Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-2000 - MinutesMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES September 25, 2000 Medina City Hall 4:00 P.M. 501 Evergreen Point Rd. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Becker called the Study Session of the Medina City Council to order at 4:05 p.m. Present: Council Members Suzanne Cohen, Paul Demitriades, Jim Lawrence, Thomas Morgan, Mary Odermat and Mayor Daniel Becker Absent: Council Member Steve Preston Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Kirk Wines, City Planning Director Jenny Schultz, Building Official Lowell Erickson, and Interim City Clerk Caroll Wedlund ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Demitriades announced that a Regional Transportation meeting would be held on Tuesday, September 26 at the Meydenbauer Center from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and that everyone was invited. Council Demitriades indicated that citizen Henry Paulman had attending a John Carlson for Governor briefing, and referred to a handout that had been earlier distributed to the Council which announced Mr. Carlson's plan to replace the 1-520 Bridge. Mayor Becker stated that he would be absent for the October 2000 Council meeting DISCUSSION R-16 RECOMMENDATIONS Council Member Morgan reported that a committee comprised of himself, Mayor Becker, Council member Preston, Planning Commission Vice -Chair Mark Nelson and Planning Commissioner Todd Nunn had reviewed R-16 zoning and possible changes to setbacks, height and coverages. He referred to the agenda packet that had been furnished to Council members, indicating that it contained objectives reached as a result of the R-16 Committee discussions. Council Member Morgan stated that City Attorney Wines would review the related ordinances before the next Council workshop. He continued that the committee reached the following objectives during their discussions: 1. To preserve the neighborhood/city character; 2. To allow construction on the smallest lots, of a comfortable house to contemporary standards; City Council Study Session September 25, 2000 Page 2 3. To recognize the wide range of lots in R-16 and to achieve parity of the larger lots with R- 20 and R-30 lot regulations, and 4. To achieve these goals in a simple and equitable manner while reducing the need for variances. Council Member Morgan informed those present that it was very important to preserve the character of the neighborhoods for residents who lived in R-16 zones. He announced that Planning Commissioner Mark Nelson, a certified architect, had tested via nine current house projects, whether or not the committee's objectives were feasible. He continued that it was important to recognize the wide range of R-16 lots in Medina, and requested the Council to turn to the packet page entitled "Medina R-16 Lot Sizes" that graphically depicted the distribution of lots. Council Member Morgan emphasized that 60 percent of the Medina lots were in R-16 zones, and that the Council's actions would therefore, impact the largest section of the City. He noted that lots from 16,000 square feet on up also occurred in R-20 and R-30 sections. Council Member Morgan explained that Medina contained a distribution of lots from 10,000 square feet in R-20 and R-30 zones, and there were also a number of lots that were a little below statutory sizes in those districts. He continued that there were also a few very large lots in Medina, resulting in a pronounced spread of lot sizes, which must be taken into consideration with any action that might be taken. Council Member Morgan reminded Council members that they had within the last two years enacted new setback and coverage rules for the larger lots. Council Member Morgan indicated that the goal was to achieve the objectives and at the same time reduce the need for homeowners to seek variances for non -conforming homes. He pointed out that many of the homes had been platted according to King County rules prior to Medina becoming a city. _ Therefore, every time a homeowner wished to do some work on his or her residence, that person must obtain a variance. Mayor Becker asked about nonconforming homes in Medina. Building Official Erickson explained that the ordinance indicated that the homeowner had some latitude, as long as the residence was not being expanded or enlarged. He continued that a homeowner could not reconstruct without obtaining a variance. Further, a nonconforming home could only be enlarged under certain circumstances. He explained that soon as the bulk of the home was expanded, lot coverage must be considered, because the residence would cover more property as a result. Council Member Morgan indicated that the Reconstruction Ordinance passed by the Council on September 11, 2000 had not removed some of the language that should have been. Therefore, he suggested that this ordinance be reviewed, because it looked as though residents might have to apply in situations that had not been intended. Building Official Erickson requested that the Council review Chapter 17.60, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, as it created variance problems for homeowners. He pointed out that this chapter would also have an impact upon R-16 zones as well. Council Member Morgan indicated that the committee should again review the Ordinance. Council Member Morgan announced that committee members had agreed that limitation of the roof height should remain at 25 feet. The reasoning behind this was that roof height expansion would permit three-story homes, and that such residences would quickly dominate the others and change the character of the neighborhood. He relayed that the committee also believed that the smallest lots would require larger coverages and setbacks. Council Member Morgan continued that after consulting with Planning Commission Vice Chair Nelson, the committee adopted 2,480 square feet of City Council Study Session September 25, 2000 Page 3 lot coverage as the footprint of a comfortable, modern home built to contemporary needs. For lots up to 8,000 square feet, the committee had determined that the allowable lot coverage should be 31 percent, which would allow five-foot setbacks. He explained that this was in keeping with the King County rules of the 1950s for such small lots. Council Member Morgan noted that the committee believed lots above 16,000 square feet in size should conform at 21 percent coverage to the requirements of R-20 and R-30 zoning. Council Member Morgan announced that the committee had attempted to make the coverage a smooth transition from 31 percent for the small lots down to 21 percent for lots greater than 11,800 square feet. He relayed that the committee had tried to obtain a balance that would decline smoothly until 2,480 square feet could equal 20 percent of lot size, and increase from that point. Council Member Morgan referred the Council to the packet Lot Coverage page, and stated that the two lines at the bottom should be struck, as the Building Official had indicated that this verbiage was not necessary. Council Member Morgan indicated that the committee had tested the packet front and rear yard setback criteria against some of the lot coverages under reconstruction with Planning Commission Vice Chair Nelson as the architect. He explained that the committee had proposed a reduction for front and year yard setbacks from 30 feet to 20 feet for lots up to 11,800 square feet. Council Member Morgan recalled that the side yard setbacks had been five feet in King County R-9 zones, and that was why so many Medina homes were five feet from the property line. Building Official Erickson explained that King County setback regulations counted the footage to the wall of the building, resulting in a two -foot intrusion. Council Member Morgan interjected that lots from 9,000 to 16,000 square feet in size would be transitioned from five to ten foot setbacks at 16,000 square feet. Above 16,000 square feet, the committee had adopted the same standard as they had with R-20 and R-30 zoning, 10 feet or 15 percent of the lot width, whichever was greater, but not more than 20 feet. Council Member Morgan referred to the packet Building Envelope Setback page, noting that the R-16 Committee was proposing that whenever the allowed side setback was less than ten feet, the building envelope must slope up from the side lot line at a 68.2 degree angle to the maximum roof height of 25 feet, subject to interpretation by the Building Official. He explained that the 25-foot height limitation was allowed only beyond the 10-foot side setback line. Council Member Morgan continued that second stories for lots with less than ten feet of side yard setbacks should conform to the building envelope. He emphasized that at least ten feet of separation should exist in all cases between the buildings. Building Official Erickson pointed that the Medina Code allowed an exception for eaves in residential zones. He was of the opinion that the wall of the building should not be used for setback calculations, because any wall closer than ten feet must be a one -hour wall, according to the Uniform Building Code. Mayor Becker interjected that the committee had calculated the setbacks so that if they were five feet on one side, the other side would be at least ten feet. Building Official Erickson added that allowing a homeowner to position his home up to a minimum on one side was fair and equitable for the owner. He cautioned that all variable setbacks would have to be tracked in the future if the Council wished to approve the variable setback criteria. Council Member Morgan continued that a 12,000 square foot lot would require a seven and a half foot setback, and one with 14,000 square feet would require an eight and a half foot setback. He explained that 29.6 percent of the total R-16 lots contained between 10,000 and 16,000 square feet, and of those 235 lots, only 28 had a minimum City Council Study Session September 25, 2000 Page 4 side yard setback of five feet. Additionally, 21 of those lots had minimum side yard setbacks of six to ten feet, and the vast majority contained side yard setbacks of 20 feet or more. Council Member Morgan pointed out that about one third of the existing R-16 parcels contained homes that had not been set square, with resulting corners that came very close to the lot lines. Building Official Erickson explained that up to 1955, such setbacks fell under King County regulations, which were not stringently enforced until about 1978. Council Member Morgan emphasized that the R-16 Committee's recommendations were a much more homeowner -friendly set of rules that would make a lot of Medina residences conforming. He continued that the negative portion would be the proportional side yard setbacks for the major lots, the same problem that Medina presently had for R-20 and R-30 parcels. He relayed that many R-20 lots were long and narrow, whereas R-16 parcels were far more rectangular or square. In response to a query about the possibility of aggregation, with the result of an extremely large home next door, Council Member Morgan replied that every time two lots were amalgamated, Medina lost a family. Mayor Becker added that all of a sudden, a resident could have a large home next to his or her lot. Building Official Erickson was of the opinion that the further most extent of the structure should be utilized, and that the concept should not be changed so that someone could project an eave into the setback. He continued that both King County and the City of Bellevue allowed eaves to project into setbacks, but that Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point and Hunts Point did not do so. He suggested that adjustments be made in some other manner. _ Council Member Odermat commented that the contents of the Council packet had been well crafted, and that a lot of work had gone into writing it. Mayor Becker indicated that City Attorney Wines would draft an ordinance for consideration at a Study Session. He added that this should be a public hearing. City Attorney Wines stated that the Planning Commission should also hold a public hearing regarding this matter, and suggested that a joint public hearing be held before both entities. Council Member Morgan recommended that the variable side yard setback issue should be settled. He suggested that the allowance be doubled, and homeowners could use the setback any way they wished, as long as they adhered to the minimum of five feet. Building Official Erickson added that this would close the loophole to deal with sloping lots in the R-20 or R-30 zones. He relayed that as long as the homeowner was tied to the original grade for some of the sloping lots, that person could build down and still end up with quite a large home, but it could only happen on a sloping lot. Council Member Cohen declared that the Council did not wish to lose the ten -foot setbacks where they were already in existence. Mayor Becker added that the only other option would be to leave the setbacks at 10 feet and have homeowners request a variance. City Manager Schulze queried if this would open the argument for a variance with property in close proximity, but the adjacent parcel did not qualify for the sliding scale. City Attorney Wines explained that such action would not set a precedent because it would be tied to the overall lot size. He did not think the Board of Adjustment would view it as a precedent. DISCUSSION In response to Council Member Odermat's query regarding the status of the NE 24'h Street road work, City Manager Schulze responded that paving was scheduled for Tuesday, September 26, and that the asphalt cure rate would only take a couple of hours. City Council Study Session September 25, 2000 Page 5 City Manager Schulze announced that a child had fallen off the lifeguard tower. Council Member Lawrence added that he had requested that the City Manager have the tower covered so that other children could not climb it. A suggestion was made to install an emergency phone outside so that people could call 911 during hours that City Hall was closed. Council Member Morgan interjected that he had been on a nearby vessel, and had witnessed the incident. He indicated that the child had momentarily not been breathing, that CPR had been administered, that he had a concussion, and was transported to the hospital. Council Member Lawrence added that he had witnessed the child's mother watching him climb the life guard tower, and that she had not instructed him to descend. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Resident Henry Paulman, 1415 — 801h Avenue NE, requested that the Council approve a grant to the City of Gig Harbor in support of their National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) suit in Federal District Court against the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Council Member Demitriades indicated that he had sent a letter on behalf of the City of Medina criticizing the Environmental Impact Statement, upon which the lawsuit was based. Mr. Paulman explained that the City of Gig Harbor was looking for local support, and he was hopeful that Medina could be of assistance. He indicated that the Gig Harbor Council had voted four to seven in favor of the NEPA suit. Mr. Paulman added that WSDOT was continuing to push to have the funding withheld. He declared that Gig Harbor did not have the treasury that Medina possessed, and that they were looking elsewhere for funding. He beseeched the Council to contribute $100.00, as having some funding from another municipality would make a big difference. Mr. Paulman continued that the City of Fife might become a party to the suit as well. Mayor Becker responded that the Council would investigate whether or not it would be appropriate for Medina to contribute to another municipality, because taxpayer money was involved. He continued that based upon the results of such assessment, the Council would formulate a determination. DISCUSSION Mayor Becker announced that the Executive Committee would be meeting regarding the Trans -Lake Washington Project at the North Bellevue Senior Center at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 28. He also indicated that the Executive Committee had furnished to Medina the evaluation criteria for expansion of the 1-520 corridor. ADJOURNMENT Council Members agreed by consensus to adjourn the June City Council Study Session at 5:18 p.m. ani F. Becker, Mayor Attest: Caroll P. Wedlund, Interim City Clerk