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.