Loading...
02/06/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Tyler Fisher, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jason Tourtellot, Code Enforcement Officer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 1/30/01 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 30, 2001 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46229 THROUGH #46361 FOR THE WEEK OF 'Approve lain JANUARY 29, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,917.37 hecks (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KAREN K. DILLOW laims for ($693.95), AND LOVINA ERICKSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE [Damages ESTATE OF RUTH ERICKSON ($265,999.57) orth End axi License Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 1 (E) APPROVAL OF 2001 TAXI LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI it Service (F) APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH PUBLICSAFETYTESTING.COM FOR CIVIL ce`' SERVICE POLICE TESTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO ing SIGN Judge (G) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR JUDGE PRO TEMS WITH MICHAEL HALL, A. Pro Tern MARK VANDERVEEN, AND DOUGLAS FAIR AND .AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR Contracts TO SIGN 6 Ave. W (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ockery WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST ROCKERY SOIL ro ect NAIL WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT 3. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO CDC 17.30 AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.30 TO CLARIFY ence I THAT FENCE HEIGHT IS ONLY REGULATED WITHIN SETBACKS AND THAT HEIGHT IS eight i MEASURED FROM "FINISHED GRADE" INSTEAD OF "ORIGINAL GRADE." (CDC-2000- 106) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this amendment involves two changes to Section 17.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regarding fences. The first change involves fences outside the setback within the site, such as a fence around a tennis court, backstops, etc. The code currently requires a variance process to achieve the desired fence height; however, in many cases, it is difficult to justify the fence height using the variance criteria. The Planning Board concluded allowing a higher fence would be a reasonable provision as buildings within the site can be built to the height limit of the zone. Mr. Chave said the worse case scenario would be a 25-foot high fence within the building area of the lot but Planning Board and staff determined that would not be a usual occurrence. Planning Board and staff could find no difference between a 25-foot house (that would be allowed outside the setback) and a 25- foot fence. The second amendment is to define the height of a fence measured from finished grade rather than original grade. Mr. Chave pointed out many lots in the City were graded many years ago; when a homeowner wants to construct a fence, the finished grade at the time is more important than the original grade. He said there are situations throughout the City where the finished grade may be higher or lower than the original grade. However, the reason for the fence is not based on the original grade but the existing conditions. The Planning Board concluded this was a reasonable change to the code. Councilmember Orvis asked if this applied only to fences. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Orvis asked if there was a maximum percentage a building could occupy on a lot. Mr. Chave answered there was a lot coverage percentage. Councilmember Orvis observed in the worse case scenario, there could be a 25-foot fence across the entire setback. Mr. Chave agreed theoretically that could occur. Council President Earling referred to the December 13, 2000 Planning Board minutes which indicate fences close to rockeries and retaining walls were not part of this action. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment did not address rockeries, retaining walls and related structures, noting those would be reviewed by the Planning Board in the future. Council President Earling asked if the decision regarding fence heights would be altered based on information presented regarding rockeries or retaining walls. Mr. Chave responded that the Planning Board would consider how a 'rockery may alter the finished grade on a property and the minimum/maximum fence heights that may be allowed in relation to a rockery. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 2 Council President Earling preferred to delay a decision on this matter until all issues had been reviewed. Mr. Chave explainedstaff determined the proposed amendment could be treated as a separate issue because specific language regarding rockeries/retaining walls would control any general provisions regarding fences. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO POSTPONE THE MATTER BUT TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT. Mr. Chave suggested Council pose questions tonight to allow staff time to adequately research any concerns. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Petso stated she researched this issue to determine how high a fence could be and found a regulation in Bellevue that measured the height of the fence from the finished grade on the exterior of the fence and .did not allow construction of a berm on which to build a fence except under certain conditions. She asked if it would be possible for the City to utilize that method in its regulations. Code Enforcement Officer Jason Tourtellot answered only a 3-foot high fence was allowed on top of a berm. Councilmember Petso asked about measuring the height from the exterior side of the fence. Mr. Tourtellot answered that would be possible but the proposed amendment allowed more flexibility. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board public hearing was poorly attended and the print advertising the public hearings was too small. He agreed with the suggestion to delay a decision regarding fences until the Planning Board reviewed fences as they related to rockeries/retaining walls. Regarding the allowable fence height outside the setback area, he pointed out a house only occupied a portion, of the property and the proposed amendment could result in a 25-foot solid wall enclosing the property. He recommended the ordinance refer to a percentage or some restriction to prevent that. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented the Planning Department was making decisions regarding fences without input from field users. Elaine Yard,9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, stated she only learned of this public hearing at the last minute and was not aware of the proposed new language. She looked forward to a second hearing to allow more .public participation. She was not happy with what she had learned regarding the proposal. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder read the current regulations regarding fences on top of retaining walls, "when a retaining wall three feet or greater is contiguous to and below a proposed fence, the proposed fence may be constructed for the purposes of safety not greater than four feet above the top of the retaining wall or finished grade whichever is less without the necessity for a variance." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 3 Councilmember Orvis requested staff suggest alternatives to the height inside the setback area to prevent development of "forts" but allow flexibility for tennis court fences, etc. Councilmember Petso suggested utilizing the building permit requirements which was the approach used in the Bellevue code. Councilmember Davis asked about the maximum height of a rockery with a fence on top. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on the height of the rockery. The Planning Board will review those provisions to determine whether changes need to be made to the Code and still regulate fences appropriately. The only fence height issue in the proposed amendment this evening was measuring from finished grade rather than original grade. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE DATE AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ISSUED AN OPINION ON FENCES AND ROCKERIES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson requested staff comment on the notification process for the Planning Board public hearings and the Council public hearings. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board public hearings were advertised via legal notice as well as a display ad. He said the newspaper reduced the size of the display ad, but the Planning Board and staff agreed there was adequate notice provided due to duplicate noticing. He said public comment was provided at the majority of the Planning Board public hearings. City Clerk Sandy Chase stated the Council public hearings were posted a minimum of ten days in advance of the meeting at the library, post office, Public Safety building and City Hall. The legal notification is published in the Herald, the agenda is printed in the Herald on Monday, appears on the City's website, and is displayed on television. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD 1 21 NEW DEFINITIONS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 21 FOR rses&& bors TRELLISES AND ARBORS, SPECIFYING LIMITATIONS ON AREA AND HEIGHT. (CDC- bo 2000_106) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained staff and the Planning Board felt there was an oversight in the Code as it did not provide for trellis or arbor structures above the normal fence height. The proposed Code amendment would allow trellises and arbors to be constructed in the setback without a variance process. It is difficult to meet the variance standards for a trellis on a fence and a variance was not an appropriate process for accommodating those structures. He pointed out most other cities' codes have a provision for trellises or arbors in conjunction with a fence. In the proposed amendment, a trellis would be allowed up to 9 feet, the typical height of a trellis. The amendment required trellises to be a lattice structure above the fence height. He said the type of plantings on the trellis would not be regulated. Responding to questions of Councilmember Petso Mr. Chave explained a trellis which may be up to 9 feet, must be 50% open above the 6-foot fence height and was limited to 36 inches in width. A trellis wider than 36 inches would be considered an arbor, and arbors could not be larger than 120 square feet. The 120 square foot threshold for arbors was selected, as the code currently allows a 120 square foot accessory structure without a building permit. He said a trellis was limited to 36 inches wide and would be attached to the fence. Councilmember Davis asked if there was concern expressed at the Planning Board that although a trellis may initially be 50% open, the plantings may eliminate that. Mr. Chave responded the concern was with a structure that was completely opaque. He commented there were no regulations on the height of trees Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 4 that may be located near fences. Staff and the Planning Board agreed not to regulate plantings on trellises as that was part of property landscaping. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated most arbors were 8 feet in height. He questioned allowing a 9-foot trellis but an 8-foot arbor. He pointed out the proposed amendment did not require the 50% coverage continuously. The City regulated hedges and fences at 6-feet; however, allowing plantings on a trellis up to 9-feet in height could result in supported foliage blocking views up to 9-feet. Council President Earling pointed out the Code would allow a homeowner to plant trees on either side of the entry to their property which could grow to 15 feet and grow together over the opening. Mr. Hertrich commented a fence could .encompass the entire property. He said if a row of trees grew together, it would constitute a hedge. Al Cohen, 330 Dayton Street, Edmonds, recommended the ordinance be lenient and liberal to allow creativity in, design so not all arbors looked alike. The terminology in the ordinance was vague and needed to be clarified. It addressed a trellis on top of a fence but not whether it could be a trellis without a fence or whether there could be a hedge below the trellis. He questioned the reference to a horizontal element in the trellis description, and questioned whether the maximum length of 3-feet was perpendicular or parallel to the fence. If parallel to the fence, was the intent for 3-foot segments with a horizontal element .and how far apart were the sections required to be. He also questioned how to calculate lot coverage for a trellis. The 120 square foot definition for an arbor seemed to refer to a gazebo which is regulated by detached accessory structure provisions. He recommended clear-cut definitions be provided such as the .definition of lattice to prevent determinations being made by the Hearing Examiner. He agreed the 8-foot height limit for an arbor was low, as 7-foot clearance was required to walk under it, leaving only 1-foot for the structure above, and recommended the arbor height be increased to 9 feet and trellises reduced to 8 feet. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said this was a park maintenance issue. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked if staff wanted an opportunity to tighten up the definition of horizontal element and lattice. Mr. Chave agreed it would be appropriate to clarify that a trellis could stand independent of a fence although that would be how staff would currently interpret the proposed language. He supported the provision,.that included arbors in lot coverage area, commenting a trellis would not be considered to be part of lot coverage. He said trellises are available in kits and the typical height is 9 feet. Arbors tend to be more substantial structures and custom designed; staff would support increasing the arbor height to 9 feet if that was the Council's desire. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a resident could use a trellis to enclose their entire backyard. Mr. Chave answered no, the width of a trellis was specified. Trellises erected adjacent to each other without separation would be interpreted as a fence. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with a resident using trellises to increase their fence height. Mr. Chave responded that staff could add a restriction on the number of trellises per street frontage and/or establish a spacing requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 5 City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Planning Board has asked that their recommendations be forwarded to the Council without alteration by staff. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the proposed language indicates a trellis is allowed up to 9 feet and an arbor up to 8 feet; however, the November 15, 2000 Planning Board minutes indicated arbors and trellises were generally 7'/2 - 9 feet in height and based on that information staff understood the Planning Board's direction to be a 9-foot height limit. Mayor Haakenson asked how the 8-foot height limit for arbors was determined. Mr. Chave recalled when the Planning Board discussed trellises and arbors together, they discussed 9 feet. When the ordinance language was returned to the Planning Board at the public hearing, the trellis height was changed to 9 feet but the arbor height was not changed. The Planning Board did not request this be adjusted. Councilmember Davis asked if a 9-foot high fence could be achieved via a trellis along the top. Mr. Chave answered there was currently no limit on the number of trellises or the spacing between the trellises. Development Services Director Duane Bowman said the language in the code needed to be clarified if debate was occurring over the intent. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW STAFF TO AMEND THE WORDING. Council President Earling recommended Council provide staff with direction regarding amendments they would like made. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING WITHDREW HIS SECOND, MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett recommended staff draft separation language (distance between trellises) to prevent a resident from constructing a 9-foot high fence. Councilmember Davis noted one sentence in the ordinance appeared to indicate a 3-foot trellis could be added to a 6-foot fence resulting in a 9-foot fence. He felt this was ambiguous and needed to be better defined. Councilmember Marin suggested increasing the height of arbors to 9 feet. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE THE CHANGES COUNCIL PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CDC 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO 18.95.030 AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.95.030 TO ALLOW Tandem TANDEM (END -TO -END) PARKING FOR ONE PARKING SPACE ON A SINGLE FAMILY Parking LOT. (CDC-2000-106) Planning Manager Rob Chave reported at the time of the accessory dwelling unit discussions last year, staff believed if the number of parking spaces required for an accessory dwelling unit were increased to three, the parking space in front of a 2-car garage (tandem space) could be used to satisfy the parking requirement. When staff discovered the engineering section of the code prohibited tandem parking, the concept of tandem parking was referred to the Planning Board for consideration. There is currently a requirement for one parking space per single family residence; that requirement increases to three with the addition of an accessory dwelling unit. The proposal would allow a third parking space to be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 6 designated in a driveway to park one car in a tandem manner, provided the driveway was large enough to meet the space requirements. Allowing tandem parking was seen as a reasonable way of providing additional off-street parking while minimizing impervious surface. Councilmember Davis expressed concern that although tandem parking would be provided, it may not be used and residents would park in the street. He asked if this was just a way to accommodate accessory dwelling units. Mr. Chave commented the City could require that a resident provide adequate space for parking but could not control whether they used the space. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, questioned if tandem parking was illegal, could a resident be ticketed or fined for parking behind their closed garage door. She asked if this violated a property owner's constitutional rights to use their land as they saw fit. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented tandem parking often results in the car designated to park in the tandem space actually parking on the street. On -street parking may not be a problem in single family residential areas but could be if tandem parking were proposed to meet parking requirements for multi -family development, a concept he felt would be the next step. He said the ordinance should include a provision for setback from the street or sidewalk and the ability to provide safe access to the street. He asked if a resident would be prevented from establishing an accessory dwelling unit if they did not have adequate space in their driveway to park a third vehicle. He commented that the discussion regarding increasing the parking requirement for single family development to two spaces per lot should occur prior to establishing a provision for tandem parking. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented some single family homes have numerous occupants who park on the street. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Ms. Yard's comments, City Attorney Scott Snyder said this was a development requirement regarding how space was to be provided at the time of construction, not a restriction on use of property. Regarding Mr. Hertrich's concerns, he explained the Engineering Department would review and approve any curb cuts, parking requirements and safety of required parking spaces. Councilmember Petso asked how this impacted establishment of an accessory dwelling unit in an existing residence. Mr. Chave answered an accessory dwelling unit required the availability of three parking spaces. Mr. Snyder clarified the development requirement would be applied at the time of construction or issuance of a permit. Councilmember Petso stated she supported accessory dwelling units because adequate parking would be provided but now it appears the parking requirements were being adjusted to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be established without actually providing additional parking. Mr. Chave responded that the parking spaces were still being required but one would be allowed to be a tandem parking space. Councilmember Petso commented it was highly unlikely the tandem space would be used and the vehicle would likely be parking on the street. Mr. Chave disagreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 7 Councilmember Davis assumed the vehicle parked in the tandem space could not block the sidewalk or street. Mr. Chave said that would be a typical 6iteria for'review."� Councilmember Davis asked if there was a proposal being made to require two parking spaces per lot for single family development and allowing one to be a tandem space. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board was considering criteria for residential parking in general, multi -family and single family. Some of the national information shared with the Planning Board indicated virtually all parking ordinances require two spaces for single family development. If two parking spaces per lot were required, allowing tandem parking would make it easier for existing single family homes to meet the requirement to avoid becoming non -conforming. He said it would potentially be more important to have a tandem parking provision if the single family parking standards were changed. He stated it was appropriate to allow tandem parking at this time for residents with accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Davis observed the tandem parking was being proposed to address accessory dwelling unit parking requirements. Mr. Chave agreed, commenting it also addressed the interest not to increase impervious surface beyond a reasonable level. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.3344. Councilmember Petso expressed concern that residents would be allowed to establish an accessory dwelling unit without adequate parking for the people who would occupy the unit. She planned to vote against this amendment as she did not view tandem parking as the solution. Councilmember Davis agreed that this was an accommodation for allowing accessory dwelling units, letting them be established without meeting the parking requirements. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 4-2; Council President Earling and Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis and Marin voted in favor; Councilmembers Davis and Petso were Ord ##3344 opposed.) The ordinance reads as follows: Amend CDC ORDINANCE NO. 3344 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY 18.95.030 DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 18.95.030 TANDEM PARKING PROHIBITED TO EXEMPT Tandem ONE TANDEM SPACE IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY Parking CDC 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO 0.15A.280 DELETE THE REFERENCE IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION Delete 20.15A.280 TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP IN ORDER TO REMOVE Referenceto Enviviron-THE REOUIREMENTS FOR DOING A SEPA CHECKLIST FOR LANDS ALREADY mentally REGULATED BY THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. (CDC-2000-106) Sensitive JAreas Map Planning Manager Rob Chave explained currently a State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) checklist must be completed if a property was within or located touching an area on the Sensitive Areas Map. In recent years, the Critical Areas Ordinance has been adopted that regulates these sensitive areas. In reviewing the history of SEPA and critical areas, staff realized a redundant review is occurring for these areas by requiring completion of the SEPA checklist. The proposed amendment acknowledges the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance and that SEPA review is unnecessary and redundant for sensitive areas. He said SEPA will still be done for projects that exceed the threshold, for example, most multi -family and commercial projects. The proposed amendment will allow a fence in a sensitive area to be reviewed under the Critical Areas Ordinance. He said the intent was to remove red tape and redundancy, thereby simplifying the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 8 Councilmember Petso asked if the SEPA Checklist regulated anything that the Critical Areas Ordinance did not. Mr. Chave answered no, not with regard to sensitive areas. He said staff reviewed recent SEPA determinations which invariably referred to the requirement for a Critical Areas review and established no additional conditions beyond the Critical Areas process. Councilmember Petso emphasized the public was not losing any protection by eliminating this requirement. Mr. Chave agreed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no public comment, he closed the public participation portion. Ord #3345 Amend CDC COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR 0.15A.280 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3345. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance Delete approved is as follows: Reference to nviron- ORDINANCE NO. 3345 AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE mentally Sensitive BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 20.15A.280 IN ORDER TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE v Areas Map ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP ECDC 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO 1.55.050 CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS OF LOT WIDTH IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t width CODE SECTION 21.55.050 TO APPLY THE CONCEPT OF "LOT WIDTH CIRCLES." LOT Circles WIDTH IDENTIFIES THE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF A LOT WIDTH CIRCLE THAT MUST FIT WITHIN A LOT AND EXCLUDES CERTAIN STREAMS OR WETLAND FROM THE DEFINITION OF LOT WIDTH. (CDC-2000-106) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the concept of lot width circles was applied in other cities in the region. Staff determined this concept would make the process simpler and easier to understand. He explained lot width could be difficult to measure on irregularly shaped lots. The lot width circle was an easy to understand, easy to apply method of demonstrating that a lot met its minimum lot requirement. He noted there was an exception that the lot width circle could not overlap a critical area as the lot width was used to identify a buildable area. This would avoid dividing lots during the subdivision stage, and later determining there was not adequate buildable area on the lot. Councilmember Petso asked if there were any requirements regarding minimum lot depth. Mr. Chave answered no, there were requirements for minimum total lot size, lot width and setbacks. Councilmember Petso asked if this would impact lot size or setbacks. Mr. Chave answered no. Councilmember Davis asked whether an applicant could apply for a variance if a lot width circle requirement could not be met. Mr. Chave answered yes. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out as the City develops via infill development, many lots being created have critical areas on them. Mr. Chave added most short subdivisions being developed today have interesting shapes because of the need to contort the lots in order to subdivide. The proposed lot width circle would ensure they were reasonably shaped lots. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he preferred the property line setbacks and setbacks from wetlands be used to determine whether a lot was large enough rather than utilizing the lot width circle. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 9 Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commented there were a number of irregular lots in Edmonds that needed to be reviewed on the basis of total lot area and not whether a lot width circle fit on the lot. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Marin commented that having spent a few years as a building contractor, he was skeptical of this proposal when he first reviewed it. After hearing a further explanation, he supported the concept. He said the existing calculation is very cumbersome and eliminated possibilities but the proposal for lot width circles increased possibilities. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, Ord #3346 THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3346. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 5-1, Amend with Councilmember Petso opposed.) The ordinance approved is as follows: ECDC 1.55.050 t width ORDINANCE NO 3346 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY Circles DEVELOPMENT CODE 21.55.050 LOT WIDTH TO INCORPORATE THE CONCEPT OF "LOT WIDTH CIRCLES" CDC 17.7o 8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO Temporary AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.70 TO PROVIDE Real Estate FOR TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICES AND SALES MODELS FOR MULTI -FAMILY Offices and Sales PROJECTS. (CDC-2000-106) dels Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Code did not currently have provisions that addressed the temporary establishment of a real estate office and/or sales model for multi -family projects. The proposal defines an office and sales model and requires it be discontinued/removed prior to occupancy of the last unit. This permit is a staff decision and no notice is required as it takes place within the project and would not have any impact on surrounding neighbors. Councilmember Davis asked if this had been a problem in the past. Mr. Chave said there have been requests in the past that have had to be denied. A more recent request prompted review by the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, referred to her earlier comment about the lack of information regarding the public hearings. She was not aware of the content of the amendment to the code and said the 48 hours notice of the public hearing was not sufficient. She recommended the two realtors on the Council recuse themselves from the decision. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Earling asked if there was any reason for the two realtors on the Council to recuse themselves from what he understood to be better policing of the management of onsite real estate offices. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered no, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was the only rule that may be applicable and it did not apply to general legislative decisions of the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 10 Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to respond to Ms. Yard's comment regarding 48 hours notice. City Clerk Sandy Chase responded that Ms. Yard was referring to the availability of the agenda on cable. She explained the Council agenda was not finalized until Friday and was provided to the cable company that morning. Hopefully it is displayed beginning Friday but may not be until Monday. She also indicated notice of tonight's public hearings were posted two weeks in advance and the hearings were advertised two weeks in advance. Ord #3347 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR ECDC 17.70 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3347. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance Temporary approved is as follows: Real Estate Offices and ORDINANCE NO. 3347 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY Sales DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TEMPORARY USES TO ADD A NEW SECTION Models 17.70.005 PROJECT SALES OFFICES/MODELS 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Sound Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to an article in The Edmonds Paper Transit regarding Council President Earling's support of light rail. He described a Sound Transit meeting he attended and his disappointment that audience members were only allowed to speak for 1'/z minutes. He was concerned some members arrived late to the meeting and many were leaving for Washington DC that evening. CxPAC Jack Bevan, 19210 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, asked whether the 3CH PAC Committee had made a ommittee proposal to the Council. He also asked when and where the committee met and whether minutes were available. Councilmember Plunkett answered the City Convention Center, Hotel and Performing Arts Committee (3CH PAC) had completed its initial work. The meetings were public and minutes kept. A draft report of the committee's work will be presented to the Council on February 20. Mr. Bevan asked if the report included the net cost to taxpayers. Councilmember Plunkett said the report was a recommendation for the Council to consider the ramifications of a City Convention Center/Hotel/Performing Arts Center. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the report would be available to the public on Friday, February 16. Marina Park Responding to further questions of Mr. Bevan, Mayor Haakenson advised the Marina Park property was [Property owned by Union Oil. He invited Mr. Bevan to contact him to discuss this further. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with people driving around the Barriers railroad barriers. He recommended the barrier be modified so that it completely covered both lanes at the intersection of Dayton and Railroad Avenue. Mayor Haakenson noted the Burlington Northern gates were malfunctioning today. Mr. Hertrich commented people may think the gates are malfunctioning and going around the barriers could become a habit. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 11 VncCouncil President Earling advised the Council retreat agenda was provided to the Council tonight. The retreat will be held in the Great Room beginning at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, February 9 and 8:30 on Saturday, February 10. Councilmember Plunkett commented for a number of years, the Council went to Skagit County for its retreat. A decision was then made to hold the retreat in the City; one of the reasons was to allow citizens to participate. He suggested residents obtain a copy of the agenda and come to the retreat when the items they were interested in were being discussed. Councilmember Marin reported he participates on a Technical Advisory Committee for the train station Train Station development and the art subcommittee of that committee. An aesthetics intent document has been Develop- produced listing things that the committee would like to have included in the station. The list has been ent provided to the contractor doing the station design and four artists have been invited to make presentations. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments, Councilmember Marin said the train station project will include full coverage for that crossing. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. GAY­HAJE!,iSbN, 0 r SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 12 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL 0,Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 -10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 6, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING 6:45 P.M. — EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER 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 JANUARY 30, 2001 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46229 THROUGH #46361 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 29, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,917.37 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KAREN K. DILLOW ($693.95), AND LOVINA ERICKSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH D. ERICKSON ($265,999.57) (E) APPROVAL OF 2001 TAXI LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI (F) APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH PUBLICSAFETYTESTING.COM FOR CIVIL SERVICE POLICE TESTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN (G) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR JUDGE PRO TEMS WITH MICHAEL HALL, A. MARK VANDERVEEN, AND DOUGLAS FAIR AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE 76T" AVENUE WEST ROCKERY SOIL NAIL WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT 3. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.30 TO CLARIFY THAT FENCE HEIGHT IS ONLY REGULATED WITHIN SETBACKS AND THAT HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM "FINISHED GRADE" INSTEAD OF "ORIGINAL GRADE." (CDC-2000-106) 4. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 21 FOR TRELLISES AND ARBORS, SPECIFYING LIMITATIONS ON AREA AND HEIGHT. (CDC-2000-106) 5. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.95.030 TO ALLOW TANDEM (END -TO - END) PARKING FOR ONE PARKING SPACE ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. (CDC-2000-106) 6. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO DELETE THE REFERENCE IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.15A.280 TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DOING A SEPA CHECKLIST FOR LANDS ALREADY REGULATED BY THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. (CDC-2000-106) Page 1 of 2 E CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 6, 2001 Page 2 of 2 7. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS OF LOT WIDTH IN EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 21.55.050 TO APPLY THE CONCEPT OF "LOT WIDTH CIRCLES." LOT WIDTH IDENTIFIES THE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF A LOT WIDTH CIRCLE THAT MUST FIT WITHIN A LOT AND EXCLUDES CERTAIN STREAMS OR WETLANDS FROM THE DEFINITION OF LOT WIDTH. (CDC-2000-106) 8. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.70 TO PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SALES OFFICES AND SALES MODELS FOR MULTI -FAMILY PROJECTS. (CDC-2000- 106) 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 10. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 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 and delayed telecast of the Council meetings appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.