Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2003 - MinutesMEDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mill 10. 20C3 Mediae :;It�HaH 5�;` Evergreen ?oint Rd. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER Mayor Becker called the meeting of the Medina City Councir to order at 7.00 G.m, ROLL CALL Presen?: Council members Drew Blazey, Paul Demitriades, Thomas Morgan, R000rt R udolph. Deputy Mayor Mary Odermat, and Mavor Dan Becker Absent Council member Todd Nunn Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Klrt; Vvines, Poi;ce Chie; Michae-' K,-,apc. Public Works Director She' Jahn, and Cit;. Clerk Carol' VNedlund Consultant: Joseph Gellings, Otak ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Becker announced the Association of Washington Mlles Legislative Conference would be held in Olympia February 19-20, 2003. He also passed around a five- entitled "Community Counts 200Z received from the Public Health Department of Seattle and King County. Council member Demitriades noted the state would be implementing performance audits for ail state aaencies, which would eventually be passed down to towns and cities. He relavec the Gove nor had assembled a package of budget requirements called the Priorities of Government. Council, member Demitriades also attended the Salmon Forum in Tacoma the prior week, and the Governor, also in attendance, knew about Medina's salmon stream. Council member Demitriades noted runoff was killing salmon returning to spawn in Puget Sound area streams, e•le^ though some of the streams had been restored. Public Works Director (PVVD) Jahn added the Inoredients in storm water runoff ✓are Oki ig salmon. Due to a full agenda, Mayor Becker asked which items could be deferred to the r:'iarch Council meeting. Council member Morgan wanted to discuss the Public Works report, however, the other staff reports could be delayed. The following agenda items were deferred to next month: G-3 Ordinance No. 743, Tree and Vegetation Ordinance - tiot ready for discussion H-4 Discussion of Permit Fee Renewal I-1 Discussion of Int, Council Communicafons - Council member Rudolph reauested this agenda item be moved to the March meeting. He explained it dealt with decisions being made from. time to time without the full input of the Counci:. Reports, except Public Woks CONSENT AGENDA Deputy Mayor Odermat moved, seconded by Council member Morgan, to approve the Consent 4cenda. Council member Morgan stated he wished to defer approval of Consen- agenda item D-1. January '3, 2003 Council minutes, to the March Council meeting, so he could work, with the City Cerk to carract his remarks. it was requested consent agenda items D-3 (Ordinance No. 755 (Amending MMC 2.04 0 to Provide for Appointment of Committees and for Dissolution of Committees), and D-4 (Ordinance No 56 Requiring Flaggers to Prevent Interference with Street Use), be tabled to the March Council meeting otrncil member Blaney moved, seconded by Council member Demitriades, to -emo,,e items D-1, D-3 and C 4 fro the consent agenda for discussion: at the March Council meeting, and the motion carried by common consent. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mayor Becker invlted audience mer;bers to comment regarding non -agenda ;toms. Paul Saad, 7644 NE 8th Street, suggested the trailer and dumpster it front of City Hail be moved. He also recommended the police cars occuoying parking spaces in front of City Hall be moved. Ron Santi, 7842 NE 8« Street, announced a rally on February 11. 2003 at Clyde Hill City Hall, followed by a Council meeting at 7:00 p.m., regarding efforts to ban Little League and soccer from certain p'ayfieics. He noted the Clyde Hill Council was being pressured to consider this effort by a few neighbors. mayor Becker commented there was no interest by the Clyde Hil'. Council or the r`1ayo- to bar Llttie League. City Council Meeting Minutes February 10, 2003 Page 2 Henry Paulman, 1415 — 801h Avenue NE, stressed taxpayers should be allowed to insert differing opinions in the Medina Newsletter. REPORTS Council member Morgan inquired about the Public Works report, adding the PWD had met with him and Council member Demitriades regarding tree cutting on Evergreen Point Road (EGPR). He understood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power line tree cutting would occur throughout the city. For the past 30 years, Medina had only permitted PSE to trim trees under and around power lines, but this year, the city had agreed to cutting and removal of 70 trees on EGPR. He inquired what had led the city to this policy reversal. PWD Jahn stated he had not been aware of the policy against tree removal. Council member Morgan indicated the purpose of MMC 12.20,010 was to prevent unnecessary cutting or removal of trees in the right-of-way. However, trees that had been there for many years were being removed. PWD Jahn quoted RCW 64.12.035, stating trees in the way of power lines should be trimmed. It also specified the utility doing the work should use the National Electric Safety Code, as well as the American National Standard Institute and the National Society of Arborculture as guidelines for tree trimming. He also announced it was best not to top trees due to safety conditions associated with such action. PWD Jahn stated he had pictures depicting how trees improperly pruned or topped looked stable but really had rotten cores, resulting in the branch being in danger of falling off. Further, shoots from topped trees grew back into the power lines. Therefore, for safety reasons, and to properly prune, the decision was made to remove and to trim trees. He added PSE representatives were present to add further clarification. Council member Demitriades announced he, Council members Rudolph and Morgan, of the Tree Ordinance Committee, had reviewed the Medina tree trim/removal situation with PWD Jahn and his crew. He relayed PWD Jahn had stated those residents whose trees were tagged for removal had been given an option of discussing with PSE and the city to remove or to trim. The City Manager's last activity report indicated the tree -trimming project had begun on EGPR, which was another reason the Tree Committee moved forward with Ordinance No. 743, Tree and Vegetation. Council member Demitriades polled the audience concerning whether those living on the east side of EGPR had been contacted by PSE. Jim Lawrence, 822 Evergreen Point Road, announced he fell in that category, and PSE had sent him a letter, but had also trimmed one of his trees without permission. Council member Demitriades relayed PSE had agreed to pay residents for replacement trees. Those who decided to have their tree removed had the option of replacement. PSE had agreed to pay the city $15,000 for that. He queried whether that amount included the whole city or just EGPR, and if it was enough for the entire cost of replanting. PWD Jahn responded the PSE normal tree replacement policy was a 1-1/2 to 2 inch tree, which was inadequate, due to survival possibilities. Therefore, the city negotiated with PSE for a tree fund donation of S208.50 per tree removed in the right-of-way, calculated at a ratio of $139 per caliper inch times 1-1/2 inches. He stated city staff had talked to immediate adjacent residents, had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and would decide whether or not to replace trees, and what type. He added any tree replacement would be taken from the tree fund. Council member Morgan inquired whether the city would be required to add additional funds for wages to grind stumps and plant replacement trees. PWD Jahn replied every stump must be ground, but not every tree would be replaced. He was confident the city had the funds to do the work as identified so far on EGPR, and could do the rest for the city as well. Council member Morgan also stated in January he had mentioned the Medina Park irrigation project, and had requested it be on tonight's agenda. According to the PWD report, the city was in the process of developing plans for the Medina Park irrigation project. He queried whether the PWD had given consideration to the city being in a drought condition, which would be chronic this summer. PWD Jahn referred to section 3.A of his report, noting the Park Board had made no decision. They had requested PWD Jahn to investigate the price of materials and the cost of actually irrigating the park during the summer, for a report at the next Park Board meeting. At that time. the Board would consider whether they wanted to forward this information to the Council for consideration. Council member Morgan advised he had received news media inquiries, wanting to know why Medina was watering when there was a drought alert. He noted every summer there was a double and triple charge for water usage in the Seattle -Bellevue water shed, which was growing in population but not in capacity. That charge came quickly into play whenever irrigation began, and it should be in the cost analysis presented to the Council. PWD Jahn stated Overlake Golf and City Council Meeting Minutes February 10 2003 Page 3 Country Club was being considered as a possible source of water to irrigate Medina Park, as they had water rights to draw from Lake Washington. Council member Odermat requested Council member Morgan to identify the news media members who had contacted him, so the City Manager could provide accurate data to them. Council member Morgan indicated he no longer talked to the press due to printed misinformation, and always referred them to the City Manager. He added representatives of the Eastside Journal and the Eastside Seattle Times had called him. Council member Demitriades announced he had provided the Park Board with the 2001-2002 Regional Water Supply Outlet. He read aloud a section that indicated existing water supplies were not sufficient to meet forecast demands in regional parks. He conveyed it went into great depth regarding water quality and also related to salmon restoration. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No 735 — Establishing Maximum Lot Coverage — Mayor Becker inquired if the Council wished to revisit the decisions made at the January meeting regarding Ordinance No. 735, Four Council members wanted to again discuss impervious surfaces. Council member Morgan wished feedback from PC members who had not been present at the last Council meeting. Council member Morgan also mentioned he had changed his mind about the side yard setback issue. City Manager Schulze explained the City Attorney should comment regarding discussion of impervious surfaces, since it was not part of the ordinance as published in the public notices. There had been some comments the notice would have to be redone if the ordinance was changed in principle from what had been advertised. City Attorney Wines stated the only significant difference was the Planning Commission insertion of language regarding the amount of impervious surface allowed. He was of the opinion this could be discussed during tonight's meeting. Deputy Mayor Odermat recalled at the October 2002 Council meeting the City Planner had stated Ordinance No. 735 would include an exemption of historic structures from structural lot coverage totals, in the hope of preserving those structures. She asked if the Council wished to make that part of Ordinance No. 735. City Attorney Wines advised exemption of historic structures was a new issue that went beyond the published notice. He also thought the impervious surface element should be removed from Ordinance No. 735, as the Council had not had yet had an opportunity to study the effect of deleting private lanes from the calculation of impervious surface. This would involve another public hearing. It was decided impervious surface would be part of a different ordinance for consideration at another time. Mayor Becker stated the Council would hold off on comments from the PC regarding the impervious surface issue. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mayor Becker reopened the public hearing for Ordinance No. 735. Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, announced the PC had voted at its most recent meeting to present an alternative to the current Ordinance No. 735. Mayor Becker asked the City Attorney if the Council could hear alternative proposals from the PC meeting. Planning Commission (PC) Vice Chair Nelson apologized for the PC, as when this ordinance was drafted, certain things had been omitted, such as setbacks in the R-16 zone. He referred to the PC report of February 3, 2003 to the Council regarding the proposed alternatives, and reviewed their concerns. Vice Chair Nelson stated he and Chair Miles Adam had assembled this packet to ensure the PC agreed with their thoughts, and the PC had given their unanimous approval for presentation to the Council as an alternative. He noted the title did not reflect altering the method of establishing building height, and referred to 17.34.020, which dealt with structures not exceeding 25 feet. It had never been the PC's intent to put the limitation of "or finished grade, whichever is lower" on R- 16 zones. In R-20 and R-30 zones, Ordinance No. 735 encouraged owners, builders and architects to build taller buildings, because they would be limited to a finished grade, resulting in the builder choosing a smaller footprint with more height to the building. He emphasized that was not the direction in which the Council should proceed, and referred to several house drawings in the Council packet to illustrate the effects of this proposed ordinance. Vice Chair Nelson stressed if the present language of leaving in the finished grade was adopted, it could encourage more flat roofed houses in Medina. The PC had also proposed deleting setbacks in R-16, as it was not their intent to add setbacks in that zone. He emphasized all of a sudden, there were smaller footprints and larger setbacks. The PC had also elected to remove reference to "finished grade, whichever is lower" as well, because it changed the way height was measured. City Council Meeting Minutes February 10. 2003 Page 4 Council member Rudolph asked if these were unanimous PC recommendations, and Vice Chair Nelson responded affirmatively. Council member Rudolph inquired when finished grade was eliminated and replaced by original grade, whether that permitted someone to dig five feet below the original grade, with a resulting higher house. Vice Chair Nelson noted the height limitations were covered elsewhere in other chapters. The PC was trying to ensure their intentions were met with regard to lot coverage. Council member Rudolph also noted there was a potpourri of setbacks in R-16 zoned lots, whereas the setback requirements for R-20 and R-30 were 15 percent of the lot width. Vice Chair Nelson responded the majority of the R-16 lots were very small and their intention was only have it apply to the very large lots 100 feet or wider. Vice Chair Nelson stated the PC had not intended for that inequity to occur. Vassos Demetriou, 8901 Groat Point Drive, referred to his letter distributed to the Council, and suggested Ordinance No. 735 be reviewed again. He recommended flexibility to allow sloped roofs, rather than flat ones, as the proposed ordinance as written would not allow for a sloped roof for all zones. With regard to measuring from the original grade, Mr. Demetriou also suggested the same criteria be used for all zones, but only in the case where 25 feet in height was not exceeded. He also stated the formula for setbacks was not fair for all Medina zones, and did not believe the formula worked. Mr. Demetriou also suggested there must be a way to allow for flexibility. Paul Saad, 7644 NE 81h, referred to his e-mail to the Council, and distributed copies to the audience. He emphasized Ordinance No. 735, designed to control the mega house, was now the one that had the greatest affect upon R-16 lots. Mr. Saad stressed the ordinance should affect the most rather than the exceptions. He predicted the more restrictive the setback, the more the home would move into the lot, resulting in a taller and longer structure. Mr. Saad was of the opinion the 15 percent setback in R-16 did not accomplish what was desirable for Medina. He indicated none of the zones now tied lot coverage to finished grade if the homes were 25 feet high. Carib Nelson, 7615 NE 10`h Street, relayed appreciation for the intent of Ordinance No. 735, but it should be reconsidered. He suggested a reduction in new building starts, as major changes were taking place so fast this city could not absorb their ramifications on the aesthetic, social and physical environment. Mr. Nelson further suggested Medina was unable to safely handle the daily influx of dump trucks, work crews and construction noise. He emphasized safety standards were not being met, as there were too many projects that were too large and under tight construction deadlines to assure safety. It was not safe for children to walk to school. He felt the community was failing to provide one of its more basic responsibilities to its citizens. Mr. Nelson requested a reduction in new housing and major remodel permits to a more reasonable level. Ron Santi, 7842 NE 8`h, stated roof heights could be higher to deal with various setbacks in R-20 and R-30 lots, and urged the Council to allow the same for R-16 homes. He did not understand why setbacks were tied to lot width, and stressed there was no reason to treat a wide lot differently than a narrow one. If anything, the narrow lot exacerbated the problem, creating what Council member Morgan had referred to as a train house. Mayor Becker replied the reason the Council had originally reviewed increasing setbacks was to keep larger homes away from neighbors. Lisa Fleishman, 7641 NE 12`h Street, stated the ordinance failed to protect the majority of Medina parcels from being labeled nonconforming. Simply because the code had changed, many homeowners would be in nonconformance. She noted during the creation of Ordinance No. 735 there had been a section addressing homes that had become nonconforming due to new regulations, and this section was no longer present- Ms. Fleishman noted the Medina Heights section had been protected from the new regulations. She requested the Council to amend Ordinance No. 735 by adding language to protect homeowners from being penalized by future code changes, after conforming to all known regulations at the time of construction. Dick Hansen, 443 — 861h Avenue NE, stated he was the former chairman of a move to preserve Medina Heights- He emphasized the Council had heard testimony from builders and architects, noting the Medina citizens knew what they wanted. Mr. Hanson addressed the audience, asking them to inform the Councii, and if they were in agreement with the proposed ordinance, to say so. City Council Meeting Minutes February 10. 2003 Page 5 Robert Kaufman, 1306 Evergreen Point Road (R-16), noted due to his lot shape, he would lose an additional 7-1/2 feet on each side from his present 15-foot setbacks if this ordinance passed. Mr. Kaufman emphasized passage of Ordinance No. 735 would result in essentially taking property away from him. He had no plans to rebuild or to make additions, but someone who bought the property might. Mr. Kaufman suggested it might affect the value of his property. Doc Woodman, 1636 — 73`d Avenue NE, built his home 38 years ago in Medina. Since that time, he had watched his property deteriorate. First the setbacks were changed, then the steep slopes. Now, he could only have a 3,500 square foot home on his parcel. He urged the Council to take another look at this proposed ordinance. Bill Thurston, 8457 NE 8th Street (R-16), voiced disapproval of Ordinance No. 735, as it took away from property values and what homeowners could do with their parcels. He emphasized this ordinance encouraged homes with flat roofs. Mr. Thurston advised focusing upon very large homes restricted too many other parcels, and urged the Council not to pass Ordinance No. 735. As a registered architect who did not live in Medina, Ron Reed stressed the proposed ordinance would throw most Medina parcels into a nonconforming state if passed, and it would be difficult to deny the resulting variance requests. Mr. Reed also noted MMC 17.40.060 stated the setbacks could be reduced when the lot was substandard, and suggested the ordinance be reviewed again. Arnold Barer, 1732 Evergreen Point Road (R-20), voiced concern about how the Council had taken something everyone agreed to and changed it. He stated the ordinance had begun as a true mitigation problem with regard to mega homes. Mr. Barer noted if this ordinance passed, it would actually down zone the vast majority of Medina parcels. He stressed by governmental fiat, the Council was dictating an architectural shape for most of the homes on lots with height limitations. Brad Green, 7852 NE 14th Street and 7858 NE 14th Street, Medina (both R-20), pointed out he was in the process of a lot line adjustment for both parcels. He relayed one of the proposals in Ordinance No. 735 was using the height based upon lower of original or finished grade. He had a 25-foot elevation change from the western to the eastern side of his property. Mr. Green predicted having a lower grade would encourage him to develop a higher structure in R-20. The proposed ordinance imposing the point of lowest grade rather than above original grade would both take away from the project and encourage a flat roof. Mr. Green also emphasized he was being compelled to design two separate homes, based upon the existing code and the proposed ordinance. He also suggested the Council review the MMC historical changes which provided citizens with a window period to continue under the current project, rather than having to stop after incurring engineering surveys and architectural fees, and being forced to start anew. John Brekke, 8436 Midland Road (R-16), voiced opposition to further restrictions in R-16 zoning. Roberta Goodnow, 2056 — 77th NE (R-16), stated she had recently moved to Medina, and was a land use planner. She had a very challenging site with an 8,000 square foot lot. Ms. Goodnow stressed the ordinance as currently proposed, especially the setback limitations, could limit her to a narrow home with a flat roof. She inquired whether any changes were proposed to MMC 17.40.060 regarding setback limitations for nonconforming lots. City Planner Gellings responded existing code provisions would offset the tendency for the proposed ordinance to increase side yard setbacks. Roger Caprioti, 852 — 84`h Avenue NE (R-16), voiced opposition to Ordinance No. 735, and suggested it be reviewed again. Mark Lostrom, 802 — 84th Avenue NE (R-16), stated the PC had undertaken the task of dealing with large homes in response to some ongoing projects. However, those problems still remained. The moratorium proved it was still enough of an issue that the Council wanted to hold off considering large home projects. He emphasized if the Council wished to further regulate development of very large home projects, they must be prepared to not only set forth the rules, but also to back them up. He stressed those with the resources for large projects also had the money to acquire more land if necessary to proceed with their projects and to City Council Meeting Minutes February 10,. 2003 Page 6 litigate, if necessary. If regulations were passed to control those properties, the Council must be prepared to step up to the costs. Mr. Lostrom stated the smallest lots really had no change. The middle-sized lots had varying degrees of change, depending upon the zone and the lot size. He was of the opinion the amount of change at the high end of this ordinance was quite small. In the absence of anything addressing lot line adjustment or lot consolidation, the largest homes in our community could still be built with this ordinance. Therefore, there was no effective regulation of the largest projects. He suggested setting Ordinance No. 735 aside and either lifting the moratorium or giving the PC new direction regarding some of the issues raised tonight. Jim Frank, 1028 — 84th Avenue NE, suggested there was a solution through the variance process. He emphasized building a home in Medina was very painful, and was of the opinion Medina should be an agency that worked for its citizens. Mr. Frank wished to see this process simplified. Carol Hasman, 1857 Evergreen Point Road, announced she had attended tonight's meeting due to her experience and how it had affected her life. She urged the Council to be an agent for the people. If new laws were passed, the ramifications of not following them should be made very clear. Ms. Hasman also felt some citizens were treated differently than others, and requested any new regulations be equal for everyone. Dave Mills, 1040 Evergreen Point Road, relayed he was not building a home and did not plan to construct an addition. He stressed the building permit process in Medina was a very complicated and intimidating process. Mr. Mills noted most of those who would be impacted by the proposed ordinance were at home, and if they really knew what was going on with this ordinance, the building would not be large enough. He suggested the Council review Ordinance No. 735 again. Doug Allen, 508 Upland Road, (R-16) echoed the thoughts of others. As a new homeowner, he asked if there had been a change in the rules. He was of the opinion homeowners needed enough time to absorb the fact they had spent thousands of dollars in engineering and architectural fees, and they also needed more than a few days of grace period. Mr. Allen emphasized the initial intention for which Ordinance No. 735 had been drafted was not even being addressed. He suggested it not be passed, as the ordinance amounted to expropriation of property rights, and the Council should pay close attention to the unintended consequences. Tim McGee, 2610 — 781h Avenue NE, (R-16) announced he wished to purchase a larger home in Medina. What he had heard was reasonable citizens wanting to make this city a better place in which to live. He stated the variance process was a "joke in three counties", and suggested more flexibility in the variance process, as citizens were not happy with it. Doug Meyer, 3204 — 781h Place NE (R-20), related the history regarding his parcel, and emphasized the variance process had cost him S1,300. He stated the Hearing Examiner took 14 days to render a hearing, and requested the return of his funds for nonperformance. Mr. Meyer advised the variance process was not only expensive, but also time consuming. Craig Shank, 7863 NE 10th Street (R-16), advised if Ordinance No. 735 passed, his corner lot would suffer a significant reduction in build able lot space. He stated the build able lot coverage for R-20 and R-30 parcels was larger. Mr. Shank did not think original grade versus finished grade was the right wording. He stressed a 25 foot high home could not be built in an R-16 zone, and emphasized the ordinance did not make sense. He urged the Council not to pass another moratorium. Mr. Shank requested the Council to pay attention to Vice Chair Nelson's remarks regarding the hill issue, as it was a problem for homes built on slopes. Jerry Swanson staled he presently lived in Bellevue, and was building a home at 1247 Evergreen Point Road (R-20). He suggested the Council review protecting the financial aspects of the taxpayers, as it should respect the economic consequences to the Medina property owners. Mayor Becker closed the public portion of the hearing and queried whether the Council wished to continue with Ordinance No. 735 or return it to the PC, as the moratorium would expire the end of February. He suggested Ordinance No. 735 be set aside, and the Council could determine what the PC should do with it. Following further discussion, none of the Council members moved to pass Ordinance No. 735. Therefore, City Council Meeting Minutes February 10, 2003 Page 7 Ordinance No. 735, Maximum Lot Coverage, failed due to lack of motion. Council member Morgan emphasized Ordinance No. 735 was "not dead". A recess was taken at 9:24 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS ARCH 2O03 Work Program -- City Manager Schulze requested the Council to consider agenda items D-5, Authorize Diversion of ARCH Loan Repayments to Housing Trust Fund Account, and H-1, ARCH 2O03 Work Program. He introduced Max Bigbee, of ARCH, who gave an overview of ARCH loan repayment diversion. City Manager Schulze added the ARCH fund would be a dedicated account if the Council passed it. Council member Morgan moved, seconded by Deputy Mayor Odermat, to approve the 2003 ARCH Work Program. Council member Morgan moved, seconded by Council member Demitriades, to approve the ARCH Housing Trust Fund Loan Repayment Diversion. Both motions carried unanimously. Consider Request for Variance Application Fee Refund — City Manager Schulze recalled at the January Council meeting, a request had been submitted to refund Doug Meyer's variance application fee. The applicant requested reimbursement based upon the Hearing Examiner's decision being rendered 14 days after the hearing rather than 10 days, as required by city code. The Council had asked the City Attorney and staff to provide them with a recommendation. It was noted the Hearing Examiner had approved the variance. Doug Meyer, 3204 — 78th Place NE, requested a $1,300 refund, due to the city's nonconformance. Council member Morgan asked if he had been harmed by the Hearing Examiner's late decision. Mr. Meyer responded his "for sale" home was non -saleable due to a non -build able lot, adding there were "possible damages". He stressed the city was in violation of its own ordinance requiring a 10-day response from the Hearing Examiner. City Attorney Wines considered this to be a report that was four days late, and Mr. Meyer had not established any damages to be eligible for a refund. City Manager Schulze added the city had taken action to correct the problem, and the Hearing Examiner was no longer employed by Medina. City Attorney Wines advised Hearing Examiner decisions were more frequently late than early in the jurisdictions with which he had worked. He had yet to see any relief granted to the applicant. Without some statutory basis, there was no relief. The Council voted to deny the Meyer variance refund request. Ordinance No. 748, Construction Mitigation — City Manager Schulze noted during the January meeting, staff was directed to make several changes to Ordinance No. 748, which were incorporated into the current version. Additionally, staff was directed to do a cost analysis. If applied to permits issued in 2002, this draft ordinance would have resulted in eight permits meeting Level 1 criteria and 13 permits meeting Level II criteria. He noted if the Council wished enforcement and monitoring of construction mitigation as it existed today, unavailable staff resources must be dedicated to this. An Entry Level Code Enforcement Officer would annually cost between $80,000-$90,000 for wages, benefits, supplies and operating expenses. Funding could be through a flat rate fee of about 5500 for Level I mitigation plans to cover the cost of the application packet, notices and on -going monitoring. For Level II mitigation plans, fees were proposed at a scale ranging from $1,500 for projects up to $500,000, to S3,000 for projects above $2,000,000. Currently, there was no mechanism to enforce project conformance unless a stop work order was issued. Therefore, this process could be effectively enforced through the Construction Mitigation Ordinance. Council member Morgan calculated the fee to be less than one percent of the project value. Planning Consultant Gellings stated at the last PC meeting, conversation had centered on the Ordinance relationship to the Construction Code of Conduct. There was sentiment many of the Level I provisions presently in Ordinance No. 748 should be moved into the Construction Code of Conduct, and any enforceability problems should be handled. This would eliminate Level I mitigation plans from Ordinance No. 748. The PC felt there was a lack of demonstration of the need for Level I mitigation plans. Mr. Gellings suggested the desirable parts of Level I be moved into the Code of Conduct. The PC also felt staffing had not been adequate for some of the administrative questions which arose. Mayor Becker was concerned if Level I was deleted from construction impacts, there would be no enforcement power. Council member Morgan added two Level I projects caused more disruption than a Level II project. He thought the PC was not seeing the problem faced by citizens who lived on narrow streets with sidewalk issues. City Council Meeting Minutes February 10. 2003 Page 8 Miles Adam, 8424 NE 101h Street, stated the PC had been concerned about overlap if both the Code of Conduct and Level I were in place. They felt moving Level I impacts into the Construction Code of Conduct and making it enforceable would be easier for everyone. Another approach was to insert the Code of Conduct into Level I. The PC believed having both instruments and going in so many different directions would be confusing and difficult, PC Chair Adam also indicated the PC thought the trigger point for Level I should be 5350.000 rather than $250,000. Mayor Becker stated every project more than 1,500 square feet would have greater than five construction workers. Therefore, a mitigation plan would be required for most projects if this ordinance passed. He suggested amending it to if more than two of the conditions were met or if the lot coverage changed to 3,000 square feet. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mayor Becker opened the public hearing for Ordinance No. 748. Roberta Goodnow, 2056 — 77`h NE, encouraged the Council to provide definitions for lot area and lot coverage. Paul Saad, 7644 NE 811h, distributed three documents, and stressed the Code of Conduct must be signed, or the applicant would not be granted a permit. He noted a parking ordinance and a noise ordinance were already in place. Mr. Saad implored the Council to control construction, especially large projects, stressing the problem was enforcement. He also suggested the city regulations be made more citizen -friendly, by informing them what was expected and enforcing the regulations. He also recommended the City Manager needed a larger hammer. City Manager Schulze commented there were very few complaints for large projects. He also stated there was nothing that gave staff authority to require signing the Code of Conduct. Further, it was not required as part of the approval process. Patty Gordon, 916 — 86th Avenue NE, was concerned about the threshold for Level I being too low. As written, she felt the net for Ordinance No. 748 was too large and the city would end up catching too many projects in it. Elizabeth Korrell, Cascade Trust, requested the Council to lend clarity to the language for Ordinance No. 748. as this would make it more enforceable. Craig Shank, 7863 NE 10th Street, stated the biggest problem was not articulating the standards, but rather enforcing them. He suggested the Council focus upon clarity in what it expected of citizens. Mr. Shank stated a less expensive alternative would be to create an enforceable Code of Conduct and compelling observance. Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, relayed the PC was not convinced Level I mitigation was needed. The concern had been this was added another onerous layer which would make obtaining a building permit more difficult. The PC believed Level I should be stricken from the Code at this time, and they also wanted to codify the Construction Code of Conduct. He also suggested the city hire a Code Enforcement Officer. Vice Chair Nelson relayed the PC also thought the coverage should be in square feet, rather than lot coverage, for Ordinance No. 748. Ron Santi, 7842 NE 8`h, inquired why the Construction Code of Conduct could not be codified as a condition of the building permit. City Attorney Wines responded that could be done, but it not might meet all the objectives the Council wanted to address. Paul Saad, 7644 NE 8th, suggested the city should inform citizens what was expected, then enforce it. He emphasized there was a perception the city was not friendly toward its citizens, and he had heard it said the building permit process was difficult in Medina. Mr. Saad also suggested the Code of Conduct be followed. Mayor Becker polled the Council regarding passage of Ordinance No. 748, Construction Mitigation with amendments. The Council requested the City Attorney to draft language for Section 1.B.1.a, so the Level I total floor area of all structures or portions of structures that were the subject of the permitted construction exceeded 3,000 square feet. The Council also asked the City Attorney to draft the same definition for Level 11 City Council Meeting Minutes February 10, 2003 Page 9 in Section B.2.a, except the trigger would be 5,000 square feet. Council member Morgan moved, seconded by Deputy Mayor Odermat to approve Ordinance No. 748 as amended, and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion of February 24 2003 Retreat Agenda — City Manager Schulze requested Council direction to plan the February 24, 2003 Council Retreat, noting the facilitator had suggested the process be broken into two sessions. He also suggested the first step should be service levels and staffing, which would lead into the next steps of facility process. City Manager Schulze stated he would meet with Chief Knapp and PWD Jahn to review the tables of service levels for each department. Council member Morgan requested paperwork be furnished well in advance of the retreat, and the oral presentation be brief. PWD Jahn recalled the Council had committed to citizen involvement in this process, and was of the opinion the Council would be going back on the public by not including citizen volunteers. He reminded them the retreat had been advertised as having public involvement from a representative standpoint, including an article in the January 2003 Medina Quarterly Newsletter. Deputy Mayor Odermat stated the volunteers should be provided with a copy of the Council packet. By consensus, the Council decided to involve the six Facilities Committee volunteers. They also agreed to the Retreat agenda proposed by City Manager Schulze. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Issues — Deputy Mayor Odermat stated the PC had discussed under grounding utilities at their last meeting. A gentleman in the audience wanted to know when the PC reported "65 percent in favor", what number they were talking about. She stated that citizen was treated rather rudely, and further, was told the requested information was not available. She thought the information should be forwarded to him, and that our citizens deserved to be treated with respect. City Manager Schulze noted he had been informed under grounding was a planning issue, because it affected the long-range plans of the city. Deputy Mayor Odermat also thought it might be a conflict of interest for a PC member to make recommendations that might be favorable to his client. City Attorney Wines did not feel it was a conflict of interest, as those on the PC were in the industry. However, he did not think it was proper for the PC to review something not within the scope of their purview. City Manager Schulze stated he had been working with Washington Cities Insurance Authority, and had contacted both the Chair and Vice Chair for a workshop to address the PC role and what should be reviewed in the course of their duties. EXECUTIVE SESSION By consensus, the Council recessed into Executive Session at 11:36 p.m. for discussion of pending litigation, per RCW 42.30.110(i). The Council reconvened at 11:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Council member Demitriades moved, seconded by Council member Blazey to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m., and the motion carried unanimously. y, Daniel F. Becker, Mayor Attest: Caroll P. Wedlund, City Clerk