Loading...
08/28/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 28, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Council President Pro Tem (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Change to COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADD Agenda "NOTICE AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE NO. 22-002684" AS AGENDA ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Pro Tem Plunkett was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Pro Tem Plunkett was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Pro Tem Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 8/21/01 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001. Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #50190 THROUGH 950303 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim AUGUST 20, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $285,835.50. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL Checks DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #2828 THROUGH #2996 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $826,381.63. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 1 J Res# 1007 A oint nt to (D) RESOLUTION NO. 1007 APPOINTING AN AGENT OF THE CITY TO RECEIVE eive CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES MADE PURSUANT TO RCW 4.96.020 ms for ages 3A. NOTICE AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE NO. 22-002684 Approve City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that due to a miscommunication, this item was not included in the Notice and Council packet. This action was part of the purchase of the Marina Beach and was the City's assumption Consent to of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lease of tidelands that provides the City with control of Assignment o the tidelands adjacent to Marina Beach as art of the purchase. There are no financial obligations of Lease No. � p p g 2-002684 attached to the lease short term but all State DNR leases include an indemnification clause, which holds the State harmless. Although this is a standard provision, because it extends beyond the current budget year, Council approval is required. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE NO. 22-00264. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Surplus 3. INFORMATION REGARDING CITY SURPLUS PROPERTY FILL LOCATED ON MAIN Property Fill STREET NEAR 86TH AVENUE WEST n Main St. Near 86 h Ave. west Public Works Director Noel Miller explained Mayor Haakenson requested staff provide information regarding the use of this property which was declared surplus earlier this month. The property, located along Main Street near 86th Avenue West, is Site #2 as presented to the Council on August 7. Mr. Miller explained for at least 25 years, the Public Works Department has utilized this property for storage of clean fill for various projects. Research of City records indicates a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the City's Hearing Examiner on September 18, 1981, to temporarily store up to 10,000 cubic yards of fill material on this site. At the present time, the Public Works Department has a need to stockpile this fill for backfill on utility or street projects, particularly in the slight event of emergency repairs for roadway washouts and unexpected pipeline failures. Mr. Miller explained the City has had less and less use of the site and determined the property was too valuable for use as a stockpile site. He explained all the material on the site was acquired from private developers and a Port of Edmonds project at no cost to the City. The material on the site is clean, granular fill; developers with too much material on their sites were allowed to dump clean fill on the City's site. Mr. Miller inquired with current and former staff members regarding any dumping of irregular materials, street sweeping debris, or other waste material and there was no indication this had occurred. The amount of fill currently on the site is estimated to be 6,000 — 8,000 yards; some of the material could be used to extend the Pioneer right-of-way to provide emergency access from Shell Valley as well as a bikeway route. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett recalled it was suggested at a previous Council meeting that the City had a responsibility to perform an inspection of the property in preparation for listing it for sale. He asked whether there was any reason a buyer could not perform the due diligence prior to purchasing the property. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a buyer could perform the due diligence. He explained the City received a claim approximately a year ago regarding street sweepings and at that time an investigation began regarding where street sweepings had been dumped in the past. The practice of dumping street sweepings ceased in 1991 and they are now sent to a regional landfill. The City's investigation indicates street sweepings have been below the level that would trigger any contamination claim; a no action letter from the Department of Ecology has been issued regarding one site. The testing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 2 done on that site cost approximately $5,000 — $7,000. As there is no indication there are any street sweepings or any other problematic dumpings on the site, it appears to be an inappropriate expenditure for the City and any purchaser could conduct an investigation themselves. Councilmember Petso asked whether the permit for temporary storage would require that the City remove the material. Mr. Miller answered the purchase offer was for an as -is offer on the site and the City would not be required to remove the material. Res# 1008 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1008 WHICH SPONSORS THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SNOHOMISH Sponsor COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION (COMMUNITY Community TRANSIT) TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AWC EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST Transit Employees to Partici- Mayor Pro Tem Earling explained the City received a letter from Community Transit requesting the City pate in AWC act as their sponsor so that their employees could participate in the Association of Washington Cities EmployBenefit ees (AWC) Employees Benefit Trust. Mayor Pro Tem Earling said this would be a good thing for the City to rust do as the City has eight regional routes, eight local routes and several vanpools serving the City as well as other transportation improvements in the City. Mayor Pro Tem Earling indicated there was no financial impact to the City; it was simply a sponsor. Jim Turpie, Community Transit Director of Administration, thanked the City for considering the resolution. He reiterated there was no financial obligation other than stating the services Community Transit provides are services that would otherwise be provided by the City (a requirement for membership in the AWC Employees Benefit Trust). He said it was mutually beneficial — the more employees in the Benefit Trust, the more leverage the Trust had for gaining the best health insurance rates for employees. He urged the Council to consider sponsoring Community Transit. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1008, SPONSORING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION (COMMUNITY TRANSIT) TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES (AWC) EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planned 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND Residential EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.35 (PLANNED Develop- ments RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) AND TITLE 21 (DEFINITIONS), PROVIDING FOR NEW PURPOSES, STANDARDS, CRITERIA, AND A REVISED REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPROVING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (File No. CDC-2000-132) Mayor Pro Tem Earling described the process for the public hearing and explained the Council did not have to take action on the ordinance tonight other than holding the public hearing. Development Services Director Duane Bowman recognized the work done by the Planning Board and Planning Staff to develop the proposed revision to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) regulations, particularly Senior Planner Steve Bullock. Mr. Bowman explained the proposed revisions to the PRD regulations have been under review for over 3'/2 years. There have been 22 work sessions with the Planning Board and two public hearings. All work sessions and public hearings were advertised according to City codes and a display ad was purchased for the June Planning Board public hearing to encourage more public participation. Mr. Bowman explained with the adoption of the Growth Management Act, the State mandated that cities plan for and take on additional population growth and focus development in established urban areas. For Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 3 Edmonds, this has meant more infill type development. The proposed PRD regulations are a good start at addressing the needed changes in PRD regulations as good- PRD, regulations give the City a tool for addressing infill development as well as addressing environmentally sensitive properties. Senior Planner Steve Bullock directed the Council's attention to Section 20.35.010 Purposes, explaining the ideas/concepts discussed in this section have driven all other provisions/standards throughout the ordinance. If the Council was in agreement with the concepts in the Purposes section, no major rewrite would be required other than minor fine-tuning. If the Council had concerns with the Purposes, there may need to be additional review and revision to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bullock referred to Purpose M, which implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan, explaining the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan followed a process from 1991 through 1995 that included numerous public workshops and public hearings. The Comprehensive Plan was the framework for the development regulations in the City Code. Three alternatives were considered in the development of the Comprehensive Plan: 1) existing trends — how the City would accommodate population growth, 2) expanded capacity — potentially increasing zoning densities in some areas to accommodate the largest amount of growth possible, and 3) designed infill — anticipate population increases that would occur and allow it to occur in a manner that fit the community (this was the approach ultimately adopted in the Comprehensive Plan). There were numerous goals and policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan such as State goals, residential development goals, housing goals, etc., that discusses the City providing a range of housing types, provide a range of housing values and specifically identifies PRDs as a method of requiring infill development be designed into the character of the community. Mr. Bullock referred to Purposes A, H, and J that address flexible design. He explained one of the goals of the PRD chapter was to give applicants the ability to compress their development, to have smaller lot sizes, reduced setbacks, reduced street standards, and potentially attached units in certain circumstances, with the desired result being a reduction in impervious surface, more open space, potentially smaller homes, and potentially more affordable housing. Mr. Bullock explained another major propose of PRDs is development of open space. He displayed an aerial photograph identifying a PRD approved in the late 1970/1980's, Eagles Nest, and identified the significant area of vegetation on the northeast side. The homes in Eagles Nest were located close to the top of the hill, close to the roadway and close together. By compressing the houses, the developer was able to provide the large native growth protection area, a significant benefit to the community. Mr. Bullock referred to Purposes D, E, and F that address how a PRD can be sensitive to its surroundings including architecturally. He explained via the PRD process, the City could ensure the buildings were consistent with the neighborhood whether it was multifamily or single family. He explained even if attached units were considered in a single family zone, the City could require the attached units have the character, flavor, and look of single family development. Another method of being sensitive to the surroundings was via the proposed uses; ensuring the yards, access points, open spaces, playgrounds, etc. proposed as part of the development were not in conflict with existing neighbors or public improvements. Mr. Bullock referred to Purposes C and K which address efficient development including encouraging different elements of the development to serve multiple functions. This will result in lower development and maintenance costs and can ultimately result in more affordable housing and reduction in impervious surface. This addresses not only the ESA but also State, County and City goals addressed in the Comprehensive Plan for housing and affordable housing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Bullock referred to Purpose B, which addresses multiple housing types. He displayed a photograph of different housing types that exist in the City, from large homes on large lots to smaller lots including single family homes with grounds maintained by the homeowner's association to multiunit buildings in a multifamily zone. He pointed out a PRD could occur in single family or multifamily zones. Mr. Bullock explained purposes G and K address affordable housing and the range of housing types. Mr. Bullock stated another reason for considering a rewrite of the current PRD ordinance was that the current ordinance required staff to refer to various sections to articulate to an applicant what a PRD can be used for, what standards can be modified, the criteria to obtain approval for a PRD, etc.. This process is often confusing for the applicant as well as staff and may lead to applicants questioning whether the process would be beneficial to pursue. The proposed ordinance is a more rational and sequential approach; the ordinance begins with purposes and intent, applicability, standards that can be proposed to be modified, what criteria must be met to modify standards, and what criteria must be met to get a PRD approved. The proposed ordinance attempts to clarify on what type of projects the PRD can be used — for any multiunit or multi -lot project. Standards that can be modified include setbacks, lot area, lot coverage, etc. Mr. Bullock explained the process was the second biggest issue that prevents the PRD from being used in its current form. An applicant must go to the Architectural Design Board, the City's Hearing Examiner who holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation and forwards the application to the City Council who makes a decision on the preliminary PRD approval. Then the applicant must go through the process for obtaining final approval. Mr. Bullock explained the proposed ordinance attempts to make the PRD a straightforward process and is consistent with other applications an applicant will submit along with the PRD. He explained a PRD typically would be applied for along with a subdivision (formal plat or short plat) or applied for in conjunction with design review for a multifamily project. For preliminary PRD approval, the Hearing Examiner would hold a public hearing and issue a decision. When the applicant returns for final approval (essentially a compliance check to ensure the project complies with the conditions outlined in the preliminary approval), it would be reviewed under the final approval process required by the underlying consolidated permit application. For example, if the PRD was applied for along with a formal plat, final approval would be considered by the City Council. In the case of a short plat, City staff approves the final short plat and would also approve the final PRD. Mr. Bullock recalled one of the concerns raised during the August 7 Council work session was density. He explained under the current ordinance, an applicant develops a potential site plan, determines the amount of property dedicated to roads and subtracts that area from the gross area to determine a net lot area. The net lot area is then divided by the underlying minimum lot size. He displayed a sketch of two examples of site plans for the same parcel, the first with a roadway serving seven lots; by subtracting the amount of property dedicated to the roadway and dividing by the minimum lot size, the developer was able to create seven lots. The second example did not have a single roadway and the lots were accessed by surrounding streets or shared driveways. Although the shared driveway would be subtracted from the gross lot area, this is a smaller amount and the developer would be able to create eight lots resulting in a design that is less desirable than the first example. The proposed ordinance would "level the playing field" regardless of the design by allowing the developer to divide the gross lot area by the minimum lot size to determine the number of potential lots. He noted an applicant would still be required to meet the PRD criteria and may be required to reduce the number of lots to demonstrate public benefit, etc. Mr. Bullock addressed the second concern expressed by the Council, attached units for lots with significant amounts of critical area. He displayed a photograph of an undesirable duplex design Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 5 (rectangular building with no interesting features), explaining the only situation where attached units were proposed to be allowed were on lots significantly impacted by critical areas (wetlands, steep slopes, streams, etc.). On lots with 25% or more dedicated to critical areas, in order to prevent the applicant from experiencing diminished lot value, the applicant may be allowed to have attached units if the units could be designed to fit into the neighborhood. He displayed a photograph of a desirable duplex design, explaining staff was confident design standards/criteria could be developed that would ensure attached units in single family areas fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Bullock explained special needs housing has also been addressed in the proposed ordinance. He explained special needs housing was specific to seniors, disabled and low income and did not include potential uses that could damage/destroy a neighborhood. He explained there was a great deal of criteria to be met to do special needs housing and obtain the additional density. He noted special needs housing has been addressed in Statewide goals as well as Countywide planning policies. Mr. Bullock reviewed the criteria for modifying standards, noting that to obtain relief from the standards in the current ordinance, an applicant must go through the variance process. The variance process was related to hardship; an applicant must demonstrate hardship to obtain approval for a variance. The Planning Board and staff preferred the criteria for modifying standards be design -based rather than hardship -based. Mr. Bullock reviewed the decision criteria for approving a PRD, 1) design criteria, 2) adequate public facilities, 3) perimeter design, 4) open space and recreation, and 5) streets and sidewalks. Regarding design criteria, there are eight additional criteria identified in the subparagraphs; an applicant must meet the first criteria, which addresses architectural design of the site and the buildings, and must meet two of the remaining criteria such as providing housing types. that serve affordable housing, improving circulation patterns, minimizing the use of impervious surface materials, increasing open space or recreational facilities on site, landscaping/buffering/screening in or around the PRD, preserving/ enhancing/rehabilitating natural features of the subject property, and incorporating energy efficient site design or building features. In response to a specific concern raised at the work session regarding the possibility of higher density than would occur under a short plat process, Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the Westgate area identifying properties 2.5 — 3 times the minimum lot size or 3.5 — 4 times the minimum lot size to indicate properties that would round up when proposing a PRD. He noted there were no properties 3.5 — 4 times the minimum lot size (8,000 square feet) in this area. He identified approximately 10 lots that were 2.5 — 3 times the minimum lot size. He explained if one of these parcels proposed a PRD, it could be proposed at a maximum density of 3. Whether it would be approved would be determined via the PRD process. Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the Seaview area identifying properties 2.5 — 3 times the minimum lot size and 3.5 — 4 times the minimum lot size. Staff s opinion was there were not a great number of parcels and there was no guarantee that development would occur via a PRD process. If development occurred via a short plat process, no public hearing was required as was required by the PRD process. Mr. Bullock advised another concern was zero lot lines and whether this would allow attached units in areas where it was not anticipated. He explained zero lot lines and attached units were two separate issues. He displayed examples of zero lot line development, building constructed along a property line with setbacks around the remaining sides of the buildings. He referred to the Eagles Nest PRD, which has zero lot line on all four sides with common space between the lots that prevented attached units. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 6 reiterated attached units in the PRD ordinance would only occur if there were critical areas on the site and the proposed development met the design criteria. Regarding whether accessory dwelling units would be permitted in a PRD, Mr. Bullock explained that because ADUs were allowed in all single-family zones, they would be allowed in a PRD under a separate permit process. He noted the Council may wish to consider prohibiting ADUs in an attached unit PRD. Mr. Bullock reviewed potential revisions to further strengthen the proposed ordinance such as 1) including design standards for attached and detached units in a PRD, and 2) criteria for external setback reductions. Mr. Bullock referred to a letter submitted by William Vlcek, a resident in Eagles Nest, that addressed this issue. Based on testimony during the Planning Board's public hearing, they determined any reduction in the exterior setback should demonstrate it met the variance criteria and if not, the impact should be limited to the interior of the PRD. Mr. Vlcek also raised the issue of modifications to approved PRDs. Staff agrees there should be further clarification of Section 20.35.100, modifications to approved PRDs, to articulate what modifications could be approved administratively and which would require reopening the PRD to a public hearing process. Staff also recommends the difference between usable open space and critical areas open space be further defined in the ordinance. Mr. Bullock reviewed the recommended action: review the draft ordinance, take public testimony, identify issues for possible revision, direct staff to draft amendments for a future public hearing. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett noted the proposed revisions indicated staff and the Planning Board had not completed their review of the PRD ordinance. Mr. Bullock advised there were issues raised at the Council work session as well as in letters submitted by the public indicating there were revisions that could strengthen the ordinance. He said the ordinance could be remanded to the Planning Board if the Council wished. Council President Pro Tern Plunkett noted there was no information regarding the potential revisions in the Council packet. He preferred the Planning Board review the potential revisions. Mr. Bullock explained the suggested revisions did not substantively change the ordinance as proposed. Council President Pro Tern Plunkett inquired whether the Council could pass the draft ordinance as proposed and have the Planning Board review the additional revisions in the near future as subsequent amendments. Mr. Bullock answered yes, that could be done. Council President Pro Tern Plunkett noted the approximately ten properties in Westgate area and approximately ten properties in the Seaview area represented designed infill. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting the intent was to provide a designed infill tool to properties that previously did not have an opportunity to use such a tool. Council President Pro Tern Plunkett commented this may allow the City to meet GMA requirements and perhaps provide more affordable housing without changing the character of neighborhoods. Councilmember Petso noted special needs housing included allowing increased density for providing senior housing. Mr. Bullock explained the current code allows for affordable housing, elderly housing (separate from PRD) and allows density bonuses significantly greater than are proposed in the PRD ordinance. Councilmember Petso noted the PRD ordinance did not specify that senior housing needed to be affordable. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting density bonuses were provided for senior housing as well as for low-income housing. Councilmember Petso commented there was a great deal of senior housing in neighborhoods and dedicated senior group housing and although there was a demand economically, she questioned whether Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 7 the City needed to make an effort to provide more senior housing. She questioned which goal the provision for increased density for senior housing attempted to meet. Mr. Bullock answered there was not a specific goal related to increased density for senior housing but there were goals related to providing a broad number of housing types and housing values. Councilmember Petso referred to Section 20.35.050(A) Design Criteria, noting an applicant must meet the first criteria as well as two of the remaining criteria. However criteria 5 and 6 refer to open space and perimeter buffer, which are also required by the main criteria, Items C and D. She was concerned an applicant would not provide the amenities requested in the main criteria. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council would review a PRD proposal. Mr. Bullock answered under the current ordinance, the Council reviewed a PRD twice — once for preliminary PFD approval and once for final PRD approval. Under the proposed ordinance, the Council would only review a PRD for final approval of a formal plat. Councilmember Petso concluded that under the proposed ordinance there would be PRDs that would not be reviewed by the Council. Mr. Bullock agreed. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Bullock explained the ADB would do a preliminary review of proposed PRDs and the Hearing Examiner would hold a public hearing and issue a decision on the preliminary PRD. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Hearing Examiner's review standard would be in compliance with the PRD ordinance, not whether the neighbors liked it, etc. Mr. Bullock said neighbors' concerns with the PRD should be raised based on the criteria in the PRD ordinance as the Hearing Examiner would make his decision based on the criteria in the PRD ordinance. Councilmember Petso questioned the inclusion of Section 20.35.010(L), "integration of permitted uses and activities on properties which have split zoning." Mr. Bullock advised this was part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, where there could potentially be split zones. He recommended this section be deleted. Councilmember Petso inquired about "improved circulation patterns." Mr. Bullock answered Shell Valley was an example of a roadway where it would have been better to continue the road to Main Street. Councilmember Petso asked whether this policy was intended to open cul-de-sacs, etc. Mr. Bullock answered it was intended to provide through roads where needed and warranted. At Councilmember Petso's request, Mr. Bullock reviewed a sketch of a parcel where a 7-unit PRD was discussed but was eventually developed with four lots. He described surrounding properties, ridges, steep slopes, forested wetlands, a stream on the property, and the portion of the site conducive to development. He explained the lot was large enough for the applicant to propose a PRD, however, the applicant proposed a 4-lot short plat with each lot containing critical areas and a buildable area. He noted this short plat took 11/2 - 2 years where normally a short plat takes 3-4 months and included an Environmental Impact Statement which is rarely required for a short plat. Councilmember Petso asked what the zoning would effectively be if a 7-lot PRD were approved for this parcel. Mr. Bullock clarified Councilmember Petso's question was what the density would be if a 7-unit PRD were approved, noting that was not what planning staff considered the density of the entire project. He estimated the buildable portion of the lot was approximately 50,000 — 60,000 square feet but the entire lot would be included in the density calculation. Councilmember Petso said the policy question for the Council was whether they liked the three houses on the top of the hill plus one that was too close to the stream or whether they liked seven houses on top and the stream left alone. Mr. Bullock said a 7-lot PRD may not have met the PRD criteria. He said the applicant had the opportunity to apply for 7-lot Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 8 PRD, but chose not to, possibly because they did not believe they could get approval for seven lots through a PRD process and opted for a 4-lot short plat. Councilmember Petso referred to minutes from the January 18, 2000 Council meeting where the applicant indicated seven homes was too much for the property; they wanted to live on the property and not develop it to make money. She apologized for not providing Mr. Bullock this information. Mayor Pro Tem Earling noted in this example, there was 50,000 — 60,000 square feet that could be developed with 6-7 building sites under a PRD. He said this would be similar to Eagles Nest and Eagles Crest on a smaller scale. Mr. Bullock advised the homes would have been clustered similar to the 28-32 homes in Eagles Nest. Mayor Pro Tem Earling noted Eagles Nest and Eagles Crest were within a few blocks of this site and therefore it would not be uncharacteristic in this neighborhood. In response to Councilmember Petso's previous inquiry regarding the Council's approval process, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained under the current ordinance, the Council only reviews a PRD in conjunction with final plat approval, a non -discretionary process. The Council merely determines whether the conditions of preliminary plat approval have been met. He summarized at the current time, the Council in effect had no discretionary approval over a PRD. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett inquired whether the slope to Meadowdale Beach Road would be retained regardless of whether four or seven homes were built. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett pointed out most of the public was unaware there was a large housing development (Eagles Crest) on the hill when driving up Meadowdale Beach Road and all they saw was wooded wetlands. He noted this was wooded wetlands because of the PRD. He asked whether the houses on the lot in the example would be visible. Mr. Bullock answered no. Councilmember Orvis noted environmental regulations reduced the capacity of the land from seven to four lots. He inquired about the consequences if the City did not meet its Growth Management goals. Mr. Bullock answered if the City did not meet its projected population, the Growth Management Hearings Board could compel the City to review its regulations to ensure the projections could be met in the future. The intent of the proposed ordinance was to take preemptive action to ensure regulations were in compliance with Comprehensive Plan goals. Planning Manager Rob Chave added that under GMA, if the City was not in compliance, federal and state funding could be jeopardized, the City's ability to obtain grants could be diminished, the Growth Management Hearings Board could overrule the City on development of specific projects, the City's development regulations could be invalidated, and other penalties could apply. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the City's current zoning capacity was adequate to meet the City's goals. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the City could be faced with zoning changes if it were unable to utilize creative methods of reaching the capacity. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Petso recalled last week the Council considered a rezone to RS-8 for a 10,000 square foot property in an RS-20 zone. The Planning Board recommended denial of the rezone to prevent RS-8 zoning north of 174t" Street SW. She asked whether the property in the example and the other PRDs were north of 174th Street SW. Mr. Bullock explained there were properties north of 174th Street SW that are zoned RS-8. There was no intent to make 174th Street SW to be a line across the City; the intent was in this area of 174th Street SW, due to topographic features on the north side of the street, not to have RS- 8 north of 174th Street SW. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 9 Council President Pro Tem Plunkett noted a contract rezone differed from a PRD as a contract rezone was for a specific property and was required to meet a very high standard. Mr. Bullock explained a rezone changed the density, however, a PRD did not change the density but utilized the underlying density provisions. Mayor Pro Tem Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Tom Pinkham, 554 Seamont Lane, Edmonds, a builder in the City, referred to a property (8 h and Pine) that was an example of a PRD situation. He displayed a map of eight lots that could be developed on the property if approved via conventional platting process, noting this was not possible due to a large wetland on the site that resulted in a small developable area. He explained under the current zoning, only two lots would be allowed; a PRD would allow development of more lots. He displayed an example of the footprint of three 2800 square foot level entry buildings that could possibly be built on the site. He encouraged the Council to approve the PRD ordinance. He suggested consideration be given to allowing not only side -by -side duplexes but also flats (two units, one on top of the other). Mayor Pro Tem Earling advised the City received a letter from William Vlcek in support of the PRD ordinance and offering three potential amendments. The City also received letters of support from the Snohomish County-Camano Association of Realtors and Master Builders Association. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out the example displayed by Mr. Pinkham and the example described by staff had unusual circumstances and the current PRD ordinance could be used to develop those sites. He said rather than amending the ordinance, bonuses that increased density, duplexes, etc. had been added and the ordinance rewritten to reflect a new concept and philosophy — to promote the use of PRD to get more units on the land. He acknowledged infill development would occur but objected to using GMA as the threat. He asked how far the City was from reaching its GMA targets. Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, requested the Council not pass the amended ordinance as many residents need more time to review the proposed changes. She did not support clustering houses as it would change the character of the neighborhoods. She urged the Council give the public more time to review this issue and to provide more sketches. Ron Johnson, 19601 23`d NW, Shoreline, an architect who worked on Eagles Nest and Lorain Woods (existing PRDs), spoke in support of the proposed revisions, particularly modifications to approved PRDs. He described difficulties that may occur with the siting of a home that may require modification of an approved PRD. Currently no changes could be made without reopening the PRD process. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, suggested staff hold meetings in neighborhoods throughout the City to gather input. Colin Southcote-Want, 10616 237th Place SW, Edmonds, expressed concern with PRDs as they appeared to be out of character with Edmonds and appeared to be too crowded. He expressed concern with the application of open space and recreational facilities in the requirements for a PRD. He said the retaining pond in the PRD on 1001h apparently fulfilled the requirement for open space and recreational facilities for that development. He pointed out the general public did not understand how GMA applied, yet it appeared to be the driving force behind decisions the Council made. He suggested the public be educated regarding GMA as the public only saw sprawl being replaced with congestion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 10 John Bissell, 8630 2171' Street SW, Edmonds, stated in comparing the existing ordinance to the revised ordinance, the proposed revisions cleaned up the old ordinance. The criteria in the existing ordinance were difficult to understand and applicants were required to have a hardship rather than design. With the proposed amendment, process difficulties in the existing ordinance were addressed without harming the public interest. He referred to the PRD on 100t" where the detention pond would fulfill the requirement for the recreational space, noting this was not clear in the existing ordinance. He summarized the proposed ordinance provided a great deal of benefit by allowing projects to be evaluated by design, allowing better preservation of critical areas and resulting in better designed communities. Regarding density, he pointed out the underlying density remained the same and the zoning was not changed. Regarding the concern that the Council would not have the ability to review PRDs, he said the Council did not review Conditional Use Permits, variances, plat modifications, etc.; therefore, it appeared the proposed process was more consistent with the current City regulations. He said the proposed PRD ordinance allowed for better design and for infill development to occur in a better manner. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commended Mr. Bullock for his presentation as well as his willingness to provide her with additional information. She requested more time to review the proposed ordinance, noting it appeared to be something completely new. She referred to Section 20.35.090(A) regarding bonding and requested the Council ensure residents were safeguarded against problems when the developer could not complete the project in a timely manner. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Bullock explained the proposed revisions were minor clarifications and were not major changes. If the Council had concerns with the purposes that would require alteration in the direction of the ordinance, it should be referred back to the Planning Board. However, if the Council was agreeable to staff clarifying issues, it could be done at the Council level. Mayor Pro Tern Earling preferred any modifications to the ordinance be presented to the Council so that the revisions to the ordinance could move forward. He preferred ADUs not be allowed in PRDs and was supportive of Mr. Vlcek's suggestion to allow some modification to approved PRDs. Mr. Bullock explained Mr. Vlcek wanted to do a minor projection of a building requiring they add land to the lot. The Hearing Examiner addressed the same situation in another PRD where the projection was accommodated via an adjustment in the lot line on both sides. Mr. Bullock said staff supported administrative approval for modifications that resulted in no net loss. Mr. Snyder clarified when a PRD in conjunction with a subdivision establish lot lines, amending it required the written approval of all owners in the subdivision. He said minor adjustments within a subdivision such as plantings or other staff approved items that did not relate to boundary lines could be approved. Mayor Pro Tern Earling referred to a statement in Mr. Vlcek's letter regarding Section 20.35.040 "I suggest that there will be situations where it makes sense to allow a reduction in the setback requirements, but the situation may not meet the strict definition of a variance. For example, one of two adjacent PRDs may have larger than normal setbacks due to native growth protection area or topographical restrictions. It would make sense to allow a smaller exterior setback for the adjacent PRD." Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board determined the perimeter setback should be retained unless the applicant can demonstrate a hardship (via the variance process). Mayor Pro Tern Earling referred to Mr. Vlcek's recommendation that "Open Space" be changed to "native growth protection area." Mr. Bullock agreed with Mr. Vlcek's suggestion, adding that staff Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 11 would like to distinguish between "usable/active open space" and "critical areas open space." He said staff wished to clarify that common open space could be maintained and utilized for recreation but the critical areas open space must be left undisturbed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tern Earling referred to the photograph examples staff provided of well designed duplexes and the examples he has seen of poorly designed duplexes in unincorporated areas of Snohomish County. He requested staff provide language that would ensure any attached development that occurred looked like the good examples rather than the bad examples. Mayor Pro Tern Earling referred to Section 20.35.050(A) noting several of the criteria in the subparagraphs were addressed in the five main criteria and therefore may not be done. He asked how the Planning Board developed these criteria. Mr. Bullock did not recall any prolonged discussion regarding the criteria. Mr. Bowman pointed out Section 20.35.050(A)(5) referred to "increasing" open space or recreational facilities onsite. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the concept of attached structures, recalling his interest many years ago in designing a duplex with entrances on different sides so that it had the appearance of a single family dwelling. He suggested staff consider how to link the concept of affordability with attached structures and provide language that required the front doors be separated to provide the appearance of a single family dwelling. Councilmember Miller was generally supportive of the concepts in the presentation. He agreed with revisions being returned to the Council rather than remanding the ordinance to the Planning Board. He referred to Section 20.35.030, which indicates those with special needs would have the ability to have a PRD with greater density. He requested staff provide some examples of what could be developed and why and under what circumstances the City would be required to meet those needs. Councilmember Petso said the issues that had been lost in the redraft of the ordinance included limiting PRDs to lots with unusual geographic/environmental constraints as well as the five lot minimum. She preferred the Council remand the ordinance to the Planning Board as there had been little discussion of options such as requiring either an environmental feature or five lots. She questioned the benefit to the City from allowing development of 3 lots rather than 2 via a PRD on a parcel in Westgate. Other items that might benefit from further review by the Planning Board include: 1) the need for density bonuses for senior housing, 2) elimination of Section 20.35.010(L), 3) Section 20.35.010(C) improving circulation, 4) Section 20.35.050 decision criteria for PRDs, and 5) requiring 20.35.010(A)(7) — preserving, enhancing or rehabilitating natural features such as significant woodlands, wildlife habitat or streams. Councilmember Petso commented the Planning Board appeared to be agreeable to increased density and clustering. She urged the Council to reconsider the concept of clustering. Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of the concept of PRDs as they allowed the City to meet its GMA goals and encouraged the use of open space to stabilize hillsides or preserve wetlands. He preferred to adopt the ordinance as proposed and make modifications in the future. He pointed out a PRD would have ADB review which a plat did not. Regarding the concern expressed over density bonuses, he pointed out the current code allowed density bonuses. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 12 Council President Pro Tem Plunkett observed Councilmember Petso appeared to be referring to major changes to the draft ordinance. Mr. Bullock said applying the PRD to any multiunit/multi-lot development versus it applying only to a five -lot minimum or to a lot with an environment was a significant change. The remaining issues raised by Councilmember Petso were not 'major issues and could be addressed by staff. Mr. Bowman suggested staff address the issues raised by Council and schedule another work session. Once consensus was reached on draft language, another public hearing could be scheduled. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett urged the public to use the additional time to familiarize themselves with the proposed ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Earling concluded review of the proposed ordinance would be conducted at the Council level. He noted there were a number of quality PRDs in the City such as Orchard, Eagles Crest, Eagles Nest, Elm Place, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Earling commended Mr. Bullock for his presentation and response to Council concerns. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Police and Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented on the participation of Police and Fire Fire Dept. Departments at service club meetings he attended in other cities while traveling recently. He commented Funding on funding for the Police and Fire Departments and urged the City to have adequate funds in the budget for public safety. He encouraged the Police and Fire Departments to attend community service club meetings. Planned Residential Develop_ Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said in April 2001 he expressed his surprise to the Planning Board that staff had rewritten the PRD ordinance and not just revised a few items. He noted the ents advertising for the Planning Board public hearings did not indicate the proposed changes would allow in single family zones. Next, Mr. Hertrich reiterated his request that the Council publicly 113rduplexes realenter reatment announce the were against the BrightWater wastewater treatment plant. He said the Unocal site would Y g g Plant continue to be considered until the Council expressed to King County that the City did not want BrightWater. He assumed a quiet Council wanted the treatment plant. BrightWater Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, expressed concern with the possible siting of reatment BrightWater, noting petitions were being circulated. She questioned whether residents had been aware Plant that the Unocal site was being considered for the wastewater treatment facility. She said Unocal was a valuable piece of property and the City already had two treatment plants. She requested the Council Medic 7 make a commitment. Next, Ms. Mueller requested the Council schedule consideration of the Medic 7 proposal on an upcoming agenda and discuss it publicly. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, encouraged the Council and the public to visit the Unocal Site Deer Creek Hatchery (near the Unocal site), noting there was a fabulous view from the site. She preferred the Unocal site be used for a hotel or convention center and advertising Edmonds as a beautiful place to live. BrightWater Mayor Pro Tem Earling reported the September 5 Council agenda included a 60 minute presentation regarding BrightWater. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Snohomish County Mayor Pro Tem Earling reported the Snohomish County Leadership Summit, originally scheduled for Leadership September 15 has been postponed until January/February /Februa 2002. Summit P � P P Y rY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 13 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS ance for Council President Pro Tern Plunkett reported the. Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED) nlop- is studying the economic impacts of the Unocal site without Bri htWater• the impact to the private sector Develop- y g p g � p men t from residential development, a hotel, or a convention center as well as the economic impacts to the City's revenue stream. He encouraged the public to contact the EAED office to obtain information. He reported EAED is also working with the City on an overall downtown parking study to determine whether it would be beneficial to the merchants if their employees did not park downtown. The EAED is also studying the economic impacts of the design guidelines. BrightWater Councilmember Petso clarified both Councilmember Miller and she have taken a position against BrightWater and asked staff to convey this information to King County. wC Financial & Councilmember Petso reported on an AWC financial and budget seminar she attended. She reported Budget among the materials provided was a financial planning model. She said the materials would soon be Seminar available in the Council office. Excused COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM Absence PLUNKETT, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MARIN FROM THE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 7 AND 14. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MARIN ABSTAINED. Port Councilmember Marin reported at the August 22 Port of Edmonds meeting, Commissioners approved a draft lease with the Fine Arts Center of Edmonds (FACE). He noted this has the potential for becoming a significant draw for the City as the public comes to watch artisans at work. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. G Y VKENSON, MAYOR J fyGfG� �D• �..yClLa.� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2001 Page 14 AGENDA - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. AUGUST 28, 2001 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 August 21, 2001 (C) Approval of claim checks #50190 through #50303 for the week of August 20, 2001, in the Amount of $285,836.50. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #2828 through #2996 for the period August 1 through August 15, 2001, in the amount of $826,381.63. (D) Proposed Resolution appointing an agent of the City to receive Claims for Damages made pursuant to RCW 4.96.020 3. ( 5 Min.) Information regarding City surplus property fill located on Main Street near 86tn Avenue West 4. ( 5 Min.) Proposed Resolution which sponsors the employees of the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Community Transit) to participate in the AWC Employees Benefit Trust 5. (90 Min.) Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.35 (Planned Residential Development) and Title 21 (Definitions), providing for new purposes, standards, criteria, and a revised review process for approving Planned Residential Developments (File No. CDC-2000-132) 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1 August 28, 2001 page 2 of 2, : ; 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports/updates on outside Committee/Board meetings 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.