Loading...
02-09-10 CSDS Committee MinutesCommunity Service/Development Services Committee Meeting February 9, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Council Member Dave Orvis Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Guest The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. Staff Present: Rob English, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Bio Park, City Attorney A. Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands. City Attorney Bio Park presented his research on this item. Bio noted that the City is limited in regulating dress code issues, and has much more latitude in regulating behavior. This is the approach reflected in current City code, especially ECC 5.38 which regulates `public morals' by taking a broad view from the standpoint of "public exposure." Everett's code was more narrowly drafted, and their code amendments were intended to broaden their provisions and to address ambiguities that hampered their ability to deal with the new areas of concern regarding some of the alleged behavior that was occurring. Edmonds' code provisions already appear to cover what Everett was attempting to address, although it might be a good idea to review the City's code and make any updates that are needed. Snohomish County's approach appears to be creating a `new' category of regulation in between the traditional distinction between `adult' and non -adult behavior. Bio advised that this was new and `untried' territory, and could be costly if it results in a new area of litigation. ACTION: Recommended forwarding two options to the full Council for consideration. One option would be to simply review and make any minor adjustments to the Edmonds code provisions needed at this point in time; the second option would be to pursue the Snohomish County approach toward tighter regulation and licensing of a wider range of dress or behavior. B. Discussion regarding changes to City Code 5.05.060, Dogs on Public Grounds. Brian McIntosh presented this recommendation brought forward due to citizen requests and the development of the new park sites at Hickman Park and the162nd St. site. Currently there are 7 on - leash parks and one off -leash park where dogs are permitted. Staff recommends that the current code be amended to designate three additional parks to permit on -leash dogs: 1. Sunset Overlook Park — this is the grassy strip west of Sunset Avenue. Citizens have requested this in the past to allow people to walk and enjoy the view from the memorial benches along this path. 2. Hickman Park — during the public input phase prior to park construction testimony indicated strong interest in allowing dogs on -leash along the 3,500 feet of pathways. This is consistent with other City parks with designated pathways. 3. New Park at 162nd St. SW — This park will have a small interior trail and will be particularly attractive as a rest stop and viewing opportunity for people walking in the neighborhood now connected by the new 76' Ave W / 75th PI W walkway and on to Meadowdale Beach Park. CS/DS Committee Minutes February 9, 2010 Page 2 Also discussed was the suggestion allowing dogs on -leash at Brackett's Landing North and South. Mr. McIntosh indicated that dogs are now allowed on City sidewalks adjacent to the waterfront parks but not on the park walkways. The waterfront walkways are busy and popular with all ages but mixing dogs on -leash and walkers in these parks has created difficulties in the past. An attached memo outlined these concerns. Staff recommends not dropping the restrictions at the waterfront parks. ACTION: As this will be a code change, it was recommended that this topic be scheduled for a public hearing at an upcoming City Council meeting. C. What can be made available to Council on appeal? Councilmember Orvis noted that the Council's January interim ordinance essentially took care of this issue. It was also noted by staff the any issues regarding PRD appeals and approvals would likely become "moot" if PRD's are dropped from the code in favor of integrating improved design and sustainability (e.g. LID) standards into the subdivision regulations. This will be developed further as part of the subdivision code re -write pending at the Planning Board. ACTION: No action required at this time. D. Request from Historic Preservation Commission for waiver of certain fees related to historic structures. Rob Chave summarized the proposal from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to exempt properties on the historic register from needing to pay a fee for a pre -application meeting. Historic properties would benefit from this process by highlighting issues before applying for permits and approvals, and the fee can be a dis-incentive to asking for the pre -application meeting. The Commission felt it could be one more positive incentive for a property getting listed on the historic register. Rob noted that only one property has even been interested in the pre -application process, so the budgetary impact is likely to be very small. Councilmember Peterson noted that if the exemption is abused, Council could always change its decision in the future. ACTION: Recommend bringing a resolution to the full Council for approval to exempt properties listed on the historic register from the requirement to pay a fee for a pre -application meeting. E. Proposed Title 18 Code amendments to allow use of City right of way for bistro and outdoor dininq and placement of art in City right of way. Rob English provided a redlined version of the proposed amendments to Title 18 for Bistro and Outdoor Dining and placement of art in City right of way. The proposed amendments will provide more specific guidelines on how the City's right of way can be used for outdoor dining. The code changes covering the placement of art in the City right of way were also discussed and Francis Chapin was present to answer questions. Councilmember Orvis asked about the appeal language on page 10 and staff informed him that this language was added based on the Title 18 changes the City Attorney presented to the City Council on February 2, 2010. Councilmember Peterson asked if a flat fee could be implemented for use of the right of way rather than a monthly fee. Discussion followed regarding how a monthly fee could be collected and how it would address seasonal uses. The proposed right of way use fee is the same charge being applied to a vendor using city right of way adjacent to the ferry holding lanes on SR104. Councilmember Peterson asked why an 11 pm deadline for removing temporary objects that extend beyond 24-inches of the building. Staff explained that 11 pm was chosen to reduce the potential for noise related complaints. Keeping temporary objects within 24-inches of the building frontage also reduces the possibility of tripping CS/DS Committee Minutes February 9, 2010 Page 3 hazards where low street lighting levels exist. The Committee also discussed if more guidance was needed in regards to the type and look of barriers. Staff determined that there were many options for barrier types and that it would be difficult to establish and administer specific guidelines. ACTION: Recommend presenting the amendments to the full Council with a public hearing. F. Proposed policies for Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update. Jerry Shuster presented the information in the agenda memo. Councilmember Orvis asked how this plan is different from the revision to the stormwater code currently underway. Jerry explained that the revised code is to regulate stormwater runoff from development, redevelopment, and construction sites in order for the City to comply with the state - issued municipal stormwater permit. This is one component of the overall stormwater program. The revised comprehensive plan will include other aspects of the City's stormwater management program including operation and maintenance of City stormwater facilities, programmatic efforts to comply with the various other regulatory drivers, capital projects to address flooding, water quality, and habitat issues, as well as an stormwater utility rate structure to pay for it all. Ideally, the comprehensive plan should be done first, but the City is under a deadline imposed by the State permit to revise the code so it has to done first. The comprehensive plan will reflect the need to have the development -related stormwater code in line with state permit requirements. Councilmember Peterson stated that at the Council retreat he has been designated as the lead Councilmember for all stormwater issues and is looking forward to working with Jerry and other staff on these issues. Jerry mentioned that representatives of the Edmonds Backyard wildlife group had expressed interested in being involves in the formation of the comprehensive stormwater plan. Councilmember Peterson said he would notify that group and other environmental groups in the city during the next CS/DS meeting so they can be involved. Jerry will contact Councilmember Peterson work further on the goals and polices. ACTION: No action required at this time. G. Continued discussion regardinq the removal of colored street markings used locating utilities. The item was introduced by Noel Miller, Public Works Director. Based on the difficulty to effectively remove the locate paint markings and the additional cost in staff time required to monitor contractors for compliance, the committee recommended that this proposal to require contractors and the City to remove colored street markings from the public right of way be discontinued for any further consideration by the City Council. ACTION: No further action to be taken on this item. H. Discussion on PRD setbacks. Staff advised that this issue may become "moot" if PRD's are dropped from the code in favor of including more design and flexible development standards in the subdivision code. The Committee agreed that that would be the appropriate time to look at perimeter standards, as well. ACTION: No action required at this time. CS/DS Committee Minutes February 9, 2010 Page 4 I. Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for home occupations. Rob Chave indicated that this was a topic that needed to be revisited, as certain assumptions on impacts and the need for referral to a Hearing Examiner for a public hearing may not be appropriate in all cases currently described in the code — particularly with the city's expressed goals of encouraging home -based working opportunities. Rather than forwarding this to the Planning Board, the Committee agreed that it would like to develop ideas before forwarding any specific direction to the Planning Board for review. ACTION: Schedule further work session(s) on this topic at the Committee level. The Committee meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.