2010-07-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 14, 2010
Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.110.040(f) RELATING TO MONETARY
PENALTIES TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES IN WASHINGTON LAW BY PROVIDING NOTICE TO ALL
PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES TO SUPERIOR
COURT (FILE NUMBER AMD20100005)
Mr. Chave pointed out that City Attorney Snyder discussed the proposed amendments previously with the Board, and the
outline of the intent of the amendments was provided in his memorandum. The intent is to bring the code language up to
date with current Washington State law and Superior Court procedures.
Board Member Reed questioned if the 3rd and 4`h "whereas" statements on the second page of the draft ordinance
(Attachment 2) are really necessary. He suggested that these may no longer be accurate statements. Mr. Chave said the
language was contained in the original interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. If the Board recommends
that the content of the proposed amendment is appropriate, the City Attorney would update the ordinance before it is
forwarded to the City Council.
Vice Chair Lovell said he read through Mr. Reedy's history on line and found that it did not have much bearing on the
proposed amendment. Mr. Chave agreed that Mr. Reedy raised a number of issues that are not directly related to the
proposed amendment.
Board Member Stewart asked if the first step in the process is a notice of violation. She pointed out that, as currently
proposed, a penalty would be imposed immediately without an administrative hearing and the fine would accrue for each day
the violation continues. She asked if the City would return the money retroactively if person was found to be in compliance.
Mr. Chave said there are a number of steps that allow a person to challenge a dispute before a notice of violation is issued. A
notice of violation would only be issued if a person has not taken any action and there is a clear indication that a violation
has occurred. Most all violations are resolved before a situation reaches the point of a notice, and it is extremely rare for a
situation to reach the stage where penalties are assessed. Board Member Stewart said she assumes the proposed amendments
would make it practically impossible for a situation similar to Mr. Reedy's to occur again.
Board Member Reed requested feedback from the City Attorney to indicate he is comfortable that the existing code and the
proposed amendments would adequately address the issues raised by Mr. Reedy. Mr. Chave said that if the Board feels the
provisions in the ordinance make sense, they could forward them to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. In
addition, they could request a short response from the City Attorney to determine if other amendments may be necessary
based on Mr. Reedy's memorandum.
Board Member Johnson asked if Mr. Reedy's 30-page memorandum would be considered part of the public record. Mr.
Chave said his memorandum would be forwarded to the City Council as part of the record that is attached to the Board's
recommendation. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the key point of Mr. Reedy's memorandum is that the procedures set
forth in the development code need to be followed more closely. If that had been done, the situation could have been
avoided.
Board Member Clarke observed that the public hearing is the opportunity for citizens to put their opinions relative to a matter
on the record. He suggested the Board consider the written memorandum as well as the public testimony provided during the
hearing and move forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Reed recalled that Mr. Reedy's email
indicated that he was submitting the memorandum because he was unable to attend the public hearing. Mr. Chave pointed
out that none of Mr. Reedy's written comments argue against the proposed amendments. He may have some additional
issues that Mr. Snyder can respond to at a later date.
No members of the public expressed a desire to participate in the hearing. Therefore, the public hearing portion was closed.
Board Member Johnson stated that she just received Mr. Reedy's 30-page memorandum tonight and has not read his
testimony. She suggested the Board continue the discussion at their next meeting to allow the Board to thoroughly read Mr.
Reedy's written testimony and solicit additional feedback from the City Attorney. Based on the information provided by the
City Attorney at the last meeting, as well as the comments provided by Mr. Chave relative to Mr. Reedy's memorandum,
Vice Chair Lovell suggested the Board moved forward with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the ordinance.
Accompanying the recommendation could be a request that the City Attorney review Mr. Reedy's memorandum to ensure
there are not other issues that need to be addressed by additional amendments. Board Member Reed clarified that Mr. Reedy
was not questioning the proposed amendments. His comments were more related to how the procedures were handled in his
case. If additional amendments are necessary, the Board could deal with them as a separate action.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 20.110.040(f) AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVISING THE ORDINANCE
BASED ON THE COMMENTS MADE DURING THE DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE STREET TREE PLAN
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 2
Mr. McIntosh advised that in response to City Council concerns regarding removal and replacement of street trees,
particularly in the downtown and specifically at the corner of 4th and Dayton, the Council requested an opportunity to review
of the Street Tree Plan, which was held on May 26, 2009. The agenda item concluded with the City Council recommending
changes to the Street Tree Plan to better reflect current practices in removing and replanting trees, specifically the caliper of
replacement trees. It was recognized that the process to implement the amendments would be to first review and hold a
public hearing with the Planning Board.
Mr. McIntosh reviewed that the question of replacing or retaining the mature trees at 5th and Dayton was discussed several
times throughout the late summer and fall of 2009. At the suggestion of the Public Works Director, it was agreed to review
the entire Street Tree Plan in the next year, beginning with staff review. He reviewed the proposed timeline, which includes
the Planning Board's initial review of staff recommendations for changes to the plan on July 14th, and a public hearing before
the Board on August llth. The City Council would review the proposed changes on August 24th and conduct a public
hearing on September 21st. It is anticipated the proposed amendments would be included as part of the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan amendments. He advised that the proposed plan was reviewed by the Parks Maintenance Manager, Public Works staff
and the Community Services Director who has a background in landscape design. He reviewed the proposed amendments as
follows:
• Page 119 — Implementation: Concern was raised about the need to replace every tree, even if healthy, just to provide
uniformity. To address this concern staff is recommending the first bullet be replaced with "When streets and sidewalks
are reconstructed, consider existing trees individually in regard to health of the tree and suitability for the site. Consider
all reasonable alternatives to removal of existing trees that do not jeopardize the successful completion of the project.
Undergrounding of overhead wire could occur simultaneously if species compatibility exists."
• Page 120 — Downtown Plan: The City Council requested that the language be changed to better reflect the City's
current practices. Sometimes it is not possible to plant the recommended 3-inch caliper tree due to site conditions, and 2
and 2'h-inch caliper trees are used instead. The recommendation is to change "minimum 3-inch caliper" to "minimum
2-inch caliper." However, he noted the City would still plant the largest caliper tree that is appropriate for the site.
• Page 121 — Street Tree Map: Staff is proposing that two types be removed from the list of potential species because
they have been discovered to grow too tall. They are recommending that "Chanticleer Pear" be replaced with "Urbanite
Ash" and "Katsura Tree" be replaced with "Corsum Linden."
• Page 122 — Gateway to Edmonds: Again, as per the Council's recommendation, the proposed amendment would
change "3-inch caliper" to "2-inch caliper."
• Page 123 — Key Routes: Once again, staff is proposing to change "3-inch caliper" to "2-inch caliper."
• Page 124 — Tree Planting Procedures: Staff is proposing that the 3rd sentence in Paragraph 3 be eliminated. He
explained that while it was common practice to install a few perforated pipes sloping downward into the soil from each
tree pit and to provide pea gravel drainage trenches under the tree pits so roots would be encouraged to grow downward,
the practice is no longer recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture because it often causes root rot that
reduces structure and stability of the tree. In addition, staff is proposing that the "tree planting with grate" details on
Page 13 be modified to match this new procedure.
• Page 124 — Spacing: Staff is recommending that language be added at the end of this bulleted item to read, "In some
cases, spacing may need to be increased, dependent upon tree species and its branching characteristics, in relation to the
businesses or residences adjacent to the planting." This amendment would give the City more leeway, particularly in
retail areas where property owners may over prune to provide better exposure to their businesses.
• Page 125 — Maintain the Following Maintenance Clearances: Placing periods in front of the numbers in this section
gives the wrong message. Staff is proposing that the periods be removed from the each of the numbers.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 3
• Page 127 — Recommended Street Trees, Small/Medium Narrow Trees: Staff is recommending that "Amanagawa
Cherry" be eliminated from the chart because it is seen as not a good tree and the City should consider new hybrids. In
addition, staff is recommending that the species be added to the list of prohibited street trees on Page 129 or perhaps on
the list of species that are approved with reservation.
• Page 128 — Medium/Large Narrow Trees: Staff is recommending that "Columnar Sargent Cherry" be eliminated.
The roots of this tree species use so much water that surrounding vegetation has difficulty surviving. Staff is also
recommending that this species be added to the list of prohibited street trees on Page 129 or perhaps on the list of species
that are approved with reservation.
Board Member Clarke referred to the proposed addition to Page 124, which references the businesses or residences adjacent
to the planting. He observed that a business is an enterprise that is different than a structure, and a residence references a
structure. He questioned if the proposed amendment would actually address issues related to the physical characteristics of
commercial buildings relative to tree plantings as a separate item from what actually goes on inside the buildings. For
example, his office is located in a three-story building at the southwest corner of 2nd and Main Streets. There is a tree right
on the corner that literally looks like it is eating the building alive. Obviously, it will block some people's view. He
questioned how the City would measure view blockage versus blocking a storefront sign. Mr. McIntosh explained that there
is quite a bit of grey area as to who is responsible for maintaining the trees. Staff receives requests on a daily basis to go out
and look at problem trees. While it is very difficult to remove a street tree, the Public Works and Parks Maintenance staff
does the best they can to prune trees and get them away from the buildings. He explained that staff has the responsibility of
maintaining about 260 trees within the rights -of -way in the downtown area, and it is difficult for them to keep up. In
addition, they are saddled with situations where inappropriate species were planted in some locations. The intent of the
Street Tree Plan is to ensure that when trees are replaced, they are replaced with species that work well for the site.
Board Member Clarke questioned if language should be added to reference the building structures, themselves. He said he
would like to see recognition of the building improvements, with the businesses and residences as separate components. Mr.
McIntosh suggested it would be better to have more general language since the type of business housed in a structure could
change over time. Board Member Clarke agreed and suggested they eliminate the concept of a business and focus on the
concept of a physical building improvement. Mr. Chave suggested the language be changed to read "in relation to planned
uses adjacent to the planting." Board Member Clarke agreed that would address his concern.
Board Member Reed observed that the City Council's recommended actions suggest that the reference to "3-inch caliper" on
Page 124 should also be changed to "2-inch caliper." However, this change was not made. Mr. McIntosh agreed the change
should be made. Board Member Reed suggested that rather than using the term "minimum 2-inch caliper" perhaps it would
be more appropriate to use "preferred 3-inch caliper, but not less than 2-inch caliper." This would still communicate that a
larger tree would be desirable if possible. Mr. McIntosh noted that this is already the City's standard. However, he agreed
the language could be changed to make this clearer. Mr. Chave observed that the standards not only apply to public
plantings, but to plantings on private property, as well. He agreed that the change recommended by Board Member Reed
would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Lovell said he attended the City Council meeting at which they discussed potential amendments to the Street Tree
Plan. He referred to the I't paragraph on Page 120, which states that "preservation of existing landmark trees and specimens
of significant size and age is encouraged on both public and private properties as long as they are healthy and any negative
impacts on utilities and sidewalks can be reasonably managed." He recalled that the Council's discussion centered on the 51h
and Dayton issue where the sidewalk was heaving significantly as a result of tree roots. The Public Works Department was
planning to remove the entire line of trees, and the City Council questioned the need to do so. They suggested other
alternatives. He asked if staff is confident the proposed amendments would cover these situations in the future. Mr.
McIntosh said this will remain a subjective issue that must be decided by City staff.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the proposed amendment on Page 119, which he interprets this to mean that utilities should be
placed underground if the root balls of the street trees do not interfere. He suggested the language should be amended to
make the intent more clear. Mr. Lindsay said the language was intended to apply to situations where an entire block of street
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 4
trees is going to be replaced, which is the best time to underground utilities. It is intended to emphasize the possibility of
underground utilities.
Board Member Clarke inquired if there is a mechanism for allowing public input when staff is recommending that a historic
tree be replaced because it is creating an unsafe situation. Mr. McIntosh said staff does a really good job of posting their
intentions related to tree removal. If there is a public concern, they hear about it right away, and the issue is discussed
further. However, the proposed language would not provide a public hearing process for each tree that is proposed to be
removed. He noted that the City does not currently designate landmark and historic trees, but staff is cognizant of the value
of the trees. There must be a viable reason to support the removal of a tree. Board Member Reed asked if the code requires
the City to post a notice before a tree is removed. Mr. McIntosh said he believes it is voluntary rather than required.
Board Member Reed suggested the language should emphasize that the preferred method is to preserve mature trees
whenever possible. He suggested additional emphasis be added to the first paragraph by changing it to read "preservation of
existing trees, particularly landmark trees and specimens of significant size ..." This would emphasize the City's goal of
preserving trees whenever possible. He further suggested the City do everything possible to make sure people know when a
tree is going to be removed. Often they do not take note of the posted notices, and they are not aware that a tree is going to
be removed until it is already gone.
Board Member Johnson asked if the City has a program for identifying landmark trees. Mr. McIntosh answered that the City
has not yet initiated a comprehensive identification program. She recalled that the Board is currently working to come up
with indicators to identify what is of sustainable value in the City, and one discussion focused on trees of significant size or
historic character. She suggested they may want to coordinate these two efforts.
Board Member Johnson referred to Page 118, which identifies a City goal of recommending underground power lines in the
downtown core and in the smaller retail/commercial centers. While this is an admiral goal, she questioned how it would be
accomplished. She recalled that it would have cost $1 million to put the utilities underground along the 2201' Street Corridor.
She suggested the concept be considered as the City does planning for neighborhood activity centers in the future. She also
questioned whether the City has the ability to make recommendations to the Washington State Department of Transportation
regarding Highway 99. Mr. McIntosh clarified that the goal implies that the City would consider underground utilities
whenever they do construction. Board Member Reed suggested that perhaps the City could offer developers incentives for
providing underground utilities.
Board Member Stewart said she compared the Edmonds Street Tree Plan with plans from the Cities of Shoreline and Seattle.
She also referred the plan to Laura Spehar, the leader of the Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project, which recently
received certification. She said it is important to pay attention to the ecological functions of trees. Whenever possible,
consideration should be given to native species, which use less water and are easier to care for. She reminded the Board that
one of the goals of the Climate Action Plan and the Community Sustainability Element is to reduce water consumption 30%
by 2020. She hoped that after the first few years, the street trees would be able to sustain themselves with rainwater.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the vision in the Street Tree Plan does not adequately address the ecological services
that trees provide such as mitigating for stormwater, cleaning pollution out of the air, and providing habitat for wildlife.
Because Edmonds is a certified community by the National Wildlife Federation, she hopes that this concept can be added as
a goal in the plan. She reminded the Board that the Stormwater Management Plan encourages the use of low -impact
development strategies, and trees have a part in this effort. Mr. McIntosh agreed that the vision of the Street Tree Plan
should address the ecological benefits of trees.
Board Member Stewart referred to a technology called "silva cells," which are like stacked milk cartons with grates all the
way around them. They are placed underneath sidewalks and allow pipes and roots to grow through them. This technology
was used at the Mountlake Terrace Park and Ride to allow rainwater to be absorbed. Trees of a larger caliper can be planted
using this technology. She urged the City to consider new technologies, including pervious sidewalks and flexible sidewalk
seams. She concluded by stating that when there are safety issues related to trees near sidewalks, it would be appropriate to
allow the public to be part of the decision. She advised that the City of Shoreline's Street Tree Plan includes a great
costibenefit analysis chart of each species and how much dollar value it provides as far as energy savings, cleaning the air,
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 5
stormwater runoff, etc. It is quite striking how things stack up when looking at costs versus the ecological service benefits.
The City will get their money back and more if they plant trees that last longer.
Board Member Stewart requested feedback about why staff is proposing an amendment that would allow the City to consider
2-inch caliper trees rather that 3-inch caliper trees. Mr. McIntosh answered that sometimes 3-inch caliper trees of certain
species are not available. In these situations, the City does the best they can to get the larger trees. Board Member Stewart
recalled there was a suggestion of forming a nursery within the City, but the City was unable to identify a location. Mr.
McIntosh said not only do they not have a space for a nursery, the City also does not have the predictability to purchase trees
and allow them to grow before they are actually planted along the street.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City has a street tree fund that accepts private donations from citizens. Mr. McIntosh
answered affirmatively. Board Member Stewart suggested the plan incorporate the language from the National Wildlife
Federation with regard to the use of fertilizers and pesticides. She asked if the City has an inventory for street trees. Mr.
McIntosh answered that no inventory has been done to date. Board Member Stewart encouraged the City to move in that
direction. She noted that Shoreline has developed a street tree inventory. They also provide a planting strip along their
sidewalks, which is more functional than the grate system.
Board Member Stewart agreed to share additional comments and observations with staff as to how the plan could be
strengthened further. Mr. McIntosh announced that the entire Streetscape Plan would be updated in 2012 and would involve
numerous opportunities for public input.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the document uses terms such as "overhead power lines," "overhead wires," etc. He
suggested that a single term be used consistently throughout the document. Mr. McIntosh agreed and suggested that the
correct term would be "overhead utilities."
Vice Chair Lovell asked if the proposed amendments outlined in the staff s memorandum would be incorporated into the
plan before the public hearing. Mr. McIntosh answered that prior to the public hearing, the existing plan would be updated
to reflect the proposed amendments, as well as the additional changes recommended by the Board. The changes would be
clearly identified. Mr. McIntosh noted that a public hearing has been scheduled for August 111".
DISCUSSION ON ZONING FOR THE MEADOWDALE BEACH AREA ANNEXATION (FILE NUMBER
AMD20090002)
Ms. Coccia said the purpose of this discussion is to consider what the appropriate zoning designation for the Meadowdale
Beach area would be if it is annexed into the City. She noted that for the last few years, the neighborhood has expressed an
interest in becoming a part of Edmonds, and the City Council accepted their 10% Notice of Intention last fall. At that time,
the City Council acknowledged that the City would require the simultaneous adoption of zoning for the proposed areas to be
annexed. She advised that, at this time, staff is recommending an RS-8 zoning designation, which would provide a fairly
consistent match with current setbacks and would result in few non -conforming lots. However, it would be appropriate for
the Board to analyze the existing site conditions and provide additional feedback for staff regarding the appropriate zoning
designation. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the Board is being asked to confirm that, based upon a staff study, RS-8 is
the appropriate zoning designation for the area. Ms. Coccia explained that the Planning Board would hold a public hearing
in the future and then determine what zoning designation is appropriate for the area.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the last two sentences in the Staff Report, which point out that all R-zoned properties in the
County have a maximum building height of 30 feet and all R-zoned properties in Edmonds have a maximum building height
of 25-feet. He asked for more information about the height of the existing homes and whether they would conform to the
City's 25-foot height limit. Ms. Coccia answered that the City does not have this information, but they are typical one and
two-story homes that were built in the 1960's and 1970's. She observed that while the height limit in Edmonds is lower than
the County's height limit, their setbacks are larger. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that if the area were to annex into
Edmonds, the property owners would be subject to all of the RS-8 zoning provisions. Ms. Coccia agreed. However, existing
development that is inconsistent with the RS-8 zoning provisions would be grandfathered as legal, non -conforming uses.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 6
Board Member Stewart said she visited the subject properties, which are located in a nice area with a lot of vegetation and
some view of the water. She asked staff to share the pros and cons associated with the annexation for both the City and the
property owners. Mr. Chave said the annexation request was submitted by the residents, so they apparently believe there are
advantages to annexation. He explained that, historically, many areas in unincorporated Snohomish County have Edmonds
addresses because their mail goes through an Edmonds post office, and many of them want to retain their current addresses
rather than being part of Lynnwood. He said he assumes the residents also like the services provided by the City of
Edmonds. He explained that this area is not part of the City's urban growth area so an interlocal agreement with Lynnwood
would be required before the area could be annexed into the City. The Comprehensive Plan would also have to be amended.
He noted that the residents have already turned in their petition to annex, but the issue is more complicated because the
properties have not been designated in the Comprehensive Plan as an area for future annexation. Board Member Stewart
asked if property taxes would increase as a result of annexation. Mr. Chave said the last study indicated that the City's
property taxes are lower than those of the County, but the City has more utility taxes. The taxes would remain nearly the
same. He noted that annexation would only have a minimum impact on the City's tax revenue, and the added service costs
would be negligible. However, the City believes the annexation would be a good government proposition because it would
take in a remaining island of unincorporated land that should be part of a City.
Board Member Cloutier observed that RS-8 zoning is the closest to the current RS-9600 based on standards. However,
comparing the standards to what is actually built may paint a completely different picture. He asked if RS-10 would be more
consistent. Mr. Chave said RS-10 is more similar to the RS-12 zoning designation and setback requirements are substantially
higher. The RS-8 zoning designation is a lot closer to the existing County zoning and would logically create fewer problems
when property owners want to do minor additions or remodeling. He noted that the City's single-family residential standards
are much tighter, and typically this is a problem in annexed areas. Generally, the City adopts the zoning that is the next level
down from the County's existing zoning since the setback requirements would be more similar. Board Member Johnson
noted that some of the lots have irregular shapes, and she questioned the potential for short plats if the property is annexed
and zoned as RS-8. Mr. Chave said this is not likely to occur. He noted that the properties at the northern end have slopes
that will restrict this type of development activity.
Board Member Reed said he would support an RS-8 zoning designation. However, he observed that all of the adjacent
properties in Edmonds are zoned RS-12 and RS-20. He commented that the City's height limit is 25 feet measured from the
four corners, plus additional height for a pitched roof. He questioned if the County's height limit is a maximum of 30 feet.
Mr. Chave said the City's code only allows a height greater than 25 feet if a structure is located on a slope. There is no
provision for additional height to accommodate a pitched roof.
Board Member Reed asked if the property owners in the subject area have talked to property owners to the south. Mr. Chave
pointed out that the properties directly south are part of the City of Lynnwood. The subject property is currently part of
unincorporated Snohomish County. Board Member Johnson asked if the subject properties represent the full extent of the
unincorporated island. Mr. Chave said that portions of the park would remain part of Snohomish County, as well as a few
isolated residential areas.
Board Member Clarke referred to the three lots located on the east side of 158th Place Southwest (6627, 6629 and 6705) and
the two lots on the east side of 68"' Avenue West (15727 and 15719). He said that, visually, the lots appear they are large
enough to be subdivided into several lots. He suggested it would be helpful for the City to give guidance up front as to how
they would view the lots since this decision could have an impact on how the lots are assessed. Mr. Chave said these types
of decisions are generally left up to the individual property owners. Generally, the City does not do proscriptive zoning
studies to advise property owners of their potential rights. Board Member Clarke said that in his professional experience, if
the land area is sufficient to allow more than one building lot, the property owner must prove to the County that it is
unbuildable or they will assess for two lots. Mr. Chave said individual property owners can request a letter from the City
indicating the number of buildable lots. Because there are so few lots in question, Board Member Clarke said it may be
worthwhile to research the situation.
Ms. Coccia asked if Board Member Clarke would recommend the zoning be higher than RS-8 if it is determined that some of
the lots could be subdivided. Board Member Clarke said compatibility is an issue of concern. A higher zoning designation
would have greater restrictions and more legal, non -conforming lots would likely be created. If a property is identified as
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 7
non -conforming, big issues come up when an owner wants to make improvements or changes. He observed that because of
the irregular platting that has occurred in some neighborhoods in the City, there has been significant hostility amongst
neighbors. There can be significant impacts to surrounding properties when lots are allowed to subdivide as a result of the
zoning change that occurs with annexation. He suggested they must carefully balance all of the concerns. Ms. Coccia
reminded the Board that the public would be invited to comment on any subdivision applications that are submitted. Mr.
Chave pointed out that the difference in size between the current RS-9600 zoning and the proposed RS-8 zoning is small
enough and the lots are large enough that the lots could be subdivided with either designation.
Board Member Clarke agreed with Board Member Reed that the adjacent properties that are part of Edmonds are zoned
differently than the proposed RS-8. Therefore, the City would not be criticized if they were to zone the subject property
using the same pattern. Mr. Chave referred to the zoning map and noted that there are small sections of RS-8 sprinkled
throughout the northern portion of the City. He suggested that the plotting pattern of the subject properties is different
enough to merit a different zoning designation.
Board Member Clarke said that prior to the annexation of his neighborhood, the response for emergency service from the
County was terrible. They would have done anything to annex into a City that could provide faster response. He
summarized that taxation is not typically an issue; those who are interested in annexation are seeking better service and the
opportunity to elect their own local government representatives.
DISCUSSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS (FILE NUMBER
AMD201000016)
Ms. Coccia explained that when home occupation applications are submitted to the City, various departments review the
proposed scope of work and how it complies with applicable City codes. As long as a proposed business meets the criteria in
ECDC 20.20, the Planning Division can sign off on the business license application as it relates to the zoning standards.
Businesses that cannot meet all the basic home occupation criteria must change their proposal to meet the code or apply for
and obtain a conditional use permit. She noted that the standard fee for a home occupation business license is $100.
However, if a conditional use permit and public hearing is required, the fee for the process jumps to about $1,500.
Ms. Coccia said the chief complaint heard by staff about home occupation requirements is the fee. She suggested one option
for addressing the concern is to change the process so that home occupations that require more review are handled as staff -
approved conditional use permits rather than a conditional use permit requiring Hearing Examiner review. This would
reduce the fee to about $500. She noted that administrative conditional use permits are also used for accessory dwelling unit
permits and tree cutting permits. Public notice would still be required and a permit could be conditioned, but the decision
would ultimately be made by staff.
Ms. Coccia said another option would be to streamline the permitting of home occupations that should logically fit within
neighborhood settings by clarifying the standards for approvable home occupations. For example, home occupations that
have only a single off -site employee or not more than one customer coming to the site per hour could be permitted as part of
a normal home occupation review.
Ms. Coccia suggested the Board review the current codes and processes related to home occupations, compare them to other
jurisdictions, and determine if an administrative conditional use review process would be more appropriate than a conditional
use permit that requires a public hearing at three times the cost. She noted that the City Council's Community
Services/Development Services Committee has recommended further discussion about streamlining the process and keeping
it simple. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board in order to proceed toward a public hearing proposal.
Vice Chair Lovell requested more information about the breaking point where staff determines a conditional use permit
would be required. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 20.20.010 (A), which outlines the criteria used to evaluate a home
occupation application. If an application does not meet all of the criteria, a conditional use permit would be required. ECDC
20.20.010(B) identifies the criteria used to evaluate conditional use permits. He observed that it would be difficult for many
home occupations to strictly comply with all of the criteria.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 8
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that based on the Community Sustainability Element, the City is trying to create
a more favorable environment for home occupations. She hopes the regulations can be made more flexible. Mr. Chave said
music teachers and accountants are good examples of typical home occupations that receive little or no objection from
adjacent property owners. These could be approved via an administrative conditional use permit process. However, the City
has had enforcement problems with home occupations that employ multiple people such as real estate offices. These types of
home occupations could require a conditional review and public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The key is to
establish a threshold such as one visitor per hour or a certain number of clients per hour. He suggested the threshold be tied
to the typical traffic that is generated by a single-family home, which is about 10 trips per day.
Board Member Johnson said the current code language contains a provision that says if you have evidence of even one
visitor, the business license could be revoked. She asked how many licenses have been revoked for this reason. Mr. Chave
said he could not think of a situation of this type. The most common case is that a home occupation license would be denied
for this reason. He noted that very few home occupation applications have been sent to the Hearing Examiner. He said he
suspects that many home occupations are "flying under the radar" and have not created a problem in the neighborhood.
Board Member Stewart said that given the current economy and City goals related to sustainability, they need to make it
possible for people to work out of their home. She suggested that limiting the clients to one per house may be too restrictive.
Perhaps a better approach would be to allow no more than one car per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned that it is important to hold
down the scale of home occupation uses to a reasonable level and to avoid negative impacts such as noise. He observed that
more and more people are working from home a certain number days a week rather than going into the office. Home
occupation regulations that are too restrictive do not encourage flexible work hours, etc. Ms. Coccia said Attachment 2 is a
matrix comparing the City's current regulations with those of other jurisdictions in the region. She noted that most of them
allow one non -family employee or customer.
Board Member Clarke said he finds it extremely frustrating that he lives in a neighborhood that has covenants, conditions
and restrictions that prohibit commercial uses from being conducted inside the homes, but the City has taken the position that
it will not interpret private covenants. As part of the proof of application, an individual should be required to prove that
there are no private restrictions on the property that prohibit home occupations. Even though people read the title and
understand the restrictions when they purchase their property, they often break the rules knowing that the only way to
enforce the requirement is for a neighbor to sue. He said it is unfair for the City to allow a use that is not legally permitted
by the covenants associated with the property. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City does not enforce private
covenants.
Board Member Johnson asked if the City has an enforcement process for home occupations. Mr. Chave answered
affirmatively, but the City does not enforce private covenants. Board Member Clarke suggested that his concern could be
addressed if the criteria for a home occupation permit requires an applicant to prove there are no private restrictions or
conditions that prohibit home occupations. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit a response from the City Attorney regarding this
issue.
Board Member Clarke said he knows of a situation in his neighborhood where a home occupation cannot meet any of the
criteria in ECDC 20.20.010(A). The business transports recreational vehicles with a large capacity pick up truck which is
often parked in front of his living room window. The use violates several covenants such as storage of recreational vehicles,
but it is being permitted by the City. Across the street from him is an electrician who parks his commercial vehicle on his
property. In subdivisions with small lots and very little setback requirements, these types of uses can be very imposing to
surrounding property owners. He suggested they look more carefully at the code requirements rather than simply making
them broader. He further suggested that staff provide examples so the Board can determine whether or not the criteria is
adequate to address most situations in the City. Mr. Chave suggested the Board invite the Code Enforcement Officer to
participate in the discussion. He observed that Board Member Clarke's concerns are more nuisance issues than problems
with the home occupation provisions.
Board Member Johnson said she learned a lot about the home occupation provisions by reading the Staff Report. She
learned that in her particular neighborhood a piano teacher went through the process to obtain a conditional use permit, yet
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 9
another neighbor was illegally operating a business that has many people coming and going. She stressed that education and
enforcement issues must be addressed.
Board Member Cloutier observed that cost is the number one factor that discourages people from applying for the necessary
home occupation permits. He suggested that if the financial cost were lower and the guidelines were clearer, more people
would submit applications for the required permits. This would allow the City to have a better understanding of what is
going on and they could start to see the correlation between approved home occupations and the associated uses to identify
necessary changes. A proper checklist would be helpful to applicants, as well. He summarized his belief that the City
should do what they can to encourage applications to be submitted. Mr. Chave said it would be less costly for the City to
have a simpler process rather than increasing enforcement.
Board Member Reed asked if every home occupation is required to obtain a permit. Ms. Coccia said they are required to
obtain a business license through the City Clerk's office. However, a conditional use permit would only be required if the
use cannot meet the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.20.010(A). Board Member Reed said he found the document confusing
because the word "permit" is used over and over again, and it is not meant to refer to a document, but to what is allowed. He
suggested the term be changed to "allowed" if it is not talking about an actual permit. Board Member Reed said it is
important to preserve the sanctity of neighborhoods in the City, but it is also important to encourage opportunities for
economic development. He said he finds the current regulations to be too tight, but he is not sure how far they should be
loosened. Mr. Chave suggested a discussion with the Code Enforcement Officer would be helpful in this regard.
Board Member Clarke observed that with changes in technology, companies are downsizing their office space and having
their employees work from home. As the economic base evolves to a service employment base, they will see more and more
of these situations. Board Member Johnson said it is important for the City to encourage people to have their businesses at
home legally. They should encourage them to apply for the correct licenses and permits. This can be done by having
reasonable rules that allow them to work without impacting the neighborhood. Technology and economic circumstances
have changed significantly since the current code language was written 17 years ago. She suggested the Board could be
creative and come up with code language that allows an administrative process that can readily adapt to current situations.
This would also avoid situations where people have to either go before the Hearing Examiner for a conditional use or operate
the home occupation without the required permits.
Ms. Coccia pointed out that delivery services such as UPS, Federal Express, etc. cannot be regulated by the City. The
deliveries referred to in the code language are related to those that require vehicles larger than a standard UPS truck. She
noted that more and more people are trying to operate web -based businesses from their home. They don't have products
stored in their homes, but they coordinate the shipment of merchandise from one site to another.
Board Member Stewart said another reason to encourage home businesses is that they want to reduce the number of vehicle
trips to reduce emissions. One positive step is to encourage home occupations so people do not have to drive to work. She
encouraged the Board to keep this positive aspect in mind. The code language should be flexible, yet also protect the
character of the neighborhoods. She expressed her position that if she lived in a neighborhood with covenants, she would
like the City to honor the requirements. Board Member Johnson expressed her belief that the existing code requirements are
so restrictive that they force people to disobey or ignore them.
Board Member Clarke inquired if any consideration is given to the street patterns. Trucks associated with home occupations
could create circulation issues. While some residential neighborhoods have free flowing traffic and capacity for street
parking, most residential plats do not have wide enough streets to accommodate on -street parking, particularly for large
vehicles. Ms. Coccia agreed and said that the Engineering Department reviews conditional use applications and provides
feedback regarding traffic. Mr. Chave said the code could probably include rules that accomplish the same thing. For
example, home occupations above a certain threshold could be required to locate on a collector or arterial streets.
The Board agreed that the next step would be to discuss their issues and concerns with the Code Enforcement Officer, and
then provide direction to staff to develop a proposal. Staff agreed to provide some alternatives for the Board to consider
when they continue their discussion. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the goal of the proposed amendments it to make
the process simpler without requiring Hearing Examiner review. Mr. Chave said that rather than requiring a Hearing
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 10
Examiner review, a conditional use application could be a staff decision with notice. He noted that most business licenses do
not require notice, but another alternative would be to require notice only for businesses that propose to have people coming
to the home. He summarized that staff supports an amendment that would move away from automatically sending home
occupation applications to the Hearing Examiner since this is a costly process.
Board Member Clarke asked about the penalty for operating a home occupation without a license. Mr. Chave said it
becomes a code enforcement issue. There is no automatic monetary penalty. The person would be required to apply for a
business license, and the City has the ability to increase fees up to five times for violations. If the situation is the result of an
inadvertent mistake, they do not assess a higher fee. But if they know that a person blatantly violated the permit requirement,
a higher fee would be assessed. Board Member Clarke said that if they are going to make it easier to obtain a home
occupation permit, they should also increase the penalty for those who try to avoid the permit requirement.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not provide any comments regarding the extended agenda.
ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER REED AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed announced that the public/private Washington State Ferry Partnership's deadline for proposals for the
lot adjacent to Skippers was June 30th, and no proposals were received for an overhead crossing in exchange for the lot. The
appraisal of the property was approximately $1.5 million and was based on a statement from the bank that they received two
offers of $1 million for the Skippers property. It was determined that the best option is to hold the property until the
economy improves. He said he would like the City to work with the Washington State Department of Transportation and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe to create a walking avenue from downtown to the waterfront that does not go in front of the
ferry.
Board Member Clarke advised that his employment requires a lot of travel that he has no control over. This has resulted in
his absence from a number of Board meetings. He said he reviews the Commission materials that are distributed for each
meeting. He said he loves being part of the Board and appreciates the opportunity to work with such a talented group of
people. He indicated he does not intend to resign at this time. He observed that when he first joined the Board, previous
Board Member Guenther missed several meetings for work related responsibilities, yet Mr. Rutledge never commented on
his absences. He suggested that Mr. Rutledge appears to have a personal issue with him.
Board Member Clarke recalled previous comments made by Al Rutledge regarding the issue of naming parks and putting up
plaques to recognize people who submit potential names for parks. He explained that Mr. McIntosh has worked diligently to
try and communicate the issues surrounding Mr. Rutledge's concerns. The bottom line is that the park naming policy is very
specific, and both times the committees followed the letter of the law. They have named two parks after individuals rather
than groups of people. When Hickman Park was named and dedicated, there was a ceremony that recognized individuals
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Pagel l
outside of the plaque that was put at the park permanently. There never was any intention at the Planning Board or City
Council to create a plaque.
Board Member Johnson announced that Stevens/Swedish Hospital would make a presentation at the Citizens Economic
Development Commission Meeting on July 21" at 6:00 p.m. They would also make a presentation before the City Council
on August 3`d. Members of the Board and citizens are invited to attend.
Board Member Cloutier reported that he recently attended a meeting of the Cascade Land Conservancy, which is starting a
"complete streets" ordinance movement in Edmonds. He noted that many of the elements associated with the "complete
streets" concept are already contained in the Streetscape Plan. The City of Edmonds has had a long and positive relationship
with the Cascade Land Conservancy. Their goal is to create a community -driven ordinance to identify how they want their
streets to accommodate the right mix of pedestrians, bicycles, and other vehicles. There are numerous example ordinances
available from other cities in the region, as well as King County.
Board Member Cloutier announced that Shoreline Solarfest is scheduled for July 17`h at the Shoreline Community College.
Chair Lovell asked if Board Member Reed received his notes from the retreat. Board Member Reed answered affirmatively.
Board Member Stewart thanked Board Member Bowman for his leadership on the Board.
Board Member Clarke recommended the Board and staff be more proactive in looking for opportunities to enhance the
medical district around Steven's Hospital. So many other communities are being proactive to accommodate medical
facilities because they are great employers and a community asset. The Stevens/Swedish Hospital decision will be very
important for the community. The City is in a unique geographic location to provide services if they can show a willingness
to look at alternatives for development opportunities. He referred to what the communities near Children's Hospital have
done to accommodate the facility's expansion. Edmonds has an opportunity to put something positive forward to show the
City really wants to have a major medical employer in the area.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 12