Laserfiche WebLink
62 <br />June 10, 1980 - continued <br />• <br />MOTION: <br />beer and wine for consumption off premises. The location is within 500' of a church at 4th and <br />Bell, but a letter.was received from the church indicating no objection. The applicant was Mark A. <br />Pizzitola who is the director of the local Medic 7-and who has resided here for one year. Police <br />Chief Foster recommended approval of the applicant and the location. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, <br />SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD BE ADVISED THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS <br />HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE SUBJECT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was <br />announced, during which Councilman Nordquist left (9:30 p.m.). <br />CONTINUED COUNCIL REVIEW OF'SECTION 21:OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE <br />Code Revision Project Manager Richard Pearson recalled for the Council that at the last meeting he <br />had gone through the Staff recommended changes for definitions and there also were some comments <br />from the Concerned Citizens Committee which he had discussed. He then briefly reviewed the previous <br />MOTION: discussion. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO ACCEPT TITLE 21 WITH THE <br />CHANGES DISCUSSED. MOTION CARRIED. <br />HEARING ON SECTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE <br />Mr. Pearson noted that parking requirements are included in Title 17 and there had been some con- <br />cerns.raised about the effect on the downtown area of the recommended.changes because a number of <br />parking requirements for commercial or office development would be.increased. Mr. Pearson said his <br />recommendation now was to defer action on,the proposed changes, for study by the Planning Advisory <br />Board, because the recommended changes would result in significant policy changes as. to how.much of <br />the downtown area should be paved and to use of the in -lieu parking fee concept. He noted that the <br />Chamber of Commerce currently is studying the parking problem also. Regarding Title 18, he said <br />there were some obsolete.sections which were being deleted. Major revisions are in the drainage <br />area. It was proposed that the criterion of 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious paving in the definition of <br />"development" be changed to 2,000 sq. ft. and that standard sets of engineered plans would be <br />established.for development permits. Street width requirements would be reduced. The .Planning <br />Commission asked that the requirement be retained for grading permits for over 500 cu. yds. In <br />Title 19 there are few changes mostly contains codes that are adopted by reference. <br />Following this introduction, the hearing was opened to the public. <br />Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W. asked several questions on specific items in Title 17 to which Mr. <br />Pearson responded.. Mr. Martin also made comments on behalf of Roger Hertrich who was not present. <br />Those comments do with parking requirements, suggesting that in -lieu parking fees be paid <br />unless off-street parking is provided within 1,000'--rather than 100', and that some of the area <br />requirements for parking stalls be reduced. Bob Morrison, 250 Beach P1., asked what happens to the <br />in -lieu parking fees which are paid.. Mayor Harrison responded that there is a parking fund and <br />the money goes into the fund to purchase parking lot properties at the Council's discretion. The <br />fund has not yet been used but now amounts to $25,000. Bert Stole, 8704 182nd P1. S:W.,'said the <br />parking problem needs a lot of study. He was prepared to discuss that but inasmuch as it appeared <br />the Planning Advisory Board would be studying it, he made no further comment. Mr. Pearson said he <br />was recommending that the current standards be kept and that the study be conducted. Natalie Shippen, <br />1022 Euclid, suggested the use of revenue bonds to provide parking, rather than waiting for the in - <br />lieu parking fund to grow. She also felt joint -use parking would work in those areas where there is <br />joint business and residential use. She asked several questions which were answered by Mr. Pearson. <br />She also noted that the major and secondary arterial plan being adopted is very much out of date. <br />Laura Hall, 1140 Edmonds St., suggested energy be taken into consideration because it <br />would affect zoning laws and building codes. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of <br />the hearing was closed. Council review of these sections is scheduled for June 24, 1980. COUNCIL - <br />MOTION: WOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO PLACE A HEARING ON TITLE 20 ON THE EXTENDED <br />AGENDA FOR JULY 1, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. <br />Councilman Naughten noted that Planning Consultant John LaTourelle had provided a memo in which he <br />retracted his recommendation made last week that a limit be set of not less than 3" in 12" pitch for <br />roof requirements. He agreed with the Mayor that this would be impractical and unsuitable for roof <br />construction, and he felt the roof design should be left to building designers. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN <br />MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO.DELETE ANY SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROOF PITCH AND LEAVE THE <br />DESIGN TO THE BUILDER. Councilwoman Jaech asked if the roof would still be contained within the 5' <br />allowance and she was told it would. THE MOTION CARRIED. <br />There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to.Executive <br />Session at 10:45 p.m. <br />72W. V_V1 <br />IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor <br />June 16, 1980 - Special Meeting (Monday) <br />A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve <br />Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag <br />salute. <br />F_� <br />L <br />u <br />L <br />1 <br />0 <br />1 <br />fl <br />0 <br />