a temporary period such as one year to determine whether the "kinks" in the ordinance had been worked out. If the Council's review revealed the ordinance could be easily interpreted, there may be less need for the Council to make the decision. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO ADD A RANGE OF 5 -7% IN SECTION 20.35.040(A)(1), ADD 3% IN SECTION 20.35.050(A)(3) AND ADD 5 -7% IN 20.35.050(A)(4), AND PROHIBIT HOME OCCUPATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES. Council President Earling commented the driving principle for him was doing something in support of affordable housing. He asked whether Councilmember Wilson's amendment would compromise the ability to develop property and result in fewer units. Mr. Chave commented the 5 -7% increase in open space or recreational facilities (Section 20.35.050(A)(4) would result in a total requirement of 15 -17% in combination with the 10% required in Section 20.35.050(D). Mr. Snyder pointed out if Councilmember Wilson's amendment passed, it would be a substantial change and he recommended staff make the changes, present a final ordinance and hold a public hearing. He noted the comments made tonight during Public Comments were not contained in the legislative record regarding the PRD ordinance. Mayor Haakenson commented that would also allow sufficient time for the Planning Board minutes to be provided to the Council. Mr. Chave noted it would be difficult for staff to reference the amendment to minimize impervious surface by 3% and the amendment to increase landscaping by 5 -7% because subdivisions did not have those requirements. With regard to the increased landscaping, this could result in additional landscaping and reduced lot sizes. Councilmember Wilson reiterated his intent for the PRD review process to be objective. He noted that regardless of who made the decision, if the criteria were subjective, the decisions would be bad. Mr. Chave commented staff could consider the impact of the numbers in more detail prior to the public hearing using approved PRDs as examples. Mr. Chave relayed Senior Planner Bullock's suggestion that rather than a requirement for a 3% reduction in impervious surface in Section 20.35.050(A)(3), the criteria be revised to read, "minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials by sharing driveways, reducing turnaround" or other quantitative measures that could be easily identified. Council President Earling asked whether there was potential to lose building sites with the insertion of specific percentages. Mr. Chave answered the result may be smaller building sites in some instances but he was unable to state with certainty whether there would be fewer building sites. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING WITHDREW HIS SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Chave explained staff could review approved PRDs to determine whether they met the additional criteria posed in Councilmember Wilson's amendment and provide that information to the Council. Mr. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 9 Snyder commented if the majority of the Council did not want a reduction in the number of units, the requirement should not be included. Councilmember Dawson pointed out more landscaping would be provided via the design review process for a PRD, and because no landscaping was required for a subdivision, simply stating "more" indicated there would be more landscaping in a PRD than would there would be in a subdivision. She suggested the removal of the word "more" so that the requirement was "provide landscaping..." which she felt would have the same impact. She commented the requirement for additional landscaping in Section 20.35.050(A)(4) was repetitive of the landscape requirements in Section 20.35.050(D). Councilmember Wilson suggested rather than providing a percentage for increased landscaping, there be a requirement for a unified landscaping plan that set the tone for the PRD and required it be retained. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REVISE SECTION 20.35.040(A)(1) TO REQUIRE THAT A UNIFIED LANDSCAPE DESIGN BE ADOPTED VIA THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS WITH PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE. Councilmember Orvis expressed concern with the amendment, pointing out the landscaping was determined via design review and while he wanted to provide guidance to the ADB, he did not want to preclude an alternate landscape plan. He preferred the language in the proposed ordinance. Although he found the unified landscape design acceptable, Councilmember Marin expressed concern with the requirement for perpetual maintenance, noting this would not allow a property owner the flexibility to plant a different tree in the future. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3 -4) COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, DAWSON, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, ORVIS, PLUNKETT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO MODIFY SECTION 20.35.050(A)(3) TO READ, "MINIMIZE THE USE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACING MATERIALS THROUGH THE USE OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS OR METHODS SUCH AS GRASSCRETE OR SHARED DRIVEWAYS. Council President Earling clarified this amendment would only provide an example in the ordinance and would not necessitate another public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder pointed out the main motion, made by Councilmember Orvis, incorporated a cross reference in this Section to Section 20.35.050(D). Councilmember Wilson advised he did not intend to further amend Section 20.35.050(D). COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO PROHIBIT HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ALLOW EMPLOYEES IN PRDS. Council President Earling asked whether this change would require an additional public hearing. Mr. Snyder answered yes, as would the provision in the main motion that would prohibit ADUs. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT, DAWSON, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND MARIN OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 10 Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed amendments made the decision making process on a PRD as objective as possible, resulting in there being no difference between the Hearing Examiner making the final decision versus the Council. He referred to the public's comments regarding the first item on the agenda, the street map amendment, pointing out that process was legislative, not quasi judicial. In a legislative process, the Council had an extreme amount of latitude to develop policy and guidelines and interact with the public to develop the best solution for the community. Conversely, in a quasi judicial process, the Council was constrained by the adopted criteria. He pointed out all the Council's decisions were currently appealable to Superior Court. Councilmember Wilson encouraged citizens to take action via the legislative process to adopt policies that were beneficial to the community which could not be done on a case -by- case /project -by- project basis on quasi judicial matters. He recommended the Hearing Examiner meetings be held in the evening or late afternoon to improve the opportunity for public participation. He also suggested the Hearing Examiner's contract include a requirement for continuing education. He expressed his support for the Hearing Examiner making the final decision. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT PRDS THAT REDUCE LOT SIZE OR LOT WIDTH MUST PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING EQUAL TO ONE SPACE PER RESIDENCE. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO INCLUDE A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT A RECORD BE KEPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. Mayor Haakenson inquired who would prepare the minutes. Councilmember Petso assumed staff, who attended the neighborhood meeting, would prepare the minutes. Councilmember Orvis recalled there was to be only one open record hearing during the review process. He noted the pre - application meeting was not intended to be binding, but only to educate the two sides about each other's concerns. Mr. Chave suggested taping the meeting rather than preparing minutes. The intent of the pre - application meeting was an exchange of information and the meeting was not binding on any party. Mr. Snyder cautioned taping the meetings was akin to keeping a record and he preferred summary minutes that listed the topics discussed, etc. Councilmember Petso clarified her intent was summary minutes. Mayor Haakenson inquired about the intended purpose of this requirement. Councilmember Petso answered there may be a desire on the part of the neighborhood who participated for maintaining some record of the meeting. Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised his interpretation of the current ordinance has been that the neighborhood meeting was mandatory rather than optional and he recommended that requirement be included in the revised ordinance. He referred to the budget cuts that eliminated one planner from the Development Services Department and objected to placing any additional workload on the remaining employees. He explained the concept of the neighborhood meeting was to provide the ability for the developer to present his proposal and to hear the neighborhood's concerns and it was the developer's option whether to modify his plans. He recommended if a record was to be maintained of the neighborhood meeting, the burden of providing summary comments be shifted to the developer. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON WITHDREW HER SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 11 Councilmember Wilson agreed with Mr. Bowman's suggestion to have the developer keep summary minutes and provide a copy to the participants. Councilmember Marin commented he had attended several neighborhood meetings; in some, the developer made a presentation, and in others there were easels around the room where one -on -one conversations were held which would make it difficult to keep a record. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY WILSON, TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT PROVIDE SUMMARY MINUTES AND DISTRIBUTE COPIES TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE. Council President Earling advised that although he would support the amendment, he cautioned the cost was not being assigned to the developer but rather to the eventual homeowner. He explained one of his goals was to keep new construction in Edmonds as affordable as possible. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REVISED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Earling expressed concern than fewer lots would increase the cost of development. He also had aesthetic and financial concerns. He also favored eliminating ADUs and attached dwelling units in a development that may already be somewhat irregular due to topography and critical areas. He concluded every cost added to development was reflected in the eventual purchase price of the property. With regard to citizens' preference for the Council rather than the Hearing Examiner making decisions, Council President Earling acknowledged that depending on the project, there may be extreme political pressure on land use decisions at the City Council level. His interest was in a fair and objective decision; the Council makes policy, if the policy was wrong, the policy should be changed. However, interpretation should be the role of the Hearing Examiner. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Washington Gary Nelson, Snohomish County Councilmember Territorial Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson explained that on the occasion of the 150th anniversary Commission of the Territory of Washington, the Washington Territorial Commission chose to recognize counties and cities that were established prior to statehood. Snohomish County was established in 1858 and many cities including Edmonds, Mukilteo (Point Elliott), Stanwood and Snohomish were established prior to statehood. He presented the City with a Certificate of Commendation from the Washington Territorial Commission in recognition of the city's pivotal role in the history of the Washington territories. ( Councilmember Dawson left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.) Property 6A. PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPERTY REASSESSMENT IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Reassess- ment in Mayor Haakenson explained that he, like others in Snohomish County, recently received a letter from the Snohomish Snohomish County Assessor's office revaluing his home and land. This presentation was in response to County citizens' questions regarding the impact on their property taxes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 12 Mayor Haakenson explained recent property tax assessments in Edmonds increased 71 -72 %. The natural assumption was that property taxes would increase accordingly. He explained how property taxes are figured: The City's assessed valuation for 2004 would increase by over a billion dollars. In 2003, the total was $3.3 billion and in 2004, the total assessment would be nearly $4.6 billion. He noted although J this was an impressive amount, it meant little in the calculation of property taxes. Mayor Haakenson advised the important number was in 2003, property taxes collected by the City totaled $7.8 million and in 2004, the City would collect $7.9 million, less than $100,000 more, because by law the City could only increase the total collection by 1% per year. Mayor Haakenson explained to determine a homeowners tax, one must multiply the assessed valuation of a home by the tax rate. He explained how the tax rate was calculated: divide the total assessed valuation of the entire city by the total property tax the city can collect — for 2003 the numbers were $3.4 billion in assessed value divided by $7.8 million, the property tax the city could collect which equated to a tax rate of $2.33 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For 2004, the new assessed valuation, $4.6 billion would be divided by the $7.9 million in property tax the city could collect for a new tax rate of $1.72 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Mayor Haakenson summarized the tax rate actually decreased from 2003 to 2004. Mayor Haakenson provided the following example: a property valued at $400,000 in 2003 and reassessed to $600,000 in 2004 has experienced a 50% increase in valuation. The taxes for 2003 were figured using the method above, multiplying 400 by $2.33 for a city tax for 2003 of $936. In 2004, the taxes would be figured by multiplying 600 x $1.72 for a city tax for 2004 of $1,074. He reminded this was only the city's portion of the property taxes. Mayor Haakenson stated that according to the Snohomish County Assessor's office, the average increase in valuation in Edmonds for this reassessment was 37 %. If a homeowner's reassessment was near the average, they could expect their taxes to increase at the 1 % level allowed by law. If a property owner's reassessment reflected an increase less than 37 %, they may actually pay less in city property taxes next year. For example, he explained if a property's valuation increased by 20 %, their city taxes would decrease by 8% due to the decrease in the tax rate from $2.33 to $1.72 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Mayor Haakenson explained Snohomish County increased the valuation on view and waterfront properties in Edmonds approximately 50 -75% which shifts a higher tax burden onto those properties and lessens the burden on other properties. He explained the end result was that dollars were being shifted from taxpayer to taxpayer within the City and the City still only collected I% more than last year. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged there were other entities who comprise homeowner's tax bills and they too were subject to the 1% limit. He explained the EMS levy approved by the voters last year begins in 2004 and would be based on the new valuations. Therefore, a property assessed at $400,000 would pay approximately $100 more per year for the EMS levy. Mayor Haakenson emphasized that a 50% increase in a property owners' assessment did not equate to a 50% increase in taxes because the total amount of property tax collected by the city could not exceed last year's collection by more than 1% regardless of the total assessment in the City. He concluded the reassessment did nothing to solve the financial problems facing the city. He encouraged homeowners with questions to contact the Snohomish County Assessor's office at (425) 388 -3235 or if there were questions regarding the City's portion of the tax bill, to call the Mayor's office at (425) 771 -0247 or any Councilmember. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 13 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Excused COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO bsence EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WILSON FROM THE MAY 27 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON ABSTAINED. Deputy City Councilmember Marin requested City Clerk Sandy Chase describe the certification achieved by Deputy Jerk Clerk Linda Hynd. Ms. Chase advised Ms. Hynd had received certification as a Certified Municipal Certification Clerk from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks which required a great deal of training and experience. This is an honor for Ms. Hynd, as well as for the entire city. Councilmember Marin corrected the newspaper's reference that he was retired from the Navy, explaining he was currently active in the Naval Reserve. He advised his wife Ann and he were celebrating their 35"' wedding anniversary today and thanked her for her support. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. G Y H ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 31 2003 6:45 p.m. - Interview Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Candidates* *The interviews will be held in the Jury Meeting Room. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #62992 through #63095 for the week of May 26, 2003, in the amount of $872,162.35. (D) Confirmation of Council appointments of Chris Burdett and Roberta McBride to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and yearly reappointment of current members. (E) Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 7.40.040 in order to provide consistency between the monthly service charges imposed by Edmonds Ordinance No. 2361 and those imposed by the current ECC 7.40.040. (F) Proclamation in honor of Hire -A- Veteran Month, June 2003. 3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of Maplewood Presbyterian Church 50t'' Anniversary, June 7, 2003. 4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the application for an Official Street Map Amendment by Thomas and Michelle Sawtell to eliminate the through street status of 215t'' Place Southwest from 215t' Place Southwest to 98t'' Avenue West. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8). 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 2 6. (60 Min.) Continued discussion on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code regarding Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN J 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.