Loading...
19800603 City Council MinutesJune 3, 1980 • The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All -present joined in, the -flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles.Dibble, M.A.A. Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Bill Kasper Jim Adams, City Engineer Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning.Consultant John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager Ray Gould Richard Pearson, Code Revision Project Manager Larry Naughten Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Mary Goetz Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Jim Murphy, City Attorney . Jackie Parrett, Deputy*City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. ` The.: approvedi terns . on -the ,Consen:t , Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of May 27, 1980. (C) Adoption of Ordinance 2147, establishing a base rate for utility charges and setting' • expiration date of July 31, 1981 for temporary increase in utility rate for acquisition of the Treatment Plant property and infiltration control equipment. (D) Adoption of Ordinance 2148, establishing Sunset Ave. traffic.configuration. COUNCIL Councilman Naughten noted that the Public Works Director had indicated that the cedar of Lebanon . tree at 5th and'Bell St. is dying and should be removed before it creates a danger. Councilman Naughten suggested it be photographed before it is removed. Councilwoman Allen reported that the Finance Committe had met -just prior to this meeting and it was brought to their attention that the salary ordinance recently passed to increase department heads' salaries did not authorize the transfer of funds from the Council Contingency Fund. COUNCILWOMAN MOTION: ALLEN THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING $13,920 FROM -THE ' ROM THE: COUNCIL CONTINGENCY.FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND THE INCREASE. IN SALARIES PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE 2137.. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen also called attention to the Anderson Center bond issue discussed last week and she said there had been -a miscalculation in the fugures because revenue will be from the utility tax on the water rates only and not on the sewer portion, so the utility tax approved would have to be increased. The Finance Director recommended a 1/4% increase. Also, the Finance Director felt there should be more.flexibility in the projections because of the uncertain economy and the,fact that income may not meet all.the rises in costs,.and he recommended an additional 1/4% increase to provide that flexibility.. Therefore; his recommendation was that the increase in utility tax rate be 1.5% instead of the approved 1%. This would provide $150,000 for bond debt service, and $120,000 would MOTION: be provided from revenues that other utility increases have made during 1979. Based on the recommenda- • tion•of-the Finance Director, COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN.MOVED, SECONDED,BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOND ISSUE, INCREASING THE UTILITY TAX BY 1.5%, RATHER THAN 1%, (FROM 6.75% TO 8.25%), TO BE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1980. Council- woman Allen added.that M.A:A — Dibble had been present at the.Finance Committee meeting and -had pointed out.that inflation is going to cut greatly into the budget.and the City probably will have to cut back on some things and select some things to eliminate. The Finance Committee had recognized that inflation.is the big problem and decided to go ahead with what Councilwoman Allen stated in her motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen stated that the Finance Director had pointed out that previous bond sales had been negotiated in the evening at Council.meetings and to getthe optimum.conditions he would like to have the bond sale considered on a Wednesday.morning foll,owing.a Council meeting. He suggested several dates and requested that a quorum be present to approve,.the bids coming in that morning. MOTION: After discussion of which date would be.best for most Council members, COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER,-THAT A SPECIAL. CITY COUNCIL MEETING. BE HELD AT 11:00 A.M., AUGUST 6, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING BIDS ON BONDS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist reported that the City of Mountlake Terrace was considering an ordinance similar to the one passed by the City of Edmonds restricting internal combustion engines from use on Lake Ballinger. They also had passed a resolution of cooperation.with the.City of Edmonds, following meetings with Councilman Nordquist and members of.the Edmonds City Staff. Councilman Nordquist had invited Mayor Enbom and representatives from his city to attend next week's work meeting to discuss the contract rezone and annexation to .Mountlake Terrace of the Nile Country Club, as well as the annexation question of Lake Ballinger. Councilman Nordquist' asked that the .agenda of June 16 be kept. short because there -al ready 'are 'd'° number of items on it which may have lengthy discussions. E 55 • June 3, 1980 - continued AUDIENCE Forrest Walls, 831 Daley, said there was no indication that public input would be taken this evening regarding the Community Development Code, and he asked if there'would be. Councilwoman Allen responded that the hearing was not continued from.the last time and this meeting had been advertised as a Council review, and in consideration of.the people who believed it to be a Council review, she felt it should stay a Council review and the hearing be consideredclosed as it was the last time. Councilwoman Jaech noted that Councilman Nordquist had suggested last week that the Council might consider taking an hour of testimony.. Mr.. Walls said he would like to present additional petitions supporting a 25' height -limit in the downtown business area of.Edmonds, and he filed those with the Clerk. He said it was worth'noting that acceptance by the community of that proposal had been overwhelming. City Attorney Jim.Murphy advised the Council that he did not think they should entertain reopening the hearing without resetting it for a hearing. Councilman Gould said it is time for the Council to get on with this, and to set'another hearing would be procrastinating. Councilman Kasper noted that the Council had received.Mr. Martin's letter, as well as one from Mr. Peterson, and he recalled.that at the last hearing on.Title 16 he had raised the question as to why it was on the extended agenda for another hearing, which was an error, and that was corrected on the next extended agenda. Councilman Naughten said he felt enough public.input had been taken, and the Council had a good idea of what the citizens were saying. Councilman Nordquist, however, said if anyone felt he had something he wanted to say -there still was the opportunity under the Audience portion of the meeting. Herb Wright�,.400 Sunset, thanked the City Council and the Public Works Department for finalizing action,on the Sunset Ave. problem by passage of the traffic configuration ordinance this evening. Ray Martin,, 18704 94th W. discussed the definiition of "height" in Title 21 of the Community Develop- ment Code, -saying the proposed change to a two -point method, rather than t'he four -point method, for determining height was one more way to raise the heights;.he asked that it be reviewed for the impact. HEARING ON_P.C. RESOLUTION 650, PROPOSED VACATION OF RIGHT -.OF -WAY AND AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REMOVE A PORTION OF 4TH AVE. S.,.NORTH.OF SR 104 Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block showed the location of the proposed vacation on a site map. It is a 'small area located where 4th Ave, terminates at SR 104. The property owner to the east wished to acquire the east half.:of Ithe right-of-way to use for parking in a multi -unit development east of 4th Ave. S. For topographical..reasons that development is short two parking spaces and in searching .for a remedy they felt this would be a good solutionsince the area will not be used for a City street. There is a cul-de-sac at the end of 4th Ave. Ms.,Block noted that if this were approved the Council may wish to charge for the vacated right-of-way in accordance with current policy.. The dedication to the City of the property presumably came from former owners of the property. The Planning Division, Engineering Division, and Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal. The public portion of the hearing was opened., Jerry Lovell of Lovell-Sauerland..and Associates, representative of the property owners to the east, said they were.interested only in the portion of the right-of-way lying easterly of the center of 4th Ave. S. He said this was unimproved right-of-way and never had been opened. He was aware of the City's authority and policy to charge for vacated right-of-way, but he requested that the charge not be imposed. :No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. MOTION: COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO APPROVE P.C.. RESOLUTION 650, AND INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT.AN :Amended ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, AND THAT THERE BE NO CHARGE,.FOR THE STREET VACATION.IN LIGHT OF THE REASONS -'GIVEN IN THE PLANNING REQUEST AND IN .LIGHT OF:THE.SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AS IT IS VIRTUALLY USELESS TO ANYONE THERE AND HE DOUBTED THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD EXCEED THE COSTS OF:THE ACTION AS THAT IS AN EASEMENT SITUATION AGAINST A STATE HIGHWAY AND IS UNUSABLE BY THE OTHER SIDE. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION FOR THE SAME REASONS. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED TO Amendment AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST,-TO.REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE'EAST TO PAY ONE-HALF THE APPRAISED'VALUE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS THE CURRENT. OWNERS DID NOT DEDICATE THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY AND THAT IS THE COUNCIL'S POLICY, AND THE REASON THE PROPERTY OWNERS NOW NEED THIS PROPERTY IS BECAUSE'OF LACK OF JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING THEIR PARKING NEEDS,' AND IN ADDITION THE CITY NEEDS ALL REVENUES TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE.MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GOULD, NORDQUIST, JAECH, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS.KASPER, ALLEN, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED. HEARING ON FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION.AT.9122...MAIN ST. - (BRUBAKER) Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said this had been.heard recently as a four -lot subdivision and at that -time she had indicated that it may come back as a five -lot subdivision i.n order to clear up ownership of an additional lot.' The fifth lot would continue to access from Shell Valley Rd. on an easement and would be developed with the adjacent PRD which originally created it. Mr. Brubaker originally had owned the property comprising the PRD and had sold it to Mr. Hovde who applied for and received preliminary PRD approval.. Following the approval Mr.: Hovde coveyed back to Mr. Brubaker the property; -comprising -Lot 5, w.ithout.its being legally subdivided from that PRD.. This action was now attempting to legalize that subdivision, but the lot would'have to be developed.in accordance with the PRD. If the PRD should fail to develop, then the lot.would.become a legal.buildi-ng lot. One of the recommended conditions of approval was a covenant being placed on Lot 5 requiring it to develop in accordance with PRD-3-78 and another condition was,that an asphalt.roadway'be provided from Shell Valley Rd. to Lot 5 before a building permit is..issued. Ms..'Block reviewed the conditions and -modifications which were a.part of,.the four -lot subdivision and said those same conditions would apply to this subdivision. There was a as to question whether Lot 5 could be further subdivided, and-Ms..:Block,stated,;thatta building -.permit had been applied. -for to remodel an.existing barn in the middle of the'lot with the intent of,using it as a dwelling, so -that would be precluded for the MOTION: structural life of that dwelling.` The public portion of the hearing was opened, nno one wished to speak, and the public was portion closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN • 56 June 3, 1980 - continued • GOETZ, TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO.THE FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION OF P-1-80,BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING DIVISION, AND THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, BUT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS -AND MODIFICATIONS STATED IN.THE APPROVAL OF THE FORMER.FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY, AND SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL TWO CONDITIONS STATED.THIS EVENING. The question arose again about further subdivision of Lot 5, and Mr. Brubaker was invited to speak. He said that when the public hearing was held on -the previous subdivision there was no way he could anticipate that the Council might want to place restrictions on Lot 3, because-two.weeks previously the Planning Commission approved the subdivision with one of the restrictions being that the area below 370' elevation be designated a greenbelt in order -to prevent future subdivision. After the hearing was closed to the public at the City -Council meeting -one of the Councilmen wanted a restriction against further subdivision on Lot 3, and he could not speak. Regarding Lot 5, he said it was his under standing that development of that lot would be in accordance with the provisions of the PRD which already had determined that it be a single family•dwelling. He said what he did not understand was how a body can sit here and attempt to restrict, through covenants, the further development of a lot for whatever reason when it is not known what the future will bring.and any further development will have to go through the process of approval, but if that.was what..it took to get the approval he would not object, but he thought it was an imposition that should not be put upon him as a property owner. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. COUNCIL REVIEW OF SECTIONS 16 AND 21 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Code Revision Project Manager Richard Pearson stated that he had recommended that the Planning Commission's recommendation of no changes to the height limits be followed. His reason was that height limits are too important to change without careful study of the issues involved --views, economics, design concept of downtown, etc., and such a careful study had not been accomplished. Although there had been much discussion about height limits for the downtown and waterfront areas, he said it had not been -based on any objective analysis, but the issues had been presented as the • preferences of one group or another. Mr. Pearson's recommendation was that the new Planning Advisory Board be directed to study this issue as one of its first concerns. Mr. Pearson reviewed Staff` responses to questions and issues raised at the May 20 Council hearing, some of which had come from the Committee of Concerned Citizens, and he.also responded to written concerns expressed by Ray Martin. He noted that there had been:a letter from the Economic Development Committee of the South County Chamber of Commerce which stated.that they did not want the City to go to the 25' height limits --they were opposed to the reduction in density and they did not like the reduced height MOTION: limits in the RM-1.5 and BC zones. After a brief discussion, COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED THAT FIXED HEIGHT LIMITATIONS BE SET AT 25', WHICH CANNOT BE INCREASED BY.THE ADB, IN ALL ZONES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CG ZONE ALONG HIGHWAY 99 WHICH.SHOULD HAVE AN UNLIMITED CEILING. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. Councilman Gould said he is a 25' advocate with two exceptions. He thought it would-be better to have Highway 99 developed with h gh-rises, hotels, convention centers, etc.; instead of junk yards.. And he was concerned that in other zones of the City it not be made so rigid that there is no flexibility to make an adjustment for an unusual situation, but he thought the Council should have that authority, and there'should be standards such as the building height on either side of the lot, whether there is substantial view obstruction, etc. This was Amendment discussed, and then COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, Withdrawn THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF THAT HEIGHT. -LIMITATIONS BE REFERRED TO REVIEW FIRST BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR A COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THE HEIGHT PROBLEM, AND THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE ON TO OTHER PARTS OF TITLE 16. The City Attorney determined that the motion to amend was not a proper motion because it, in effect, tabled the main motion. THE MOTION TO AMEND AND -THE SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. Councilman.Naughten recommended 25', and 30' with a pitched roof, in the RM-1.5 and RM-3 zones, in order to get away from the "box" look. He recommended 30' in BC and 30' on the waterfront as 30' on the waterfront would not block anyone's view and development cannot go horizontal on the waterfront. He said RD should be taken out of RM-3 and should be 25'. Councilman Nordquist felt there should be some uniformity on Highway 99. Council- woman Goetz said she would hate to restrict private enterprise fromcoming into the City on Highway 99, and she felt the height should be unlimited there, subject to Planning Advisory Board review. Mayor Harrison asked that consideration be given to grandfathering buildings that would be made • nonconforming by new height limitations as their insurance could be.affected if they could not be rebuil.t after destruction by fire. Also, Mayor Harrison commentedthat if you look around town the views are.not really controlled by buildings, but by trees, and since there was no concern about the height of trees there should be none -about building heights as they exist. Councilwoman Allen agreed that there should be some concern in this City for businesses and.business people, and she felt it was being made very hard for small businesses to stay in business. She did not think a 25' height 1imfita'tion would help a bit, and'if life is made that restrictive the stores will be.empty before long. She also was concerned about architecture, and she said if a flat 25' was demanded that was exactly what there would be. She felt architecture in itself could be beautiful and could be a view in itself, and to give architects a little leeway so they can do a little indivildualized, creative work could make for an exciting downtown area. She preferred going to a limit of 30' and 351, saying there are.times when 35' can very well be put in and.not bother anyone's view. In addition, she did not think the Council was in the business of protecting views, and if they were going to protect views then she agreed with the Mayor that they would have to cut trees. She felt the existing code and 35' in the BN, BC, and CW zones could•be met. In answer to a question, City Attorney Jim Murphy said grandfather provisions could be made so a bui.lding could be rebuilt to its previous height, as long as.it was a legal height then, but there could be problems with remodeling. Mr. Pearson directed.attention to 17.40.020 E, having to do with restoration of damage to noncon- forming buildings. It was agreed that the first paragraph of that section would be deleted and the words "primarily residential" in the first line of the second paragraph would be deleted, which would result in provision for reconstruction of any building -to the same height, setbacks,*and. coverage as existed before the damage occurred, if the reconstruction begins within one year of the date the damage occurred. Formal action to make this change.wi.11,be.taken when Title 17 is reviewed. Councilman Kasper'said the kind of height -modifications proposed the.motion would islatin P Y be -legislating P 9 .9 uniformity, and he felt this kind of height limitation was something that really had to be studied. He could see some problems but he.did not think they could come out. with anything that would make sense without a complete -study -of it. He said there is the standpoint.of the ADB'and the Planning 57 • June 3, 1980 - continued Advisory Board, and that the Council members viere not architects or.designers.' Also, there were other ramifications such as parking, and in this day and agewithredesignof buildings the necessary flexibility was not being provided. He felt the existing.heights.should be kept at the present Amendment time, so.he again moved to amend the motion. COUNCILMAN KASPER..MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED Failed BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO STAY WITH'THE CODE. AS IT PRESENTLY READS REGARDING HEIGHT. Councilman Gould observed that.if that amendment were passed they would.have, gotten the whole community involved for nothing: A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS. TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO..AMEND, WI.TH.COUNCIL.MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON.THE MAIN MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ;JAECH AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER,.-ALLEN, NORDQUIST, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE MAIN MOTION FAILED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED,.SECONDED BY.000NCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT THE HEIGHT.LIMIT MAXIMUM IN ALL RS ZONES BE 25'. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE -MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TEAT Amendment THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMIT IN RS ZONES BE RETAINED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO Failed AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. THE MAIN MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT..IN ALL RM ZONES THE HEIGHT LIMIT BE 25' WITH 5' ADDITIONAL FOR A PITCHED ROOF. COUNCILMAN KASPER.MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY Amendment COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT TIRE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMIT IN RM ZONES BE RETAINED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS Failed TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD,.NAUGHTEN,.AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NAUGHTEN, JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN-VOTING NO. THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED. • CCOUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,,THAT.IN THE BN ZONE THE -HEIGHT LIMIT BE 25' MAXIMUM. THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT -IN THE BC ZONE THE HEIGHT LIMIT BE 25' Amended MAXIMUM. After some discussion,. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN AMENDED HIS.MOTION TO 25' LIMIT WITH 5' ADDITIONAL Amendment FOR A PITCHED ROOF, AND THE SECOND ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE Amendment MOTION FURTHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE EXISTING CODE BE RETAINED Failed FOR THE BC ZONE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE FIRST.MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, NAUGHTEN,_AND GOETZ VOTING YES,.AND WITH,COUNCIL MEMBERS'KASPER_AND ALLEN VOTING NO., THE FIRST MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. A ROLL CALL -,VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE SECOND MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE SECOND MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT :IN THE CW ZONE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BE 30'. A,ROLL CALL Failed VOTE WAS TAKEN, -WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NAUGHTEN,., GOETZ, AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, KASPER, ALLEN, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. MOTION: COUNCILWOiIAN.JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN GOULD, THAT. IN .THE CW ZONE THE HEIGHT LIMIT BE.25' Failed WITH 5' ADDITIONAL ALLOWED FOR A PITCHED ROOF. COUNCILMAN KASPER-MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE HEIGHT .LIMIT OF THE EXISTING -CODE -BE RETAINED FOR THE CW ZONE. A Amendment Failed ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD,.NAUGHTEN.,.AND GOETZ VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, AND GOULD VOTING YES,'AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER, ALLEN, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. MOTION: A'MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN:NAUGHTEN, THAT IN THE CW ZONE THE • Failed HEIGHT LIMIT BE 30' WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5' ALLOWED FOR A PITCHED -ROOF. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS.TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS, GOETZ, NAUGHTEN, AND.ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, KASPER, NORDQUIST, AND GOULD VOTING N.O. MOTION FAILED. MOTION: As a compromise, COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNC.ILMAN..GOULD, TO SET THE HEIGHT LIMIT AT 30' IN THE CW ZONE, WITH NO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE FOR PITCH. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE Amendment MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT UPON ADB REVIF.W.AND APPROVAL AN INCREASE OF 5' BEYOND Failed THE 30' MAXIMUM WOULD BE ALLOWED. Councilman Gould said he was against the ADB having the authority to increase the heights. He felt.the Council should set.parameters for them to work within, but that it is the Council's responsibility to make such a decision...A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING NO- THE MOTION.TO.AMEND FAILED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, 14ITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER, ALLEN, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO.. THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN-GOULD, THAT -IN -ALL CG ZONES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BE 100'.' This was discussed, and then THE.MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED THAT THERE BE A PROVISION THAT THE ADB COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE Withdrawn COUNCIL FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE.HEIGHT-.IN:ALL ZONES EXCEPT RS. COUNCILMAN KASPER SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. Councilman Gould said he would.have..to see all the criteria. Mr. Pearson referred him to Title 20 and to the variance criteria. After some discussion, THE MOTION AND THE SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. Mr. Pearson noted that there had .been several motions which included 5' additional for a pitched roof, and he asked if that was meant to incorporate.language in .the existing code calling for a 4 in 12 pitch, and he was told it did not... He said there is no such thing as.a flat roof and every roof has a slope or it would not drain so added height could.be.attained with a slight pitch. COUNCIL - MOTION: WOMAN JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE INCREASES ALLOWED FOR A PITCHED ROOF ARE Withdrawn STRICTLY FOR ROOF STRUCTURE ONLY, AND NOT WALL SPACE. Planning Consultant John LaTourel.le recommended 58 June 3, 1980 - continued • a pitch of less that 4 in 12 as he said the effect in a very long building would be to raise the entire building 5' otherwise. He then asked for some time to do -some calculating to determine a definite recommendation. A short recess was announced, AND THE MOTION AND -SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN-. Following the recess, Mr. LaTourelle recommended a pitch of not less. then 3 in 12. He explained the application of this provision to the higher.density apartment buildings and the commercial stRuctures which will be considerably larger buildings on the whole than the smaller residences. The reason he' recommended the shallower pitch is so the pitched roof can cover a.greater span and,the effect of reducing the angle of the pitch, and thereby increasing the span, will be to give a greater incentive for builders of large. buildings to use a pitched roof instead of a flat one. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT IN THE BUILDING HEIGHT MOTIONS MADE WHERE AN EXTRA 5' HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR A PITCHED ROOF THAT.LANGUAGE BE INCLUDED TO INDICATE THAT PITCHED ROOF MEANS 3 IN 12 PITCH OR GREATER. Mayor Harrison was opposed to that, saying.you could not call good archi-:; tecture 3 in 12 pitch --that it depends entirely on the building and what the architect wants -to do, and it would be false judgment in designing a building. A ROLL CALL.VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, GOULD, NAUGHTEN,.AND GOETZ VOTING YES,AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER, ALLEN, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. THE MOTION.CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE BALANCE OF THIS REVIEW TO THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION FAILED Failed FOR LACK OF A SECOND. The discussion went to setback provisions. Mayor Harrison stated that he favored what the Concerned Citizens'Committee and Councilman Gould had recommended regarding the RS-6 side setbacks --that they should remain at 5'. He said the RS-6 zones in town have alleys anyway so the rationale of extending the setback to 10' on one side to allow a vehicle to get around the building did not make sense. MOTION: The first action was regarding RS-20 setbacks. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT IN RS-20 THE SETBACKS BE 25' FRONT, 35' TOTAL FOR THE SIDE YARDS WITH A 10' MINIMUM, AND 25' REAR. MOTION CARRIED. • MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT IN RS-12 THE SETBACKS BE 25' FRONT, 10' SIDE, AND 25' REAR. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY,COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT.IN RSW-12 THE SETBACKS BE 15' FRONT, 10' SIDE, AND 35' REAR. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST, THAT IN RS-8 THE.SETBACKS BE 25' FRONT, 7 1/2' SIDE, AND 15' REAR. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT IN RS-6 THE.SETBACKS BE 20' FRONT, 5' * SIDE, AND 15' REAR. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED THAT IN RML THE.SETBACKS BE 15' FRONT, 10' SIDE, AND 15' REAR. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. After brief discussion, THE MOTION CARRIED. (MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT IN.RMH THE.SETBACKS BE 15' FRONT, 10' .SIDE, AND 15' REAR. Councilwoman Allen was opposed to that, saying if you have a difficult lot on which to build, if you say the sum of the setbacks are to be 60' with a 5' minimum, you allow for flexibility in siting the building on that difficult lot, but.the motion would not allow any leeway. Mr: Pearson called attention to the section in Title 20 providing.for adjustment of setbacks under certain conditions. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THAT IN RM-3 THE SETBACKS BE 25' FRONT, 10' Reconsi- SIDE, AND 15' REAR. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO. Councilwoman Allen called dered attention to parking problems_. Having voted.on the prevailing side, COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, MOTION: SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,.TO RECONSIDER THE.LAST MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Block explained that if the front setback*is increased to 25' and parking is not allowed in the front, there will be • too much restriction in that they won't be able to get enough parking on .the side. At the present time parking is allowed in the front setback, but under the new code:the Staff had recommended that MOTION: no parking be allowed in the front. COUNCILMAN-GOULD THEN MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE STAFF.'S RECOMMENDATION BE ADOPTED FOR RM-3, 15' FRONT.SETBACK, 15' SIDE SETBACK, AND 15' * REAR SETBACK.. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Kasper left at..this time,.11:20 p.m.) 'MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT IN.BN THE SETBACKS BE 20' FRONT, 0' SIDE, AND 0' REAR; BUT THAT 15' SIDE YARD SETBACKS BE REQUIRED FROM LOT LINES ADJACENT TO R ZONED PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT IN BC.THE SETBACKS BE 0' FRONT, 0' SIDE, AND 0' REAR, BUT THAT 15' SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS BE REQUIRED:FROM LOT LINES ADJACENT TO R ZONED PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. Regarding the CW zone, Mr. LaTourelle stated that.there is a substantial number of existingbuildings 9 � in that zone with 0 side yards, y and proposals should have maximum flexibility of providing access P 9 on each side.- He noted that the waterfront essentially is fully developed except for those buildings MOTION: which will be rehabilitated and they all have 0' setbacks. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT IN THE CW.ZONE.THE MINIMUM SETBACKS.BE 15' LANDWARD OF BULKHEADS FOR BUILDINGS AND 60'.LANDWARD OF BULKHEADS FOR.PARKING, BUT 15',FROM.LOT LINES ADJACENT TO R ZONED PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN JAECH VOTING NO. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT .I.N..THE. CG ZONE THE SETBACK REQUIRE- MENTS IN THE EXISTING CODE BE MAINTAINED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED -BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT,TITLE-I6.BE ACCEPTED AS CHANGED THIS Withdrawn EVENING AND INCORPORATING THE.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO SEPARATE THE BN.AND THE BC ZONES. Councilman *See correction, June 10, 1980 Minutes. June 3, 1980 - continued 1 r� L`J Nordquist noted that 16.30.010 C.-2.. lists group homes but eliminated language in the previous code Amendment which provides conditions. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY'COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST; TO ADD A SENTENCE TO 16.30.010 C.2.i. WITH.THE.ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE Amendment EXISTING CODE AND THAT THEY BE INCLUDED IN TITLE 20. COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED TO.AMEND THE MOTION FURTHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE NEW BC AND.BN.ZONES BE ACCEPTED BUT WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE BC ZONE:. ELIMINATE PARAGRAPH C FROM.16...50.000 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL USES AS' A SECONDARY USE TO*BUSINESS USES); ELIMINATE PARAGRAPH'3 FROM.16.50.020 B; AND ELIMINATE PARAGRAPH C FROM 16 3 0.030. Councilwoman Allen was opposed to.that amendment, saying she did not think density would .be increased that much. She felt,.that*.many times.in small businesses by allowing the people to live above the business it makes the difference of their keepi"ng or losing the business. She said there are people living above businesses now and it has not made that much -difference, but it makes the City more alive and safer. She did not feel it was necessary to remove that provision. Because there did not appear to be enough.general acceptance of the motion., COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN * WITHDREW HER MOTION, AS DID THE .SECOND. No further action was.taken on Title 16. MOTION: Failed SIX MONTHS'..REVIEW OF RESIDENT..IAL..PARKING.PERMITS AND ORDINANCE City C1er.k,1 rene Varney Moran had provided a written report indicating the parking permit system is working adequately. She said there had been a few complaints about paying the fee, and one refusal to pay, but most people involved had been cooperative. Councilwoman Goetz said she believed citizens should not have to pay a fee to park in front of their homes and.because the City.grew around them is no fault of theirs. She said she would like to see.the fees. deleted and just issue the permits. Greg Farrar, 133 4th Ave. N., #5,•complained.about the permits, saying they are meant to identify the eligible cars but the parking enforcement officers know which cars those are. He discussed the various people in his building who have or have not obtained.permits and he did calculations which indicated to him that the City was making.a large profit on the permits. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED TO ELIMINATE ALL FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS AND.TO.CONTINUE TO ISSUE THE PERMITS. MOTION FAILED FOR. -LACK OF A SECOND. There was,no further business.to.come before the Council,.and the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. f IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor June 10, 1980 - Work Meeting The regular meeting.of the Edmonds,City Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the.Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison,.Mayor Ray Gould Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Jo -Anne Jaech Jim.Adams., City Engineer Bill Kasper Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant John Nordquist, Mary. Lou Block, Planning Division.Mgr. Larry Naughten Richard Pearson; -Code Revision Proj. Mgr. Mary Goetz Art Housler, Finance'Director rMarlo Fost'e.r; .PoTfte--Chief Jack Weinz,.Fire Chief Gary McComas,.Fire Marshal Jim.Jessel,.Parks & Recreati-on Director Jim Murphy; City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Item (B) was removed from the Consent. Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO APPROVE'THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT -AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved,items on -the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll.call. (C) Adoption of Ordinance 2149,..increasing Utility Tax to 8.25%. (D) Approval of annual Boy Scout Chicken-Q at City Park. .(E) Rassage,:of.,Re§ol.ut..i.on.469., transferring $.13,920 from Council Contingency Fund to. General 'Fund for salary increases..authorized.under Ordinance 2137. APPROVAL:OF MINUTES OF JUNE 3. 1980 .. Item (B) on Consent Agendal A memo from the Deputy City C1erk.indicated that in the third,par.agraph on page 8 of the June 3, 1980 minutes, although Councilwoman,All,en did withdraw her -motion there was a roll call vote on'the second amendment to that motion. The.motion to amend,was made by Councilwoman Jaech and seconded by Councilman Naughten, and those were the only two yes votes, with the other Council members voting no *See correction, June 10, 1980 Minutes.