Loading...
09/18/1989 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF Larry Naughten, Mayor Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Bill Kasper, Council President Dan Prinz, Police Chief Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Jerry Hauth, Hydraulics Engineer Laura Hall, Councilmember Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember Bob Alberts, City Engineer John Nordquist, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Jack Wilson, Councilmember Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barbara Mehlert, Admin. Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Councilmember Dwyer arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on approval of the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Item (D) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 p,4w-5 (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH PAWS REGARDING ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES &t4 'A_ (E) APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTS #4 ($17,330) AND #5 ($32,150) TO KCM CONTRACT FOR SHELL CREEK DESIGN (F) APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR CENTENNIAL SAMPLER BOOK OF EXCERPTS - ARTS COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM STEVEN R. LORING ($500+) AND CARL ROMEI ($61.35)LITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA) Councilmember Hall was curious why the claim for Carl Romei was submitted to the City when Olym- pic View Water District has already replaced his damaged property at no cost to him. City Attor- ney Scott Snyder said the City of Edmonds has an interlocal agreement with a number of local jurisdictions, Woodway being one of the cities. He said although each entity indemnifies each other for any damages, he assumed the City's insurance company would deny the claim because dam- age caused in the pursuit of an emergency situation is not compensable. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE ITEM (D). MOTION CAR- RIED. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. - Doug Herman, Blueprint Homes, 420 - 5th Ave. S., Suite C, requested the Council to set a hearing to discuss the vesting time for developers with respect to the sprinkler ordinance that was re- cently enacted. Mr. Herman said the City has determined that a developer is vested when a complete building per- mit application has been submitted, but he felt it should be when a project is reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He pointed out that a developer cannot apply for a building permit until their project has been reviewed by the ADB. In response to a question by Councilmember Kasper, City Attorney Scott Snyder said the RCW (Chap- ter 19.27) was amended two years ago in response to a State Supreme Court decision to state that a developer's rights for zoning purposes vest when a fully completed building permit application is filed. He said each jurisdiction is given the ability to define "fully completed application". Mr. Snyder stated that designs and blueprints must be filed by a developer in order to submit a completed building permit application, but most developers file an ADB application first to avoid making revisions the Board may require which can be costly. He suggested the Council discuss the issue at a committee meeting. (The matter was scheduled for review by the Community Services Committee on October 10, 1989 and then for a public hearing before the Council on October 17, 1989.) Bjorn Thuesen said the building process is a lengthy process. He said developers can approximate the costs involved when they purchase a parcel of land, and he thought it was unfair for the City to impose additional requirements to a developer which increase those costs considerably after their rights have been vested. Mr. Thuesen recalled a time when builders were kept abreast of City processes by letter, but he said he was not aware until recently that the Council had scheduled a discussion for sprinkler requirements on June 20th. He said he and other developers would have attended that meeting, and their input may have made a difference. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, inquired when the PUD is going to remove the poles at the corner of 3rd and Main Street. Community Services Director Peter Hahn said they will be removed on Tuesday or Wednesday. Ms. Shippen said the newspaper vending machines, particularly in front of E1 Puerto and Brodine's, are a considerable eyesore. She inquired what action has been taken 'to put them in less obvious places. Mayor Naughten said no action has been taken to date but he would look into the matter. Ms. Shippen requested the Council to invite the Washington State Transportation Committee to the November meeting in Edmonds. She said the Washington State Transportation Commission has a strong voice with respect to the ferry system, and she urged the Council to make its case before the Commission. Carol Cummings, 8403 Talbot Road, said she owns a rental home on 79th Place West and would like to convert it to a duplex. Ms. Cummings said the easement behind the structure is a more appro- priate access than 79th Place West but Ordinance 2713 requires a 22 foot roadway for access, which restricts her from using the easement as an access point. She noted that it will be neces- sary to remove a rare evergreen tree on 79th Place West to provide access. Ms. Cummings said the easement was provided for overflow parking for an adjacent apartment com- plex but only she and her family use it. Ms. Commings said the Code does not allow variances to the street standards, and she requested Rl� the Council to allow her to file an application for a variance. VIC The issue was scheduled for discussion by the Community Services Committee on October 10, 1989. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the hearing. HEARING ON TALBOT DRAINAGE STUDY AND ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT Hydraulics Engineer Jerry Hauth noted that the Council authorized URS Corporation to proceed with the second phase in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan on September 16, 1989. Tom Kerns, URS Corporation, stated that an inventory of the drainage systems in Edmonds that were analyzed by URS was prepared; a hydraulic computer model was developed; the Citizens Advisory Committee was contacted and a community questionnaire was circulated; potential drainage problems were identified; and a Capital Improvement Program was developed. John Jensco, URS Corporation, reviewed the major problems that were identified in the basin study. He depicted the areas of concern in a slide presentation as follows: Shellabarger Creek - the pipeline is undersized at the intersection of 6th and Hemlock and, as a consequence, there has been flooding in the area. URS recommends that the pipeline be upgraded. The pipeline at 3rd and Dayton will be upgraded, as well. Projected flows at the bottom of the basin near 3rd Avenue tend to lead toward erosion. URS recommends that check dams be installed in the stream bed to reduce the velocity. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 Five Corners - Good Hope Pond appears to be growing in size partly because the channel that goes underneath Main Street has a hump in it. URS recommends to clean out the channel so it does not continually back up; install a flow control system to prevent flooding downstream; and install siltration ponds at•the mouth of each of the pipes at they discharge into the pond. North Stream - most of the problems are erosion related, but a significant problem is an under- sized pipe under Puget Drive. URS recommends to bypass the flow from Puget Drive and discharge it into the Shell Creek system that is currently being designed by the City. Mr. Jensco said URS also recommends that the system at the southeast corner of the basin be expanded in anticipation of development. Talbot Park Basin - bypass the flows from Cherry Street to Sound Creek, and upgrade the pipeline south of Olympic View Drive in anticipation of development. Mr. Jensco recommended that City Staff be dedicated for the sole purpose of monitoring and main- taining the storm drainage utility to alleviate future problems. Councilmember Dwyer inquired whether the City had a sufficient staffing level to dedicate a crew solely for the storm drainage utility. Mr. Hauth said he did not know. He said although Staff is making a diligent effort to maintain the system, it is not maintained in a consistent manner. He said enough work has been identified in the study to keep two people employed on a full-time basis. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if studies were conducted of the natural watershed areas to deter- mine if some of the overflow can be diverted there rather than using only a man-made system. Mr. Jensco replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if any of the streams can be re- stored for salmon. Mr. Kerns said bypassing the high flow rates, which would provide a more uniform flow and leave a base flow in the streams, would be beneficial to returning fish runs; however, there are a lot of other physical impairments to returning fish that the City may wish to study in the future. Councilmember Kasper inquired why fish ladders .are going to be installed in Shell Creek if the fish are unable to migrate to that area. Mr. Hauth explained that the mouth of Shell Creek pro- vides a unique environment under the railroad tracks. He said the water flows on the riffraff armoring that Burlington Northern Railroad has and, other than in times of extremely high tides, the bayside water is below the mouth of the pipe. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Avenue West, questioned whether the public is aware of the magnitude of the study. He said citizens would be more inquisitive if they had more in-depth knowledge. He recommended that another hearing be scheduled and that notices be posted in neighborhoods that will be specifically affected. Mr. Palmer noted that the cost to dedicate a crew for the maintenance of the system has not been mentioned but it could be a significant amount. Councilmember Kasper requested Staff to provide copies of the study in public places, such as the library, City Hall, so the public will have an opportunity to review that information. Mr. Palm- er suggested that maps which outline the boundaries of each of the study areas be published so that people can determine whether they live within the boundary lines. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Hahn said approximately $12.5 is avail- able for the Capital Improvement Program and for maintenance of the program. Mr. Hauth noted that questionnaires were sent out to everyone living within the basin. He said a 10% response was received, which is outstanding in terms of public interest and in soliciting and identifying known problems. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO FORMALLY ACCEPT THE PROPOSED STUDY BY URS CORPORATION REGARDING THE DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 18303 - 81ST VE. W. P- - R BER MEYERS Planning Division. Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on May 26, 1989, Staff denied a right-6f- way construction permit that was filed by Robert Meyers to widen his existing driveway at 18303 - 81st Avenue West on the basis that the proposed improvements in the public right-of-way would result in the loss of a Pacific Yew tree, which is not commonly found in this area. Ms. Block said Mr. Meyers filed an appeal asking that the Staff decision be overturned. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the appeal on July 20, 1989 and issued a decision denying the appeal on August 7, 1989. Mr. Meyers subsequently filed an appeal asking the City Council to review the matter. Ms. Block noted that a copy of the appeal letter, the Hearing Examiner's report, a vicinity map and a plot plan were included in the Council packets. She said the file on this matter has been in the City Council office for review prior to the hearing. Ms. Block said the tree is located in the public right-of-way and was saved by an earlier City action at the time of a subdivision in 1967. Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's comments. Ms. Block submitted ten photographs of the tree in question to the Administrative Clerk (marked Exhibit #1) for circulation to the Council. Councilmember Dwyer inquired why the tree was relocated and from what area it was relocated. Ms. Block said the tree was moved from private land to the public right-of-way as a requirement to preserve it. Councilmember Hertrich asked what kind of trees are near the tree in question. Ms. Block said she did not know the specific names of the trees but there are different species. Councilmember Kasper inquired when the tree was relocated. Ms. Block said it was moved shortly after the subdivision was approved in 1967. Dan Douglas, 11907 Nevers Road, Snohomish, consulting arborist speaking on behalf of Mr. Meyers, said he normally considers Pacific Yew trees as a significant species but after studying the tree in question (at the request of Mr. Meyers), he has determined that it is in declining health. He said the growth rate has declined within the last two years because it has lost over one-third of its root system due to the construction of the Meyers' driveway. Mr. Douglas said the tree will continue to decline unless soil is replaced for the root system to grow. He said the canopy of the tree is full of dead branches, and the tree is losing a significant amount of needles. Mr. Douglas said there are over twelve Pacific Yew trees in the surrounding area that can be seen from the road and, therefore, he was not concerned with the removal of the tree in question be- cause it is not a single species. In response to an earlier question by Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Douglas said there is a Birch tree and a flowering Cherry tree next to the tree in question. Mr. Douglas said the Meyers have problems exiting their driveway when Seaview Park has ball games because people park on the dead end street and block their driveway. Mr. Douglas said the Meyers are willing to move the Pacific Yew tree to Seaview Park if the Coun- cil determines that it is a significant tree. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the neighboring trees will also have to be relocated if the construction permit is granted. Mr. Douglas replied affirmatively. He said the Meyers are will- ing to move the Cherry tree five feet forward in order to save it, but the Birch tree cannot be moved successfully. Councilmember Hertrich inquired about the survival rate of those trees. Mr. Douglas said the Cherry tree has a greater than 75% survival rate, and the Pacific Yew tree has a 60% survival rate because the root ball is smaller than it normally would be because it was relo- cated once before. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 Councilmember Dwyer inquired if another Pacific Yew tree could be planted on the Meyers' proper- ty to replace the tree in question: Mr. Douglas replied affirmatively. Mr. Douglas said the Meyers are also proposing to construct a brick wall next to their driveway to prevent soil sloughing onto the driveway. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the age of the Pacific Yew tree. Mr. Douglas said he believed it is approximately forty years old. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Tom Snyder, 8204 - 182nd Place Southwest, was in favor of allowing the construction permit to widen Mr. Meyers' driveway. Mr. Snyder said the tree in question is indistinguishable from other trees and even though he looks out at the tree on frequent occasions, he was unaware that it was there. Mr. Snyder felt the construction project would enhance the neighborhood and perhaps provide a greater element of safety during emergency situations. Mr. Snyder urged the Council to vote in favor of the construction project. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CON- STRUCTION PERMIT AND THE REMOVAL OF THE PACIFIC YEW TREE ON THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PLANT ANOTHER PACIFIC YEW TREE SOMEWHERE ON THE APPLICANT'S SITE. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PARKING LOT SLOPE REQUIREMENTS CDC- - PPL I CANT: M NTE CL UST N dQ.� ei Councilmember Jaech noted that she lives across the street from the applicant's project. City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that Councilmember Jaech could participate in the hearing because it is a legislative decision by the Council and quasi-judicial rules do not apply. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on June 20, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing on a recommendation of the Planning Board to amend the Edmonds Community Develop- ment Code (ECDC) to allow the City Engineer to grant a waiver to the maximum parking lot slope. Current Code sets 6% as the maximum slope for a parking lot. The original recommendation from the Planning Board would allow the City Engineer to grant a waiver up to 14%. Ms. Block said the Council remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further consideration. Specifically, Staff was to contact other jurisdictions to determine how they grant waivers to their standards. Ms. Block said on July 12, 1989, the Planning Board reviewed the remand from the Council. Staff contacted a number of other jurisdictions and reported to the Board that there is no uniform standard for parking lot slopes and that no one had procedures for waivers. The Board, in their del'iberation, compared the standards to the City's grades for streets (12% with a maximum of 15% with the Public Works Director's approval) and driveways (14% with a maximum of 20% with the Public Works Director's approval). Ms. Block said the Board changed their recommendation to the City Council to allow an outright maximum slope of 14%. Ms. Block said Staff does not agree with the Board's revised recommenda- tion. Staff believes the intent of the 6% grade was to make parking lots as flat as possible. Staff also believes there should be latitude in the Code in which greater slopes, i.e., street and driveway standards, can be approved. Ms. Block said Staff supports the original Planning Board recommendation to maintain the 6% grade with the City Engineer having the authority to approve, on a case -by -case basis, grades up to 14%. Ms. Block noted that a memo from the Planning Board, the minutes from the July 12, 1989 Planning Board meeting, the minutes from the June 20, 1989 City Council meeting, and the original Planning Board recommendation were included in the Council packets. Ms. Block said Staff believes the original Planning Board recommendation is a reasonable course of action that will insure the public's health, safety and welfare and recommends that the Coun- cil adopt their original recommendation. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 Councilmember Dwyer inquired what criteria the Council could refer to if the 6% standard is adopt- ed with a waiver up to 14% with the City Engineer's approval and Staff's decision is appealed to the Council. Ms. Block said the Council could refer to the same public safety issues that the City Engineer would use in making his decision. Councilmember Dwyer recommended that a specific set of criteria be used in determining whether or not to deviate from the 6% standard so that the applicant for a waiver, the City Engineer, and. the Council have something concrete to reference in the event that a Staff decision is appealed. Monte Clouston said he instigated the Code amendment to allow up to a 14% parking lot slope be- cause he discovered that a project which he recently completed does not comply with the Code. He said the error is due to the fact that Edmonds' slope requirement is not consistent with the slope requirement of other local cities and, despite the fact that his project was constructed in accordance with the approved plans, the plan check did not reveal the error until it was complet- ed. Mr. Clouston said it is the Council's responsibility to provide for the safety of its constitu- ents. He said, however, a revision of the Code would best be determined by professional engi- neers who represent the surrounding cities.' Mr. Clouston said because the vast majority of -local engineers have determined that up to a 15% slope can be safely utilized for driveways, road and parking areas, amending the Code to allow a 14% slope would appear to be justified and reasonable. Mr. Clouston requested the Council to render a decision on the proposed Code amendment immediate- ly because an extension on his construction loan expires in 45 days. He said if he is unable to obtain financing, he may lose his building and have to file bankruptcy. Mr. Clouston submitted photographs of his project to the Administrative Clerk for circulation to the Council, as well as a Polaroid picture of his Corvette parked on a slope of his project in neutral gear without the emergency brake on (eight photographs marked Exhibit 1). Mr. Clouston said he installed speed bumps on his property on Staff's recommendation to prevent cars from sliding down the hill if their brake systems failed. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. John Kennedy, 617 Dayton, V, urged the Council to amend the Code to allow up to a 14% parking lot slope. He said other local cities allow up to a 15% slope so it seems reasonable to amend the City's Code. Helen Clouston, 22415 Woodway Park Road, recommended that the Council authorize the City Engineer to determine what parking lot slope is allowable. Ms. Clouston inquired why the 6% maximum slope standard was adopted. Community Services Director Peter Hahn said Staff has researched that issue and has been unable to find any documentation which explains why that standard was enacted. Helen Burns, 533 Alder Street, said Mr. Clouston's project is a -magnificent addition to the commu- nity. Ms.; Burns inquired why the 6% parking slope standard is being imposed on Mr. Clouston's project after his plans were approved by the City and after his project was completed. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Avenue West, Chairman of the Edmonds Planning Board, said none of the members of the Board are engineers and when they reviewed the proposed Code amendment, they con- sidered the proposal on a City-wide basis and not for a particular project. He said the stan- dards of other local cities were reviewed, and the Board found that they vary from city to city. He said the Board tried to find justification for Edmonds' 6% standard but was unable to find that information. Mr. Palmer said the Board consulted with Staff to determine what criteria should be applied when a waiver to the street standards is made but that criteria could not be determined. He said the Board questioned why a 14% parking slope for streets is considered to be safe but the same slope for a parking lot is not considered to be safe. Mr. Palmer said the environment would be protected better if projects conform to the natural contours of the land when possible. He said disturbance of the environment by cutting and fill- ing simply to meet the 6% standard may be unnecessary in certain circumstances. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 Bjorn Thuesen, 322 Main Street, inquired why there are so many "hoops" in the City. He said it is difficult for developers to construct a project with so many "hoops". He asked the Council to consider the impact to developers and not only to the community when Codes are enacted. Bert Stole, 8704 - 172nd Place Southwest, urged the Council to allow relief from the 6% stan- dard. He pointed out that several parking lots exceed that standard within the City. Bill Allen, 171 Sea Lawn Drive, Planning Board member, clarified that he has been an engineer for forty-seven years. Mr. Allen said a slope up to 14% was safe, in his opinion, and the adoption of a standard up to that percentage would eliminate the need for Staff involvement, tax money and personal expendi- tures. Mr. Allen concurred with Mr. Palmer that it is better to leave the environment in as much of a natural state as possible. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Hertrich said he was opposed to allowing a set maximum parking lot slope and the decision would best be determined by the City Engineer. He suggested that the City adopt the Planning Board's original recommendation. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM PARKING SLOPE OF 6% AND A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1%; THE CITY ENGINEER MAY WAIVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 14% WITH THE DECISION BASED ON A SET OF ESTABLISHED CRITERIA WITH THE ABILITY TO BE APPEALED. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if City Engineer Bob Alberts could promulgate a set of criteria. Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmember Wilson inquired if Mr. Alberts would be uncomfortable making a decision to deviate from the 6% standard. Mr. Alberts replied negatively. Councilmember Hall was concerned that the decision to deviate from the slope standard could vary with the mood of the official in charge. Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that a set of estab- lished criteria would guard against subjective decisions. Councilmember Kasper noted that the FHA allows up to a 14% slope, and he failed to see any justi- fication for a 6% standard. He suggested that the standard be raised to a maximum of 14%. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER HALL OPPOSED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHINC TIME LIMIT FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVALS AND CODIFYING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BO RD LANDSCAPE POLICY CDC-4-89 Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on June 28 and July 26, 1989, the Planning Board held hearings on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) which wou-ld establish an eighteen month time limit on Architectural Design Board (ADB) approvals and would codify the present landscape policy used by the Board. The Board voted unanimously to approve the proposed amendments. Ms. Block noted that a copy of the Planning Board recommendation and the minutes from the Plan- ning Board meetings were included in the Council packets. Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Planning Board recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Ms. Block said an applicant will be required, if the amendment is approved, to commence construc- tion of his project within the eighteen month time period with a potential for a six month exten- sion. Ms. Block said the landscape standards were developed by the Board based on several ordinances from other communities and have been utilized by the Board for a number of years. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that trees be limited in height as building heights are in order to protect views. Councilmember Kasper was in concurrence. Ms. Block said the Board discussed that issue but did not feel a limitation on tree heights should be included in the landscape EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 standards. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested that the following language be considered, "Spe- cies approved within a landscaping plan shall have a growth pattern in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views". Councilmember Hertrich recommended: 1) that wheel stops be required to protect landscaping that is adjacent to parking stalls and exterior enclosures; and 2) a five year landscape bond be re- quired on smaller projects that do not require a sprinkler system. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, referred to ECDC 20.12.035(B), Interior Parking Lot Landscaping, and recommended that a range of 6,000 to 12,000 (rather than 30,000) square feet be established for 5% landscaping, and for over 12,000 square feet that 7% of the vehicle use area shall be in landscaping. She also referred to ECDC 20.12.025(B), Screening, and asked the Council to consid- er including that perimeter landscaping of retail parking lots that are adjacent to a street shall be at least 10 feet. Ruth Robertson, 12510 - 128th Avenue Northeast, landscape architect and ADB member, felt the eighteen month time limit would be beneficial because it would provide consistency and uniformity of application of the Code not only because the constitution of the Board changes from time to time but because the Code changes, too. Ms. Robertson said at the present time the Board cannot enforce a requirement for parking lot screening because it is not a Code provision. She noted that that requirement, if codified, will contradict the existing Code. Ms. Robertson said the Board does take tree heights into consideration when reviewing a project. She said the language that Mr. Snyder suggested with respect to tree heights will assist the Board a great deal. Tom Pinkham, 18610 Soundview Place, was in favor of codifying the landscape standards. He said those standards protect the quality of life in Edmonds and, if codified, will provide a consis- tent and uniform application of the Code. Mr. Pinkham noted that a project is being constructed next to Pinkham's Pillow on 3rd and Dayton that has parking stalls which border the property line. He illustrated on the overhead projector the effect that would occur if abutting properties constructed both parking lots against the common boundary line . Bert Stole, 8704 - 182nd"Place Southwest, said the Code needs to be flexible in terms of landscap- ing because the extent of landscaping that is desirable for one area of Edmonds may vary in anoth- er part of town. He said he would prefer that Staff and the Board evaluate landscaping require- ments on a case -by -case basis rather than codify the landscape standards and institute a hard- and-fast rule. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Avenue West, pointed out that ECDC 20.12.000, Scope, provides a means for the Board to allow flexibility in landscape requirements. Mr. Palmer said he concurred with Mr. Snyder's wording with respect to tree heights. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE EIGHTEEN MONTH TIME LIMIT BUT REVISE THE LANDSCAPE POLICY AND SUBMIT IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS. HEARING ON A MORATORIUM FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS On September 5, 1989, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to enact a moratorium on accessory dwelling units and to schedule a public hearing on the possible moratorium. The Planning Board held several hearings on this topic and on September 13, 1989, voted to recom- mend to the City Council that accessory dwelling units be removed as a permitted use. Further, the Board recommended that the City amend the definitions of "single family dwelling" and "dwell- ing unit". The Planning Board recommendation and copies of the minutes from the Planning Board meetings were included in the Council packets. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 C� C c`\* Staff has, over the years, consistently interpreted the Code that a single family residence may have only one kitchen in the house, although that provision is not clearly spelled out in the Code. There are numerous houses that have a wet bar in the basement, along with different kinds of cook- ing facilities. The Planning Board recommendation would eliminate the need for accessory dwelling unit regula- tions. The Board recognizes the fact that the number of kitchens does not determine what a sin- gle family residence is; rather, it is the number of individuals occupying the residence and the number of power and water meters). Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Jim Thompson, 18305 - 80th West, said he submitted an application to the City for an accessory dwelling unit. He inquired if the application fee will be returned to him if a moratorium is instituted. Mayor Naughten said Mr. Thompson is already vested and will not be affected by a moratorium. Jody Sherin, 7905 - 207th Place Southwest, asked what a moratorium is. City Attorney Scott Sny- der explained that a moratorium is a temporary measure that is limited in time and scope (in this case it is limited to November 21, 1989) instructing City Staff to not take and process applica- tions pending the disposition of some legislative action. He said a moratorium is tailored to give the Council, in this case, an opportunity to review the existing ordinance. Ms. Sherin was in favor of the Planning Board's recommendation to remove accessory dwelling units as a permitted use because she felt the Code is poorly thought out. She said as the Code is written, up to ten unrelated people can reside in a household. She thought the -community would be protected better if a single family residence is defined. Ms. Sherin believed that in-laws, especially mother -in-laws, should be allowed to reside with their families. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 690. Councilmember Hall referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney and inquired if the resolution would be enforceable. Mr. Snyder said in order for a moratorium to be valid, it has to be reason- ably limited in time and scope for the purpose that the City wants to achieve and the Council must find or have some record for the necessity of a moratorium in terms of public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Snyder noted that the Council does not have much of a legislative record before them at the present time. He said he put a short time limit on the proposed moratorium in the event that it is challenged. Councilmember Wilson felt that it was presumptuous of the Council to impose a moratorium because no problems have been brought to the City's attention and no complaints have been registered. He inquired what the point would be, then, of imposing a moratorium. He said as far as he was con- cerned, "it was just another example of this Council driving a nail in the coffin of the elderly people in this community". Councilmember Kasper concurred. Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that a man purchased a home last winter in Lake Ballinger in a single.family zone with the explicit intent to move strangers into his home in order to allow him to meet his mortgage payments. He said the City's inability to preclude someone from taking that kind of action in a single family zone indicated that a problem existed. He thought it was outra- geous that the Council could not protect those residents because an ordinance did not exist which guaranteed that only family members and only elderly people could avail themselves of that situa- tion. Councilmember Dwyer said it is the Council's responsibility to maintain the status quo until the problem can be corrected. Councilmember Hall recalled that in 1980 when she was a candidate for City Council this issue had been one of the planks of her campaign. She said it was called "mother-in-law" for lack of a better term, but only for drafting the proposal. She said she had proposed it and the Council saw fit to go along with it, but they had not specified relatives, per se. She said along the line the Council has thought people have used it for "business purposes" such as one in the Bal- linger area, and there had not been the bona fide limit on occupancy that the Council thought they had. She thought the Council needed to look at it now to tie it up, but she did not think a moratorium made sense. As a procedural matter, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION UNDER DISCUSSION WHEN THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST IN FAVOR;'COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten reminded the Council that a Washington Cities & Towns meeting is scheduled on {� September 21st at the Pacific Hotel in Everett to discuss the programs of Community Transit. SC7' COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REVIEW. ON OCTOBER 17, 1989 THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE PLANNING BOARD. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, AND COUNCIL - MEMBER NORDQUIST IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Hertrich thanked the Mayor and Councilmember Hall for creating a new policy with respect to the use of City vehicles. Councilmember Hall commented that it is campaign time and feelings are getting high. She admon- ished that Council members should not take "potshots" at candidates, boards, or anything else. Councilmember Hall noted that a petition has been submitted to the City from residents regarding a parking problem on 2nd Avenue north. Mayor Naughten said that issue is scheduled for review on October 17, 1989. Councilmember Nordquist noted that the Washington Department of Transportation has scheduled a >.fflto�p�,_L"1990 hearing on September 21st at the Landmark Inn in Lynnwood regarding a preliminary study on the transportation policy plan for Washington State. He requested Staff to submit a written cov statement to the Council before they submit it to the State if Staff does not attend the meeting (P so that the Council has an opportunity to give their input, as well. Community Services Director Peter Hahn suggested that the issue be discussed at the October 10 Community Services Committee meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 APPROVAL. �e1i4i$ ACQ LI E G. PA RETT, City Clerk ,CARRY NAUGHTEN, May 40 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 SPECIAL MEETING - MONDAY - BECAUSE OF PRIMARY ELECTION ON REGULAR TUESDAY MEETING DATE roll Tn nnnrn M A!l CAI IITr 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH PAWS REGARDING ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES. (D) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM STEVEN R. LORING ($500+) AND CARL ROME ($61.35) (E) APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTS #4 ($17,330) AND #5 ($32,150) TO KCM CONTRACT FOR SHELL CREEK DESIGN (F) APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR CENTENNIAL SAMPLER BOOK OF EXCERPTS - ARTS COMMISSION 2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON TALBOT DRAINAGE STUDY AND ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT (25 MIN) 4. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION (25 MIN) PERMIT AT 18303 81ST AVE. W. (AP-23-89/ROBERT MEYERS) 5. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY (25 MIN) DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PARKING LOT SLOPE REQUIREMENTS (CDC-1-89/APPLICANT: MONTE CLOUSTON). 6. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY (25 MIN) DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHING TIME LIMIT FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVALS AND CODIFYING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD LANDSCAPE POLICY (CDC-4-89) 7. HEARING ON A MORATORIUM FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (25 MIN) 8. MAYOR 9. COUNCIL 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF EXEMPT POSITIONS CLASSIFICATION. (50 MIN) (time permitting) THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE