2015-11-18 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 18, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the special 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
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Matthew Cheung
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
Carreen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
Samuel Kleven (Student Representative)
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
The Board acknowledged the written Development Services Director's Report, but made no comments related to it.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO VEHICLES PARKED ON SINGLE-
FAMILY LOTS
Ms. Hope explained that concerns have been raised about perceived large numbers of vehicles parked on various Single -
Family Residential (RS) lots and about extensive vehicle repair being done in front yards. These activities can have a
significant impact to neighbors and may conflict with the community's expectations for front yards within RS
neighborhoods. In addition, large amounts of impervious surface for vehicle parking and driving can result in excessive
stormwater runoff. In recent months, she has been working with the Code Enforcement Officer and officers in the Police
Department to develop code amendments to address these issues. She emphasized that the proposed amendments would only
apply in RS zones and not Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones. She reviewed the proposed amendments as follows:
While the existing code does not limit the area of impervious surface for outdoor parking on RS lots, the proposed code
would restrict the amount of improved surface for outdoor parking to no more than 50% of the front yard. She noted that
the proposed definition for "improved surface" includes both pervious and impervious permanent hard surfaces that are
designed or used for driving or parking motor vehicles. Examples of pervious material include grasscrete and pavers.
She advised that stormwater runoff is a particular concern associated with impervious surfaces. This minor amendment
is intended to provide clarification, but does not deal with the larger stormwater issue that will be addressed as part of the
2016 Development Code update. She also emphasized that the proposed amendment would not apply to patios in the
front yard, as long as they are not specifically designed for vehicles.
• The existing code prohibits the parking of more than five vehicles in the front yard of RS lots, but it does not specify
whether this limit applies only to vehicles parked outdoors or if it includes vehicles parked in a garage. The proposed
amendment would prohibit the parking of more than four vehicles in the front yard, but would specify that the restriction
applies only to vehicles parked outdoors and not those parked in garages and/or carports.
In most cases, occasional vehicle repair in the front yard is not a neighborhood problem, but there are some situations
where car repair activities can look like a business and operate many hours a day. While the code currently requires a
business license for this use, there is often no evidence that a business exists and the license requirement is not triggered.
In situations where repair work looks like a business and has an impact on the neighborhood, the idea is to deal with the
issue regardless of whether or not a business license has been obtained. The proposed code amendment would limit
outdoor car repair to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. It would also require that vehicle parts must be either be
stored in an enclosed structure or screened from public view.
Ms. Hope emphasized that the proposed amendments before the Board at this time are not the only changes proposed to
address vehicle parking in residential areas. The Police Department is also working on amendments that will address parking
in the rights -of -way.
Chair Tibbott reviewed the procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing.
John Espanola, Edmonds, commented that this is a complex issue and the proposed amendments will only partially address
the problem. He explained that a property owner in his neighborhood has 11 to 14 vehicles alternatively parked on the street
in various stages of disrepair. These cars block the right-of-way and create a safety issue for walkers, particularly children
who are heading to and from the bus stop. The only place left to walk is in the middle of the busy street. He suggested the
City could do a better job of enforcing its parking code. Currently, the owner is bypassing the three-day parking rule by
simply moving cars from one place to another. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment could actually worsen the
problem. If the number of vehicles that can be stored in the front yard is limited to just four, more cars would be pushed out
onto the street. He proposed that the City implement a system similar to the one that citizens use to report violations in the
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes where citizens can either call or visit a website to report violations. The Department
of Transportation follows up on the reports and it is incumbent upon the violator to prove he/she did not commit the
infraction. This approach would empower the citizens to help resolve the problems.
Mr. Espanola voiced support for limiting street parking to two vehicles per house. He felt this would be adequate given that
property owners would also be allowed to park four cars in the front yard and additional vehicles in the garage. Lastly, Mr.
Espanola suggested that the code be amended to address vehicles that are polluting the environment. These should be dealt
with as a high priority, independent of the number of cars that are allowed to park on an RS property.
Kevin Stively, Edmonds, requested clarification about whether cars parked in carports would be counted as part of the four
cars allowed to park in the front yard. He voiced concern that cul-de-sacs often have very little on -street parking, and visitors
often have to park further away. If the City limits on -street parking to a certain distance from the RS property, residents on
cul-de-sacs could be significantly impacted. He pointed out that a property owner in his neighborhood rotates numerous cars
every night to avoid the three-day on -street parking limit. He is also concerned that cars traveling down the street create a
safety hazard for children that must be addressed. Although the City has a code requirement that prohibits cars from parking
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 2
on the street within 25 feet of a stop sign, this requirement has not been enforced in his neighborhood and it creates a safety
hazard. He concluded his remarks by asking the Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Anne Klein, Edmonds, said she and her husband moved in to their home 18 years ago when the concerns expressed by
neighbors today were not an issue. Since that time, they have watched the number of vehicles that belong to just one
homeowner grow from 5 to 9 to 12 to 15 and finally 17 this past year. This is of particular concern to her friendly
neighborhood and has created traffic backups and frustration. She noted that although most of the 17 cars are not used, the
City does not have effective codes to deal with the issue. While she recognized that the proposed amendments will not
directly impact all of their concerns, it is important for the Planning Board and City Council to see the picture of what has
brought so many complaints to different City departments. She voiced the neighborhood concerns as follows:
• Safety of children. There are at least two bus stops located at/near the corners of Maplewood Drive, Sierra Drive, and
204'b Street.
• Environmental concerns. Oil and other fluids from the vehicles that are consistently parked on Maplewood Drive and
Sierra Drive go directly into the storm drains. How does the City check these situations and enforce environmental
requirements?
• Work being done on vehicles in public view and on public streets. She questioned how the current code could ever be
enforced when the Code Enforcement Officer is not available during the times the work is happening.
• Non -working or junk vehicles. There are numerous vehicles stored on the property and on the street, and most could be
classified as non -working or junk.
• Large number of vehicles that are consistently lined up and/or stored along Sierra Drive and Maplewood Drive. Most of
these vehicles have flat or low tires, parts stored inside and extensive body damage. Those on Maplewood Drive often
sit for months in the same position, and those on Sierra Drive are moved just a few feet or rotated to avoid parking
infractions. The street sweeper has not been able to clean the streets in those areas for years, mailboxes have been
blocked, neighbors do not have spots for guest parking, visibility at intersections is impaired, walking is difficult if not
dangerous, and property values could be impacted. The overall enjoyment of the neighborhood has declined and
neighbors cannot walk or drive by without commenting on the problems and counting the cars that are in their face every
day.
Based on the concerns outlined above, Ms. Klein presented the following comments and questions related to the proposed
amendments:
• Section 17.60.040(A). Changing the number of vehicles from five to four will actually increase the number of vehicles
on the streets.
• Section 17.60.040(A)(1). How will the temporary 24-hour parking duration be enforced or monitored? Could the
position of vehicles still be rotated to avoid this provision?
• Section 17.60.040(C). What is the definition for "vehicle -oriented business," which would be prohibited? How many
cars can be sold, repaired and/or sold from a residential lot?
• Section 17.60.040(D). What is the definition for "intact" or "inoperable vehicle?
• Section 17.60.040 (D)(2). Does the term "vehicle parts" mean every part and accessory? Does the phrase "including but
not limited to ..." include tires, batteries, chargers, seats, etc.? Would all debris have to be stored in an enclosed area?
If so, how would it be enforced in backyards?
• Section 17.60.040(G). Who determines if a vehicle has intruded into an improved public right-of-way or obstructed
sight visibility? Do people call the police or is this a code violation?
• Section 17.60.040(J)(1). The neighborhood has been trying to apply this provision to their specific concerns because
they know vehicles are worked on, then set aside for months to work on another one; but the City has advised that their
evidence has not been verified. How is the 30-day time limit monitored and enforced? Does the Code Enforcement
Officer have to stop by each day, including weekends, for 30 days?
• Section 17.60.040(J)(2). If only one vehicle can be worked on at a time, where would the others be located while
working on the "one?" How would this provision be monitored and enforced?
• Section 17.60.040(J)(4). Who will enforce the provision that prohibits work from being done in public rights -of -way?
• Section 17.60.040(J)(5). This provision appears to contradict Section 17.60.040(D)(2). Does the code mean that all
vehicle parts must be stored in a completely enclosed building or just an area that is screened from public view?
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 3
• Section 17.60.040(J)(8). How does the City determine if there is a concern with vehicle fluids and how they are
drained/disposed of, and how does the City follow up on concerns?
• Section 17.60.040(J)(10). While this provision sounds good, who will enforce it?
Ms. Klien explained that the neighbors have filled out many code violation forms, and they are often told that evidence has
not been verified or has not been established. She questioned who is responsible to verify, establish and enforce the code
provisions that are now being proposed? At what point, after years of reminders, do situations turn into code violations?
Again, she noted that the person responsible for enforcing the codes is not always available during the times when infractions
are occurring, and personal statements by neighbors and photographs are not considered evidence. She asked how it is
possible for neighbors to follow up and make sure the codes are enforced. She concluded that, while the proposed changes
could be of some help, they are not clear and specific on how they will be monitored and enforced.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, voiced support for the concerns raised by Mr. Espanola. If the City limits the number of cars that
can be parked on individual properties, they will likely spill out onto the adjacent streets. He shared a situation that occurred
last week when he was turning right from Sierra Drive onto Maplewood Drive. Because cars were parked within 10 feet of
the corner and he couldn't see well around them, he was unable to see a gentleman who was in the road. There seems to be
some confusion about what is right-of-way and what is private property. People often park in the right-of-way, thinking that
it is private property. Parking too close to the intersection can result in a hazardous situation, particularly for the school
children who meet at the bus stop in this location. Recently, he was unable to clean out the gutter on one side of his home
because someone was parked to close to his home.
Michelle Mearns, Edmonds, said her main concerns are related to the environment and safety. She pointed out that many
children live in the neighborhood, and they like to play outside and ride their bikes in the street. Because there is no sidewalk
on the north side, the line of cars that are parked along the street requires pedestrians to go out in the middle of the street to
get by. She said she is more concerned about the cars that are parked on the street than about how many cars are parked in
the front yard. The current wall of cars along Maplewood Drive creates a significant safety hazard for pedestrian and other
vehicles. It also creates an absolute blind spot at the intersection.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, voiced concern that the proposed amendments are intended to address a single situation that is
occurring in a neighborhood in the City. The repair work that occurs on the property in question could be taken care of with
the existing code provisions that deal with commercial uses in residential zones. He agreed with previous speakers that if the
City restricts the number of cars that can be parked in a front yard, it will push more cars out into the street. He observed that
some apartment developments have been overbuilt and do not provide sufficient parking to meet the tenants' needs. As a
result, cars spill out into the street in places where parking was never an issue before. He noted that many jurisdictions
require that vehicles parked on the street must be operational and licensed, and there are already code provisions in place to
address "junk" vehicles. While he sympathizes with the neighborhood, he is opposed to amending the code to take care of a
problem that can easily be handled by provisions that are already in the code.
Mr. Mearns submitted photographs for the record to illustrate the problems that exist in his neighborhood.
Chair Tibbott closed the public portion of the hearing.
Chair Tibbott reminded the Board to focus their discussion on the code amendments before them, which apply to private
property and do not address parking in rights -of -way. He asked Assistant Chief Lawless if he believes the proposed code
amendments would provide clarification and help with enforcing the issues they face on a regular basis. Assistant Chief
Lawless explained that, although a majority of the public testimony focused on the problem that exists in one neighborhood,
the proposed amendments are intended to address problems throughout the City and not just this one isolated incident. In
most situations, the City staff has been successful in gaining voluntary compliance, but this is has proven more difficult in
some cases. He said the Police Department has been working with the Development Services Director and Code
Enforcement Officer for some time to deal with the issue that exists in this one neighborhood. While he recognized that the
neighborhood is frustrated, City staff has been attempting to enforce the codes that are currently available relative to parking
and legitimate code enforcement actions and are in various stages of resolution. Some have been upheld by the court, some
are still pending, and others have been dismissed. The City does not have any authority after a citation has been issued.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 4
Assistant Chief Lawless said it is important to keep in mind that the proposed amendments before the Board will be
accompanied by amendments to the parking provisions for public rights -of -way. While amendments to the parking
provisions for public rights -of -way are outside of the Board's purview, the intent is to forward the two ordinances to the City
Council at the same time. The right-of-way provisions are intended to address the concern that limiting the number of cars
that can park on private property could end up pushing additional cars out onto the streets. As currently written, the right-of-
way provisions would limit the number of cars that can be parked in the right-of-way, as well as the distance they can be
parked away from a residence. The intent is to allow sufficient street -parking for visitors and residents within a reasonable
distance, but avoid situations where one property owner can park a number of cars along a single -street. He commented that
it is not easy to find the correct balance that also addresses the rights of private property owners and can meet the judicial
test. Chair Tibbott asked about the timing for presenting the two ordinances to the City Council, and Assistant Chief Lawless
answered that the goal is to present both ordinances to the City Council as a package.
Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed amendments offer some improvements relative to enforcement. Ms. Hope clarified that
the proposed amendments are just one part of a bigger package. Amendments to the zoning code must be presented to the
Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation before they are forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
Proposed amendments relative to public rights -of -way are within the City Council's purview and will not come before the
Board for review. The intent is to present both sets of amendments to the City Council as a complete package. If the Board
recommends approval of the ordinance before them, they could add something in their motion about encouraging the
adoption of reasonable restrictions for public rights -of -way, as well.
Ms. Hope recalled that concern was raised about how many vehicles are appropriate in a front yard. She emphasized that, as
currently proposed, only four cars could be parked in the front yard of an RS lot. However, this number does not include cars
that are parked in either a garage or carport. The current code limits the number of cars in the front yard to five, including
those in garages and carports. Some street parking would also be allowed, but the number would be limited. However, street
parking will be dealt with in the other ordinance that was prepared by the Police Department.
Ms. Hope said citizens also raised concerns about the City's ability to enforce its codes. While the goal is to have tools in
place to enable City staff to better enforce the code, it is not possible to have a code in place to deal with every situation that
might come up.
Ms. Hope recalled citizen comments that the Code Enforcement Officer was not always available to respond to issues that
come up, particularly on weekends. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Police Department is available to
respond to concerns about parking in public rights -of -way. Some citizens also voiced concern about limiting the amount of
on -street parking allowed per residential lot. She explained that the intent is to limit the total number of cars parked in the
rights -of -way and front yards on a regular basis, but perhaps there could be some exceptions to accommodate temporary
guest parking. She reminded the Board that parking codes are enforced on a complaint basis.
Board Member Stewart asked how many parking spaces are required in the RS zones, and Ms. Hope answered two. She
explained that the two parking spaces can be in a garage, a driveway, a carport, etc. She noted that there are also parking
requirements for the multi -family residential zones. Board Member Stewart observed that if only two parking spaces are
provided on a single-family lot, a family with kids who drive may have to park in the street, as well. Ms. Hope pointed out
that a minimum of two parking spaces are required for RS zones, but a property owner could certainly provide more. For
example, a property owner could park two cars in a carport and four in the front yard, for a total of six spaces. Additional
parking would also be available on the street.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that many homes in Edmonds do not have carports or garages, and people do not always
have the resources to construct improved surfaces in their front yards to accommodate vehicles. As currently written, these
people would only have two on -street parking spaces available to them. She questioned the appropriateness of prohibiting
parking on grass areas when allowing people to park on grass could free up on -street parking. She noted that grass enables
infiltration to occur, and the Environmental Protection Agency's best practices to reduce discharge to storm drains include
washing cars on grass. While she understands the visual impact of allowing cars to park on grass in the front yard, proper
screening could resolve this concern. She said she would support allowing five cars to be parked in the front yard, including
on grass surfaces.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 5
Ms. Hope agreed that current literature encourages washing cars on grass instead of pavement. However, it is important to
keep in mind that parking cars on grass for long periods of time can kill the grass, resulting in a dirt surface that is susceptible
to erosion. While parking on grass on a temporary basis might be appropriate, it creates problems if it occurs on a regular
basis.
Board Member Stewart said she has been advised to use "hog fuel" to provide a surface to accommodate more parking space
on her property. This material, as well as native bark, allows for infiltration. She does not want these materials to be
prohibited by code. As defined, an improved surface can include both pervious and impervious materials, and in her mind,
grass would be a better option than a hard surface. Ms. Hope advised that materials such as pavers and grasscrete would be
acceptable materials for parking surfaces, but grass would quickly die if vehicles are parked on it on a regular basis. She
invited Board Member Stewart to identify other examples of pervious surface materials. For example, a ribbon driveway
may be an acceptable solution.
Board Member Robles asked why photographs from the neighbors would not be accepted as reliable evidence. Ms. Hope
explained that the problem is not related to the lack of evidence. The problem is there are not sufficient tools in the code to
address the complaints. Even though the neighbors can provide pictures to show that 15 to 20 cars are parked along the
street, there is no code provision that limits the number of cars that can be parked there. They have tried to address the
problem using the provision that limits street parking to no more than three days, but people can be very creative in moving
cars around to get around the code. The proposed ordinances are intended to provide tools to deal with egregious issues
throughout the entire City, and not just this one neighborhood. Photographs are acceptable evidence when there are
appropriate code provisions in place.
Board Member Robles questioned if the City has a system in place to enforce the existing and proposed code requirements.
Ms. Hope answered that cities and counties have some discretion in how they enforce codes. For example, the City has a
property maintenance code that addresses the appearance of structures. However, unless there is an egregious problem, the
City does not actively pursue enforcement of the provisions unless there are safety concerns. The City has limited resources
and only one Code Enforcement Officer. Oftentimes, code violations occur because people do not understand the
requirements. Once they are advised of the code, they are usually willing to comply. Board Member Robles said he is not in
favor of blanket legislation that is aimed specifically at resolving a particular neighborhood problem, but the City does need
to have tools in place to deal with egregious situations.
Board Member Robles asked if it would be possible to document evidence so that, once notified with proper evidence that a
safety issue exists, the City could be held liable if does not take care of the problem and an accident occurs. Ms. Hope
pointed out that some safety concerns can be addressed by adding additional sidewalks or installing traffic calming devices.
The City's Traffic engineer can study problems and identify solutions for calming traffic and making the streets safer, but
situations where people park too close to an intersection are more of a traffic enforcement issue that must be handled by the
Police Department.
Assistant Chief Lawless advised that, for the most part, officers are proactively patrolling the areas, and the parking
complaints they respond to are typically related more to quality of life than to life safety. However, both apply to the
situation brought forward during the public hearing. The intent is to approach the problem by amending the code
requirements for both private parking and parking in public rights -of -way. The goal is to gain voluntary compliance, which
has not occurred in this situation due to a number of factors. They are now trying to address the issue from a broader
perspective and in multiple tasks.
Assistant Chief Lawless explained that when the Police Department receives a complaint related to parking on private
property, they typically refer the matter to the appropriate department. Complaints related to the lack of sidewalks and/traffic
calming devices are referred to the engineering department for resolution. There are volumes of best practices to address
parking problems, and there is no easy answer to any of the concerns expressed. The intent is to balance life safety and
aesthetic concerns with individual property rights to find a solution that is enforceable and works for everyone.
Board Member Robles asked to what degree a property owner would be liable if he/she were to do something that harms
someone else. Assistant Chief Lawless answered that numerous factors would come into play as far as proving true intent,
and there are high thresholds in both the criminal and civil realms. Board Member Robles asked if a property owner who is
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 6
operating a commercial enterprise on an RS lot would be required to do an environmental study before selling the property to
determine if there is any encumbrance in the action that could create a negative incident if it were to continue. Ms. Hope said
the City will always encourage property owners to do the right thing, and sometimes just providing the right information can
be helpful. However, in some cases, it is difficult to determine whether or not a property owner is operating a commercial
business. The City has actually investigated various properties that appear to be operating as businesses. However, there is
no business license on file with either the City or the State or any other evidence to indicate a business operation. You cannot
penalize someone for having a business when there is no evidence of an actual business.
Board Member Monroe agreed that it is important for the two sets of amendments to go forward to the City Council as a
combined package. He asked when the right-of-way amendments would be ready. Assistant Chief Lawless answered that
the amendments related to parking in the public rights -of -way are ready and can move forward to the City Council as soon as
the Board makes a recommendation on the proposed amendments related to private property. However, he cautioned that it
can take time to schedule the item on the City Council's busy agenda.
Board Member Cheung asked if it would be considered a violation to park an unlicensed, inoperable vehicle on the street or
in the front yard of a RS lot. Assistant Chief Lawless answered that a vehicle must be legally registered and operable to be
parked in the right-of-way. However, if a vehicle has four inflated tires and a valid registration, it is difficult for the City to
determine whether or not it is operable unless it remains parked in the same place for more than three days. Board Member
Cheung asked if it would be possible for a person to move a vehicle around in order to avoid the three-day limit, and
Assistant Chief Lawless agreed that is possible, and enforcement requires the City to prove intent. Unless someone is
watching, it would be difficult to determine if the car was moved to avoid a citation or if it was moved so another car could
be parked behind it. Ms. Hope said the intent is to limit the number of vehicles parked in the right-of-way for any individual
property owner, which is much easier to prove and enforce.
Board Member Rubenkonig announced that she read the minutes from the October 28th meeting, at which the proposed
amendments were presented to and discussed by the Board. She is prepared to participate in the deliberations and
recommendation. She said she can appreciate the concern of citizens living on Sierra and Maplewood Drives. However, the
Board has been encouraged not to focus on this particular situation since the codes would apply citywide. She cautioned
against allowing this one situation to drive the Board's recommendation on the proposed amendments. She recalled that, in
the past, it has been common practice to dictate what can and cannot be located in a front yard, but that is no longer the case.
From her point of view, the City should consider the proposed amendments from an urban perspective. She reminded the
Board that Edmonds is struggling to become more urban, as there is less land for more people and residents are still in love
with the car. Parking is an urban problem that is not adequately addressed in either the current code or the proposed
amendments. As currently proposed, a property owner could park three or four cars in the garage and driveway, and an
additional four cars in the front yard. This high number of cars flies in the face of Edmonds becoming more urban and
perpetuates Edmonds as a suburban area. She said she understands that the proposed amendments are intended to provide a
better tool for addressing situations that come up, but she is not convinced it is the right approach.
Board Member Rubenkonig also voiced concern about the proposal to limit the number of cars that each resident can park on
the street, such as two for each address. This might lead some people to believe that the parking spaces are theirs and no one
else can park there. On the other hand, the provision would be difficult to enforce as police would be unable to carefully
monitor who is parking in front of each house. She suggested that it would be better to address the issue as part of the overall
Development Code Update. Ms. Hope said the idea is to address these smaller issues immediately, recognizing that other
issues could be addressed at a later date as part of the larger code update. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the City
Council asked the Board to review the issue, conduct a public hearing, and forward a recommendation to them. She asked if
it would be possible to adopt the ordinance with a sunset clause that would require further review after a set amount of time.
Ms. Hope explained that, typically, the City Council only uses sunset clauses to address temporary situations that need to be
reevaluated. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Development Code can be amended at any time if it is
determined that changes are needed to better address the problem. These particular amendments would not lend themselves
to a sunset clause because they already know what the problem is, as well as the intermediary steps that will help address it.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she does not see that parking is a rampant issue in the RS zones. Ms. Hope agreed, but
emphasized that it is a serious problem for those who are dealing with particular situations. Like most codes, some
provisions are intended to deal with specific problems, but they also have a citywide context. The proposed amendments
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 7
recognize that at least part of the front yard should remain as open area, and there are things that need to be done to be fair to
neighbors and still provide reasonable opportunities for residents to park and/or work on their cars.
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the front yard does not include the gravel area that is located within the right-of-
way in front of the property. Ms. Hope agreed that the front yard is measured from the property line and does not include
public right-of-way. However, she agreed that sometimes owners have the misconception that this area is actually part of
their property.
Chair Tibbott stressed the importance of having a code that is enforceable by both the Code Enforcement Officer and the
Police Department. He referred to Section 17.60.040(D) and asked if a number other than 50% would be more appropriate.
Ms. Hope said there is no magic number, and jurisdictions use various percentages. However, 50% is an easy number to
identify and enforce. The intent is that no more than half of the front yard could be used for parking, and parking would only
be allowed on improved surfaces, which can be either pervious or impervious. Chair Tibbott asked if a paved patio could be
used occasionally for additional parking. Ms. Hope answered that long-term parking would be prohibited in patio areas, but
temporary parking would be allowed. Chair Tibbott questioned if a 24-hour period for temporary parking would be adequate,
and Ms. Hope clarified that this limit would only apply to parking on private property and not the rights -of -way. Ms. Hope
expressed her belief that a 24-hour time limit should be adequate to address most temporary circumstances. Again, she
reminded the Board that the time limit would only be enforced if someone issues a complaint. Therefore, unless it is a
problem to the neighbors, the City will not pursue enforcement. Assistant Chief Lawless added that the proposed ordinance
for rights -of -way only addresses vehicles registered to the persons living at the address. Visitor parking would still be
available on the street with no maximum limit.
Chair Tibbott said he is not sure that limiting the number of vehicles that can park on a property would be helpful. Perhaps
the 50% limitation would be sufficient and property owners could be allowed to park as many vehicles as will fit on the
improved surface area. Ms. Hope agreed that is another option the Board could consider.
Chair Tibbott requested clarification of Section 17.60.040(E), which prohibits unattended vehicles on blocks, jacks or ramps
or otherwise elevated above the ground in an unstable manner. He suggested that perhaps the words "in an unstable manner"
could be replaced with "unattended for XX amount of time." Ms Hope noted that this approach would require the City to
come back another time to determine if the vehicle is still there. It was noted that this provision has been in the code for a
number of years. Mr. Chave clarified that "otherwise elevated" is meant to be in addition to "blocks, jacks, or ramps." As
written, anything that is unstable would not be allowed if unattended. Chair Tibbott asked if cars on blocks would be allowed
in the side or back yard, if screened from neighboring properties. Ms. Hope said the provision would apply anywhere on
private property. But realistically, it is not likely the City would be notified of a situation that occurs in the side or back yard
and out of the view.
Chair Tibbott asked who would enforce the provision related to commercial activity (vehicle repair). Ms. Hope answered
that the provision would be enforced by the Development Services Director or Code Enforcement Officer. The Police
Department and the City Clerk, who issues businesses licenses, may also be involved, depending on the situation.
Chair Tibbott pointed out that the provision related to recreational vehicles (RV) does not distinguish between motorized and
non -motorized. As written, it appears that just two RV's could be on a RS lot at any given time. Ms. Hope said the provision
would only apply to motorized RV's. She pointed out that no changes are proposed to the RV provisions at this time. Chair
Tibbott asked if the current RV code provisions are effective. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, but added that changes may
come forward as part of the overall Development Code Update in 2016.
Chair Tibbott asked the Board Members to provide feedback regarding Section 17.60.040(D)(1), which would limit improved
surface for parking to no more than 50% of the required front yard area.
Board Member Monroe said it is important to strike a balance between what is is feasible and private property rights. He said
allowing four cars to park outside of the driveway seems adequate and more than what the current code provides. He
supports the proposal, as written.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 8
Based on public testimony, Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that limiting parking to four or five vehicles to park
in a front yard would not really address the problem or warrant the change. If the concern is related to visibility and
aesthetics, perhaps a clause could be added relative to screening. The issue is they do not want vehicles parked on more than
half of the front yard and they must be parked on an improved surface as defined in the proposed language. Board Member
Robles commented that the proposal appears to be a progressive solution. It allows four cars to park in the front without
screening, and with screening there would be no limit. Overflow parking could use the street, if necessary, as well. Ms.
Hope explained that, typically, it is not desirable to have the front yard completely covered with cars, and it is not really
practical to provide enough screening in the front yard so that the cars are not visible from the street. She noted that height
limits apply to the front yard, as well. Board Member Robles suggested that the intent of the proposal is to create negative
incentives for property owners to park numerous cars in the front yard. If they really want it, they must work for it.
Ms. Hope said it is a question of what kind of front yards you want to encourage: ones with screens and high fences across
the entire front or fairly open ones with some room for parking but not totally covered with parking. Board Member Stewart
said she would personally rather see some type of screen than parked cars. Board Member Robles added that screens can
provide some freedom for property owners to have whatever they want in their front yard. Board Member Monroe said he is
not sure he wants to live in a community with tall fences in the front yard. In some sense, they all keep their house up for the
benefit and common good of the community and each other. Board Member Stewart suggested there is a difference between
values. Some property owners value privacy over interaction, and this should be a personal choice.
Ms. Hope said she would support the Board going forward with either four or five vehicles, and continue to limit the amount
of space devoted to parking in the front yard. However, staff would like the Board to wrap up their discussion and make a
recommendation to the City Council so it can move ahead and tie in with the right-of-way ordinance. She explained that if
they do not have limits on the number of cars that can park in the front yard and limits are placed on the number of cars that
can be parked in the right-of-way, front yards may become the next defacto parking place. They are trying to address the
issue holistically.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the proposed amendments represent progress, and she is hopeful that the issue can
be further addressed as part of the Development Code Update to better address the issue in the context of a more urban
setting. She supports forwarding the proposal to the City Council as presented, as an interim step to address the problem.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO VEHICLES PARKED ON SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER MONROE
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Stewart indicated she would vote against the motion because putting it down to four vehicles will be too
restrictive and a hardship to some people. Board Member Monroe observed that the proposed amendment would make the
parking less restrictive relative to the number of vehicles that can be parked in the front yard. The current code limited
parking to five cars total, and the proposed new language would allow a property owner to park four cars outdoors and as
many as they want indoors. Mr. Chave concurred that the proposed code language would allow more cars to park on a
property than the current code. He suggested that the proposed code language is intended to address appearance. Cars that
are outside are going to be fewer than can be seen now, but there would be no limit on the number of cars that are in garages
or otherwise screened. He explained that, absent the amendments, there is a way to park more than five cars on a property,
but the property owner must show evidence that an exception is warranted and it was very difficult for the City to enforce.
Having a number limitation is much simpler to enforce.
Given the explanation provided by staff, Board Member Stewart indicated she would support the motion, as proposed.
Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed amendment would also be applicable to side yards, and Ms. Hope said it is intended to
apply only to front yards. Chair Tibbott commented the intent is not clear in ECDC 17.60.040(A). He suggested that the first
sentence should be changed to read, "No more than four motor vehicles shall be parked in the required front yard of a
residential lot." Both Mr. Chave and Ms. Hope voiced support for this proposed change.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 9
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG WITHDREW HER MOTION, AND BOARD MEMBER MONROE, WHO
SECONDED THE MOTION, AGREED.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ECDC 17.60.040(A) BE
REVISED TO READ, "NO MORE THAN FOUR MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT." BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO VEHICLES PARKED ON SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AMENDED BY THE
BOARD. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
There were no comments relative to the extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott attended a presentation sponsored by a group who is interested in understanding toxic materials, especially
relative to playgrounds where children may be in contact with it. Two experts, one from the University of Washington,
spoke about their individual research regarding the issue. Each of them raised issues that had not previously been discussed
and concluded that more research is needed. He anticipates this issue will continue to be a significant topic of discussion at
the City Council level.
Chair Tibbott announced that, as he was elected to serve on the City Council, he would resign his position on the Planning
Board effective December 30. He voiced appreciation for the Board's support and encouragement, and wished them well
into the future.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
The Board Members thanked Chair Tibbott for his leadership and his service on the Board.
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that the amendments they recommended for approval should be considered
an intermediary approach. As the discussion moves forward as part of the Development Code Update, she asked that the
Board consider the issue in the context of an urban setting, which Edmonds is.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2015 Page 10