Loading...
10/17/1989 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 24, 1989 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 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 Larry Naughten, Mayor Bill Kasper, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Laura Hall, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jack Wilson, Councilmember Doug Merlino, Student Rep. CONSENT AGENDA STAFF Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Robin Hickock, Asst. Police Chief Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Items (B) and (G) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (C) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 691 AMENDING RESOLUTION 673 REGARDING THE MAYOR'S SIGNING AUTHORITY a� WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT FUNDS (D) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB LICENSE FOR YELLOW/PLAZA CAB DBA NORTHWEST CAB (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB LICENSE FOR A-1 TAXI, INC. (F) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2739 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TO CONSOLIDATE AND CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR EXPENDING FUNDS FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1989 (ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Kasper referred to page 4, paragraph 2, and asked that the following wording be inserted at the end of the sentence, "and asked the Council to consider it when the November election comes up. Councilmember Hall asked about the cost to the citizens. Mr. MacCully said the annual cost for an average family of four will be approximately $50 or $60". COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. /off un>✓ AND RT ON W RD BFOC NTENED CT U TEMBER LAKEVUE26 1989 C NSTRUCT �N'EDMONDS WASTEWATER C. O TREATMENT NCLUDINGPLANT LESMETER TAX) SiAEMO(G) ✓r'/d� ON THE CONSENT GENDA Community Services Director Peter Hahn requested the Council to include in their motion, if they approve item (G), that award of the contract is contingent on the Department of Ecology's approv- al. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO LAKEVUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $363,932.80, INCLUDING SALES TAX, CONTINGENT ON THE DEPART- MENT OF ECOLOGY'S APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, reminded the Council that she had, in the recent past, requested �,X the Council to invite the Washington State Transportation Commission to Edmonds to discuss the ferry system. She inquired if any Councilmember objected to that invitation because no action has been taken yet. Councilmember Hall said she did not object and thought it was the general consensus of the Council to extend an invitation. Community Services Director Peter Hahn said no action has been taken to date because he submitted a draft letter to the Council dated July 7 that was proposed to be sent to the Transportation Commission, but Staff has not received any response from the Council regarding that letter. Ms. Shippen said the letter is a separate issue. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO INVITE THE TRANSPORTATION COMMIS- SION TO MEET IN EDMONDS IN DECEMBER. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wilson said it is equally important that the draft letter be sent to both transpor- tation committees in the legislature because the legislators are not informed of Edmonds' position. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., said the earthquake in San Francisco today registered 7.0 on �.� the Richter scale and has caused extensive damage. He wondered if the City of Edmonds could offer assistance to San Francisco. Mayor Naughten said he is the Chairman of the local Emergency Coordinating Agency, and he would contact San Francisco's agency to see if the City can be of any help. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGE TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOP- MENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS �b Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that the City Council has raised some concerns regarding the City's current accessory dwelling unit regulations and referred the matter to the Planning Board. On September 18, 1989, the Council passed Resolution 690 imposing a moratorium on accessory dwelling unit applications until a review of the present regulations is complete. Ms. Block said the Planning Board reviewed accessory dwelling unit regulations at several meet- ings and concluded that changes should be made. Ms. Block noted that a copy of the Planning Board's recommendation was included in the Council packets. Ms. Block said the City Attorney also reviewed the regulations and drafted an ordinance that addresses a number of concerns raised by both the City Council and the Planning Board. She noted that copies of a memorandum from the City Attorney outlining the salient points of the proposal and the draft ordinance were included in the Council packets, as well as a copy of a report from the Planning Advisory Service regarding accessory dwelling units. Ms. Block said there will always be accessory dwelling units regardless of the existence of or lack of regulations controlling them. Based on that premise, she said the City should decide how to regulate the use while preserving the single family character of neighborhoods. Ms. Block said the current regulations have flaws in them that need correcting. Staff recognizes the need to address and reconcile differing philosophies with respect to regulation of accessory dwelling units. Ms. Block said the Planning Board's recommendation would eliminate regulations governing accesso- ry dwelling units while allowing the units to exist. Under their proposal, homeowners would be able to have a single "family", as defined in the Code, and live in a home with multiple kitchens but with only one power and water meter. She said enforcement would be accomplished by checking the occupancy of the residence. She noted that it is easier to enforce numbers of kitchens than numbers of occupants. Ms. Block said the draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney establishes a two year occupancy requirement, provides a density limitation, and changes the filing procedure for the covenant. One topic for discussion under the proposal is the potential transferability of the permit to a new owner, if that individual agrees to the terms of the permit. She said another aspect which should be considered is the feasibility of determining financial hardship for a waiver of the occupancy requirement. Ms. Block said Staff is prepared to enforce whatever regulations the Council imposes but feels that the proposed ordinance prepared by the City Attorney would be easier to administer than the Planning Board's recommendation. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 OCTOBER 17, 1989 a Councilmember Hertrich inquired how a wet bar or some other utility would be differentiated from a kitchen appliance as interpreted by Staff. Ms. Block said Staff realizes that it is difficult to define what a kitchen is because a room may have a wet bar, refrigerator, microwave oven or any number of other kitchen appliances so they have made the distinction that a stove constitutes a kitchen. Councilmember Hertrich referred to a memorandum dated September 14 from the Chairman of the Plan- ning Board to the City Council. He asked what regulations the Board felt were not necessary. Ms. Block said it was her understanding that the Board felt it was not necessary to maintain the provisions in the Code that require a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit, and the Board recommended that if the number of occupants of a household comply with the permitted number of a "family" and the residence is served by only one water meter and one power meter, regardless of the number of cooking facilities, there is no.need to have accessory dwelling unit regulations. Councilmember Hertrich noted that a conditional use permit application entails notification to the public and a public hearing. He inquired how the City could regulate the number of unrelated people who live in a single family home if the permit process is eliminated. Ms. Block said Staff would investigate a situation if a citizen made a complaint to the City. Councilmember Wilson noted that the Code refers to a physical or financial hardship. He inquired who would determine if such a hardship existed and, if a bona fide hardship did exist, he in- quired what rights a person would have to challenge that determination. Ms. Block said the Commu- nity Services Director or his designee would make that determination, and she presumed that the decision could be challenged at the conditional use permit hearing. Councilmember Wilson in- quired how enforcement would be administered and how Staff would deal with objections by citi- zens. Ms. Block said she did not know. She said those aspects would have to be carefully set forth in the criteria. Councilmember Wilson posed a hypothetical situation whereby an elderly couple purchases a home in Edmonds but experiences a catastrophic event before they move into their home and they are unable to maintain the mortgage payments. The couple decides to sell their home but establishes an accessory dwelling unit within the home with a purchaser's agreement to allow them to live in the unit for as long as possible. Councilmember Dwyer said the couple would qualify for a physical hardship under the Code and would be allowed to live in their home after they sold it if they re- tained a life tenancy in the sale of their home. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out that Section 20.21.035 of the proposed ordinance states, "A conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling structure shall not be transferable to any site other than the subject site described in the application and shall expire automatically if the applicant ceases to be a resident and occupant of either the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence". Mr. Snyder said words that are not defined in the Code, i.e., physical or financial. hardship, will be given a Webster's definition. He said any ambiguity in the zoning ordinance must be construed broadly in favor of the property owner. In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, Ms. Block said the current Code requires that a residence be occupied for three years by the owner before a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit can be obtained. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. At the request of Councilmember Kasper, City Clerk Jackie Parrett placed a copy of the proposed ordinance on the table near the door for the public's benefit. Mr. Snyder reviewed the proposed changes to the current ordinance as follows: 1) the current three year limitation prohibiting application for three years after construction has been changed to a two year limitation requiring an applicant to have both owned and resided at the site for two years prior to application; 2) a waiver is provided from the two year limitation for sitba- tions in which the applicant has either a physical or financial hardship which was unanticipated at the date the subject site was purchased and occupied; 3) the covenant requirement has been amended to make it clear that the applicant provides a covenant in the form approved by the City with a filing fee at the date of application, but the actual filing occurs following approval; 4) the non -transferability section has been moved out of criteria where it logically did not belong and has been set up in a separate section indicating that the permit is not transferable to EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 OCTOBER 17, 1989 any other site and is void if the applicant ceases to own and reside at the site; 5) a maximum density limitation is placed on the property. A plain reading of the current ordinance implies that a "family" may reside in both the accessory dwelling unit and the main structure. These changes make it clear that the density limitations of the single family zone are not to be exceed- ed with the granting of a permit and that occupancy is limited to five or more unrelated persons or to one family; 6) one item not referenced in the prior ordinance was whether nonconforming structures would be eligible for accessory dwelling units. Other sections of the Code imply that an application for an accessory dwelling unit is a change in use requiring the site to be brought into conformance with the current City Code. A paragraph has been added setting .forth that limi- tation. Councilmember Dwyer explained that the proposed ordinance includes a requirement that in order to obtain a waiver of the two year occupancy provision, the financial hardship that is relied upon must be unanticipated at the time the residency commenced but there is no similar provision of lack of anticipation with regard to a physical hardship, which prevents a situation where someone finances a home at the origin but specifically plans to move in another family to share the costs. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., referred to page 2 of the proposed ordinance, section 20.21.000, and suggested that the following wording be inserted "...financial hardship and have occupied the residence for two years" because he said the ordinance, as written, will allow any- one who has occupied their home for two years to establish an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Sny- der said the ordinance was designed to permit anyone who has resided in his home for two years to establish an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Palmer expressed concern because he said that provi- sion does not meet the density requirement in the purpose section. Mr. Palmer inquired: 1) what constitutes a financial hardship; 2) how will owners of accessory dwelling units that exist at the present time who have covenants on their properties remove those covenants; 3) what constitutes a second cooking facility. He said the Board questioned that aspect and was told that a wetbar or a hot plate in a basement constitutes a cooking facility and a kitchen was not differentiated by only a stove. Mr. Snyder said accessory dwelling units are very difficult to enforce. He said the requirement of a permit is valuable because it identifies a residence, insures parking provisions for addi- tional occupants, and provides a covenant. Jim Riecken, 721 - 14th Way S.W., said his neighbor has established an accessory dwelling unit which has been disruptive to his lifestyle. He said he made a written complaint to the City in 1984 but the City was slow to respond and no action was taken at that time because the City said more proof was needed. He said he subsequently provided more proof to the City which led to the demise of the friendly relationship between him and his neighbor. Mr. Riecken said his neighbor subsequently filed for and received a building permit for a work shop. Mr. Riecken said he was advised by the City that if the building was in violation of restrictive covenants running with the land that it was a civil matter to be resolved in a courtroom. He said he notified the Mayor in October of 1989 of the accessory dwelling unit and he received a notice of a conditional use permit for the unit, which is occupied by 4 adults, 3 cars, 1 truck, 1 camper, 1 boat and trail- er, 1 cat and 2 dogs. Mr. Riecken said the enjoyment and value of his property has been greatly decreased by the noise generated from the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Riecken requested the Council to consider the impacts to adjacent neighbors when they consid- er the proposed ordinance for accessory dwelling units. Mike Cooper, 820 Maple St., encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance because he felt it is more inclusive, easier to enforce and administer, and it meets the intent of the origi- nal Code. Mr. Cooper suggested that the needs of single parents be addressed in the proposed ordinance. He also felt that the impact of a breezeway should be taken into consideration by the Council in the near future. Rebecca Coffey-Garvie, 21816 - 74th W., said accessory dwelling ordinances for other local cities require that occupants of the units be related to the owner of the primary residence. She read the Mountlake Terrace ordinance to the Council. Ms. Coffey-Garvie said if Edmonds is going to declare itself as a family -minded community, it must take a stand and retain the character of single-family zones. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 OCTOBER 17, 1989 Councilmember Hall pointed out to Ms: Coffey-Garvie that families have historically housed col- lege students in accessory dwelling units but they were not specifically identified as accessory dwelling units. She said helping students is a great investment because they will eventually settle down in the community and raise families of their own. In response to a question by Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Snyder said the proposed ordinance main- tains the same density restriction on single-family dwellings (five or more unrelated people or one family related by blood or genetics, no matter how large the family). He noted that cities do not have a constitutional right to regulate relationships. Ms. Coffey-Garvie submitted the Mountlake Terrace ordinance to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit #1). Randy Garvie, 23816 - 74th W., said he checked the ordinances of several local cities and they require the occupants of an accessory dwelling unit to be related to the owner. Mr. Garvie said he would not mind if someone in his neighborhood established an accessory dwelling unit for a relative but he was opposed to unrelated occupants. Mr. Garvie said the proposed ordinance will turn the City into one big multifamily area. Councilmember Hall stated that there has been no proof that density connoted by increased traffic depreciates property value nor has it even been noticed. She reminded Mr. Garvie that Edmonds is involved in the Sister City Program and residents welcome foreign students into their homes. Mr. Garvie said those students are not relatives and should be "sent to an apartment". Mr. Garvie suggested that the proposed ordinance be rewritten to allow only relatives to reside in an accessory dwelling unit. In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Snyder said existing accessory dwelling units that were established without a permit will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. He said residents who have obtained a conditional use permit but would like to remove the old covenants can come to the city and get a new covenant. W.W. Lancaster, 23911 - 74th Ave. W., said conditions for a financial hardship for a waiver of the occupancy requirement are not spelled out in the proposed ordinance and should be defined. He also felt that building plans and blueprints for an accessory dwelling unit should be submit- ted to the City for approval before the use is granted. Mr. Lancaster said he did not see how the City can limit the number of occupants in a home with an accessory dwelling unit. He inquired if the City relied upon State statute with regard to that aspect. Mr. Lancaster said it was his understanding that the City cannot enforce covenants, and he did not believe they are worth the paper they are written on. He inquired, then, how covenants will be governed. Mr. Lancaster felt the proposed ordinance was not specific and should be refined before it is approved. Jim Thompson, 18305 - 80th Ave. W., said the City has accepted his application for an accessory dwelling unit. He said he has a large home and plans to retire in the near future, and he needs financial assistance to maintain his home. Mr. Thompson was in favor of accessory dwelling units but felt the number of occupants should be regulated, and the filing fee for the Hearing Examiner should be eliminated because he said appli- cants may not be able to afford the fee but the City should retain the $25 fee to inspect the unit. Dr. Charles Kraus, Puget Sound Christian College, 410 - 4th Ave. N., implored the Council to consider the welfare of college students when they review the proposed ordinance. Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado P1., said he was glad to see that the existing ordinance has been re- fined because he said there is a perception that any single family residence in Edmonds can be converted to a duplex. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the hearing. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 OCTOBER 17, 1989 Councilmember Jaech inquired if her understanding was correct of Mr. Snyder's earlier statement that any person can establish an accessory dwelling unit in his single family home after residing in it for two years. Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. Mr. Snyder explained that the ability to establish an accessory dwelling unit does not waive the density limitation... the same single family density is required. With respect to enforcement, Mr. Snyder said court cases which gave rise to the new definition of "family" did not address a city's ability to limit density but limited a city's.ability to define what a "family" consisted of. In response to earlier testimony, Mr. Snyder stated that ordinances.of other local cities require that accessory dwelling units be occupied by a blood relation, but he pointed out that their definition of "family" is five unrelated individuals and so a person who occupies the accessory unit can be related to any one of the five people occupying the main structure. Mr. Snyder said he was confident that the density limitation is enforceable because it is related to a rational governmental purpose that controls density and it does not attempt to define "rela- tionship". Mr. Snyder said an accessory dwelling unit is not defined in the proposed ordinance because it is already defined. in the Code, and the City is not attempting to amend it. Mr. Snyder said the City has the ability to enforce covenants which are created by its ordinance but does not have the ability to enforce covenants that are created by private individuals. Mr. Snyder said building plans and blueprints are not required for an accessory dwelling unit because the City has not regulated their use by those means in the past. He said the City does, however, conduct compliance checks. Mr. Snyder said the same enforcement problems related to accessory dwelling units will be encoun- tered regardless of enactment of the proposed ordinance. He said the same problems are present whenever an attempt is made to try to regulate a type of human behavior that has existed for several hundred years. Councilmember Hall said she thought the proposed ordinance was "a good start but it would have to be refined by Staff". She recited a quote which she said she subscribed to, "•The same ordinance may not be appropriate for all residential districts within a community, and different require- ments for conversions may be appropriate for different areas of the same community". She said the parking requirements may be unreasonable for a particular applicant, for instance. T Councilmember Hall said accessory dwelling units have existed for years and will continue to exist regardless of any ordinances. She said the key to their compatibility with the community is enforcement. Councilmember Hertrich said the proposed ordinance is more conservative than the current ordi- nance and "is probably as good of a start as we are going to make at this .time". Councilmember Jaech said the intent of the original ordinance was to allow elderly people or handicapped people to reside in a single family residence. She was concerned that any single family home owner can establish an accessory dwelling unit after meeting the two year occupancy requirement. She said she was opposed to the proposed ordinance because it will create a duplex in a single family zone and thereby create a zone change, in her opinion. Councilmember Nordquist felt the ordinance should be refined. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE ITEM IN AN OPEN SESSION. Councilmember Kasper said the earliest date available for the meeting was November 21, 1989. (It was noted that the meeting may take place at a Planning Board meeting because the City Council agendas in the near future are full.) MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM THAT THE COUNCIL IMPOSED LAST MONTH ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATIONS. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 OCTOBER 17', 1989 Mr. Snyder pointed out that a public hearing would have to be scheduled if substantive amendments were made to the ordinance. (Councilmember Nordquist left the meeting.) HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH POINT AT WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IS VESTED Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that this issue was brought to the Council's attention at the request of two local builders who wish to be considered vested under a previous code for the construction of apartment buildings for which they are presently seeking building permits. She said it is their contention that they should be allowed to meet the requirements that were in effect when they applied to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) rather than when they submitted their building permit applications. Ms. Block said the City Attorney, in a memorandum included in the Council packets, provides a history of this issue and summarizes the applicable State law. He also provides information on the present system whereby an applicant can submit a completed building permit application at any time, including prior to ADB review, and options to this system. Ms. Block said regardless of what is done in connection with the current request, Staff feels the current system is fair and workable and recommends that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance and leave the system as it is. In response to a concern by Councilmember Kasper, City Attorney Scott Snyder said any substantial change by the ADB in the configuration of a building can require that the entire internal struc- ture be redesigned, which can be costly to the developer, and also requires a new building permit application. Mr. Snyder said one of the options he noted in his memorandum is that the City integrate the ADB process with the building code process in a manner that does not stack time periods. He noted that the building code application is valid for a specified period of time, as is the ADB applica- tion. He said it would not be prudent to have a long vesting period because one concept in hav- ing applications and permits expire is to require applicants to comply with Codes as they are written when they submit their application, thus discouraging building plans to remain on the 1 drawing board after they are approved. Councilmember Hertrich noted that a builder has the option to submit a building permit applica- tion and vest his rights either before or after ADB approval. Mr. Snyder stated that there is a provision under ADB review for an applicant to appear before the Board for a conceptual review of a project and receive preliminary approval, then file a building permit application and submit a complete package later. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Doug Herman, 420 - 5th Ave. S., Suite C, former ADB member, said he is constructing a project on 3rd Avenue South. Mr. Herman said he called the City and was told by Staff that a project must be reviewed by the ADB first and then a building permit application can be submitted to the City. Mr. Herman said he sat on the Board for eight years, and the members would sometimes actually design a building for an applicant because Staff accepted an incomplete application which, he said, slowed the process. Mr. Herman said the design of a building cannot be drafted to comply with a complete building permit application before the ADB reviews a project because they can require changes to the de- sign which could cost the developer a substantial sum of money. Mr. Herman noted that there are only a few local cities that have an Architectural Design Board. Mr. Herman said his project was designed in accordance with the 1985 Code but received final approval shortly after the 1988 Code was adopted. As a result, he said a major portion of the structure must be redesigned. Mr. Herman felt a developer's rights should be vested at the time of ADB review because he said his reading of the Code mandates that a project be reviewed by the ADB first. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 OCTOBER 17, 1989 Bert Stole, 8704 - 182nd Pl. S.W., believed a developer's rights should be vested at the time of ADS review. Mr. Stole said he was never under the impression that a building permit could be filed without a full set of working drawings. He thought ADS review was required before a building permit appli- cation could be submitted. Mr. Stole said a person must have incredibly deep pockets or be a fool to commit an immense amount of money to an architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer without knowing that a project is going to be acceptable to the ADS. Paul Nolan, 9216 Sierra St., said he is involved in the 12 unit project with Mr. Herman on 3rd Avenue. Mr. Nolan said it would be feasible for a developer to submit a building permit application to the City if the ADS concerned themselves only with the aesthetic qualities of a building and not the structural aspects. Mr. Nolan said it is extremely important for a developer to know when his rights are vested be- cause financing of his project is dependent upon submittal of the blueprints to the lender. Mr. Nolan said the ADS is an extensive and procedural hurdle to a developer because he must re- ceive approval from that body before a building permit can be obtained. He said, however, he thought the ADS is workable as long as procedures are conducted in an orderly and timely fashion. Mr. Nolan contended that his application was complete at the time of ADS review because the City does not have a fully defined building permit application. He requested the City to approve his project and vest his rights at the time it was reviewed by the ADB. Mr. Nolan believed that a developer's rights should be vested at the time of ADS review because he said a building permit cannot be issued until ADS approval is received. Bjorn Thuesen, 322 Main St., said local builders construct quality projects for the benefit of not only themselves but of the community. He said those builders would like to be treated fairly so that they can continue to benefit the City. Mr. Thuesen said the builders "were not given the time of day" with regard to the issue before the Council because the City did not contact them when the sprinkler ordinance was under consider- ation, because an emergency clause was not available to them, and because the sprinkler ordinance was enacted while their projects were under review. Mr. Thuesen said it is simple from the City's point of view when ordinances are enacted, but it is not as simple for the local builders because they can be adversely impacted. Mr. Thuesen said builders would like to be vested at the time their projects are reviewed by the ADS, and the local builders who are "caught in the web" would like to be grandfathered to the 1985 building code. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., recommended that the ADS hold two meetings a month rather than just one because he said the process can be drawn out and the problem of time versus money may arise if projects are delayed due to time constraints. Councilmember Hall read a letter into'the record from ADS member Bruce Hummel, owner of Hummel Construction & Development, Inc., stating that he believed a developer's rights should be vested at the time an application is made to the ADS. He said a builder bases the design of a project on a set of criteria set forth by the City, and it is unrealistic to expect that person to antici- pate or accommodate a subsequent change in that criteria. Councilmember Hall suggested that the role of the ADS be evaluated and that perhaps Staff be delegated some of the Board's responsibilities if the detail required on an ADS application is increased. She also suggested that a developer's rights be vested at the date of an ADS applica- tion. Mr. Snyder noted that the proposed ordinance, if adopted," should be submitted to the State Build- ing Code Council. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 OCTOBER 17, 1989 In response to an earlier statemeht by Mr. Herman, Mr. Snyder said the building code has two separate processes for application and for the issuance of a building permit: an application is submitted to the City; a review process is conducted, and then the permit is issued and construc- tion can commence. Mr. Snyder said the Council has a policy decision to make because the City has not yet defined the building code application. He said the Council should not feel compelled to do so, though, because of threats of litigation. He noted that the builders who spoke to the Council have no standing to raise the issue of whether their application was complete if they did not make an at- tempt to vest their rights by bringing in a fully completed application and a check. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if applicants are required to submit a fee to the City to appear before the ADB. Ms. Block said a $110 fee is required for major projects. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if a system would be workable that increased the rights of an applicant whereby an appli- cant submitted a check at the time a building permit application was made to the AOB. Mr. Snyder said he believed it would be workable by allowing an applicant to file both applications while suspending the requirement' to supply detail in the building permit application until an applicant is through the ADB process. Mr. Snyder reiterated that a mechanism is in place at the present time to receive preliminary review of a project by the ADB. He said a building permit applica- tion and complete ADB application could then be submitted to the City. He suggested that one time period be established for an ADB application and for a building permit application that runs concurrently. Councilmember Dwyer was concerned with the potential for a person to gain a tacti- cal advantage by remanding an issue to the ADB, knowing that a new set of rules would be ap- plied. Mr. Snyder recommended that the ADB time limit be set at six months with a six month extension so that no tactical advantage could be gained. Councilmember Hertrich felt that.the system is workable as the Code is presently written, noting that Staff feels that it is the most workable situation for them. He said he did not feel an amendment would improve the system but would only make it more confusing. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO LEAVE THE SYSTEM AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THE SYSTEM AS IT EXISTS BUT IF, AT ANY TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGES THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY THAT IMPACT THE BUILDERS OR ANYBODY THAT IS DOING ANYTHING IN THE SYSTEM THAT THEY BE NOTIFIED AND THAT WITHIN 120 DAYS IF THEY HAVE NOT RECTIFIED THEIR POSITION TO THEIR ADVANTAGE THEN THEY LOSE. IF THEY CAN GET IT DONE WITHIN 120 DAYS, .THEN THE CITY HAS VESTED THEM IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM. Mr. Snyder recommended that the Council have a standing policy that any substantive revision to Chapters 18 and 19 and the zoning code have a 120 day effective clause in the ordinance. He suggested that the Council not attempt to give actual notice, noting that a summary of ordinance that is enacted will be published and will contain a summary of the ordinance and the effective date. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW THE PORTION OF THE MOTION REGARDING NOTICE. Councilmember Kasper said inadequate notice was given to the public regarding the sprinkler ordi- nance, and he felt the projects that were caught in the system should be grandfathered. He felt the motion had merit but thought the issue should be considered further. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that the Council adopt a policy that a new ordinance does not apply to anyone already in the system. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON SAID HE WOULD WITHDRAW THE MOTION IF COUNCILMEMBER DWYER WOULD ARTICULATE HIS COMMENTS AGAIN. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH WITHDREW THE SECOND. Mr. Snyder said he could draft an ordinance reflecting the Council's position if they delayed the matter for one week. He noted that the ordinance would be prospective. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND INCLUDE A TRIGGERING EVENT INVOLVING THE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF MONEY TO THE CITY AND SOME TYPE OF PLAN DESCRIBING THE PROJECT AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 OCTOBER 17, 1989 In the interest of time, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO RE- SCHEDULE ITEM #8 (RECOMMENDATION TO RECLASSIFY CLERICAL POSITIONS) TO OCTOBER 24, 1989. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL OPPOSED BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT IT WAS RUDE TO ASK A STAFF PERSON TO COME BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING WHEN HE HAS BEEN WAITING IN THE AUDIENCE ALL NIGHT TO MAKE A PRESEN- TATION. In response to Mr. Herman's concern regarding the two developers that are caught in the system, Councilmember Wilson said the sprinkler ordinance was enacted without any discussion about the developers who were in the building process at that time. He said the Council subsequently made an exception to a builder, and he felt it would only be fair to"mitigate the other two builders' problems. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE TWO PROJECTS IN THE SYSTEM BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SPRINKLER ORDINANCE, AS WAS THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL WHO THE COUNCIL EXCLUDED. Mr. Snyder noted that it was not the enactment of the City's emergency ordinance that created the dilemma for the two developers already in the system but the enactment of the State Fire Code, which was adopted by the City approximately thirty days in advance of the State. He said he was uncertain whether the two developers would have been vested under the State Building Code before it was amended. Councilmember Hertrich said the sprinkler ordinance was enacted to protect the citizens, and he felt it should not be changed. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what City ordinance preceded the recently enacted sprinkler ordi- nance. Ms. Block said there was no sprinkler ordinance in effect prior to the recently enacted ordinance. Mr. Snyder noted that the State adopted the 1988 Building Code in July of 1989 and the City adopted it in June of 1989. He said if the City wished to vest the two developers, they would be vested under the 1985 Building Code at the date of their ADB application. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUN- CILMEMBER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSED. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES BY WHITELY JACOBSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDINGS TT12,00) Councilmember Hall said she was a friend of Whiteley Jacobsen & Associates and would refrain from _q�) voting if the Council so desired. No objection was noted to her participation. Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that Jack Whiteley prepared a preliminary seismic assessment of the Public Safety (PS) and Community Services (CS) buildings. The results were presented to the Council on June 27. At that time, the Council requested the Community Services Committee to investigate the possibility of finding a structural solution in conjunction with a new building between the CS and PS buildings. Mr. Whiteley reviewed this concept and recommended that the stiffening of the existing buildings be designed separately from a new building. This was presented to the Community Services Committee on August 8, and the Committee agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Hahn said Mr. Whiteley sent a letter on August 18 to the City clarifying the need for the structural work in relation to the UBC and earthquake probabilities. Mr. Hahn said the total fee is based on $8,600 for the design phase and $4,300 for the construc- tion phase, but Staff recommends that the total budget for this contract be set at $14,000 for contingencies. Mr. Hahn reminded the Council that construction costs for correcting seismic deficiencies have been estimated to be in the $25,000 to $50,000 range. Mr. Hahn said Staff recommends that the Council authorize a contract with Whiteley Jacobsen and set the project budget at $14,000 to be funded from Fund 116. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the exterior walls will be modified again at a later date to construct a new building between the CS and PS building. Mr. Hahn said nothing major would be done to the exterior walls in the future. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND SET THE PROJECT BUDGET AT $14,000 TO BE FUNDED FROM FUND 116. MOTION CAR- RIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 OCTOBER 17, 1989 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF SANITARY SEWERAGE FACILITIES -1,AU BETWEEN I F ED NDS ND CITY F LYNNW D ^.� I W p "v Community Services Director Peter Hahn noted that this subject was first brought to the Council's attention in 1987 and again in early 1988. He said the Council supported the swap concept, and the Lynnwood Public Works Director also agreed with the concept. He said, however, the matter should be formalized in a binding legal agreement. Mr. Hahn said a formal agreement outlines the swap concept clearly and ties it to the present agreement. He said there are not costs associated with the agreement, and it is a reciprocal swap of capacity. Mr. Hahn said Staff recommends that the Council approve the agreement. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT REGARDING INSTALLATION OF EARTH STABILIZATION MEASURE AT 17624 TALBOT ROAD Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that the City installed a sanitary sewer line more than ten years ago along the western boundary of the property owned by Mr. Lyle Nichols. The property is located on a bluff overlooking the Burlington Northern tracks and, like other similar properties, sloughing of the bank has occurred over the years. Mr. Hahn said the owner and the City have reached an agreement whereby the City would install a relatively simple retaining structure to stabilize the bank. The cost of the structure is esti- mate to be $7,800 to $10,000. Mr. Hahn said the owner has agreed to share evenly in the costs with the City and, more importantly, agrees to waive any legal actions in regard to past City actions related to its sewer line. Mr. Hahn said it is the recommendation of Staff to approve the agreement and the $10,000 appropri- ation from the Combined Utility fund. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND THE $10,000 APPROPRIATION FROM THE COMBINED UTILITY FUND FOR THE CITY'S COST. MOTION CARRIED. As a procedural matter, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten requested confirmation of his appointment of Brad Butterfield to the Architectural D�w Design Board (ADB). COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF BRAD BUTTERFIELD TO POSITION #1 TO THE ADB, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten requested confirmation of his appointment of Don Stay to the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF DON STAY TO THE, ALTERNATE POSITION ON THE PLANNING BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1989. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten said he would forward a liquor license application for Cathy's Courtyard to the State if the Council did not object. No objection was noted. Mayor Naughten said the City received a letter from Marion Wilkerson regarding a parking request in the Library parking lot, and the City Engineer would review the matter and make a recommenda- tion. L Mayor Naughten noted that the Port of Edmonds has agreed to furnish moorage free of charge to the City for the rescue craft. Mayor Naughten announced that a F.A.T.E. meeting is scheduled on October 18 at 7 p.m. at Woodway High School. Mayor Naughten said the Council will discuss a review of "Snohomish County Tomorrow" in the near future. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 OCTOBER 17, 1989 COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO RESCHEDULE THE NOVEMBER 7 COUNCIL MEETING TO NOVEMBER 6 (BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION). MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall said several Councilmembers attended the meeting for the Cascade Symphony. She suggested that the City patronize that organization. Councilmember Hall said she and the Mayor attended the ground breaking ceremony for the Alderwood Boys & Girls Club and it was well attended. Councilmember Hertrich announced that Candidates Night will be held on October 25 at the Senior Center, and it is being sponsored by the Council of Concerned Citizens and League of Women Voters. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 24, 1989 APPROVAL. AC ELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk 'ARRY S. NAUGHTEN, flayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 OCTOBER 17, 1989 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. OCTOBER 17, 1989 6:30 P.M. - INTERVIEW PLANNING BOARD CANDIDATE 6:45 P.M. - INTERVIEW ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CANDIDATE CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE I. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1989 (C) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 691 AMENDING RESOLUTION 673 REGARDING THE MAYOR'S SIGNING AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT FUNDS (D) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB LICENSE FOR YELLOW/PLAZA CAB DBA NORTHWEST CAB (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB LICENSE FOR A-1 TAXI, INC. (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2739 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TO CONSOLIDATE AND CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR EXPENDING FUNDS FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 FOR EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT METER STATIONS, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LAKEVUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($363,932.80 INCLUDING SALES TAX) 2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGE TO (50 MINUTES) EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 4. HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH POINT AT WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT (40 MINUTES) APPLICATION IS VESTED 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN (15 MINUTES) SERVICES BY WHITELY JACOBSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES/ PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDINGS ($12,900) 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF SANITARY (10 MINUTES) SEWERAGE FACILITIES BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT REGARDING INSTALLATION OF EARTH (10 MINUTES) STABILIZATION MEASURE AT 17624 TALBOT RD. 8. RECOMMENDATION TO RECLASSIFIFY CLERICAL POSITIONS (15 MINUTES) 9. MAYOR 10. COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE