Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2000 - Minutes (2)MEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES July 24, 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 4:07 p.m. Present: Council Members Suzanne Cohen, Paul Demitriades, Jim Lawrence, Thomas Morgan, Mary Odermat and Mayor Daniel Becker Planning Commission Vice Chair Mark Nelson, Planning Commission Members Gari Andreini, Robert Brog and Miles Adam Absent: Council Member Steve Preston Planning Commission Chair Mark Lostrom and Planning Commission Member Todd Nunn Board of Adjustment Chair Nancy Price, Vice Chair Craig Hintze, Board of Adjustment Members Dave Martin, Read Langenbach and John Bell Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Kirk Wines, City Planning Manager Jenny Schultz, Public Works Superintendent Carl Burris, City Engineering Consultants Greg Hill and Jay Hummel, and Interim City Clerk Caroll Wedlund ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Demitriades announced that the Suburban Cities Association had submitted the 4(d) rule comments. Mayor Becker noted that he and City Manager Doug Schulze had met with Phil Fordyce from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and other Points Mayors to discuss the ramp metering. The meeting resulted in agreement with WSDOT to draft a Memo of Understanding with specific criteria to evaluate the success or failure of metering, and several other issues that were requested by the Points Communities. He added that the 84'h Avenue NE ramp meter would be turned on approximately a month before NE 281h or NE 241h. Mayor Becker stated that two -person car pools would be able to by-pass the meter. He indicated that the Medina/Hunts Points meters would be turned on first, and Bellevue would follow with their metering. He added that the Memorandum of Understanding indicated that any changes would have to emanate from the four Points Communities Mayors. Council Member Cohen indicated that she had attended the Shoreline Management Act meeting on July 11, which had been hosted by the Department of Ecology. City Council Study Session July 24, 2000 Page 2 ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS Ordinance No. 687 — AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS IN UNIMPROVED PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION AND REMOVAL AT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER'S EXPENSE City Attorney Kirk Wines announced that he had changed the language to indicate that rocks larger than six inches in any dimension may not be placed within 24 inches of a paved roadway surface. He had also altered the wording that trees, bushes and other vegetation would be allowed, but must be maintained so as to provide a safe line of sight for vehicles attempting to enter the street and for pedestrians. Council Member Morgan suggested that in addition to rocks, there were also other obstructions such as half whiskey barrels filled with dirt, or rock planters. He suggested after the word, "rocks" adding "pots, planters and other structures larger than six inches in any dimension", noting that concrete structures or other material had not been mentioned as part of the unacceptable objects. He also recommended that the phrase "rock or timber" be removed and replaced with "structures" in the unacceptable objects section. City Attorney Wines pointed out that the Code stated that structures were prohibited within the right-of-way other than signposts and mailboxes. Mayor Becker suggested that the phrase, "rock and material used in landscaping structures" be inserted. Council Member Odermat was of the opinion that using the word "planters" in the same sentence as "structures" might be confusing. She recommended the phrase, "Any object larger than six inches in any dimension". City Attorney Wines suggested, "Objects larger than six inches except mailboxes and signposts may not be placed within 24 inches of a paved roadway surface." Council Member Morgan recommended after the word, "pedestrians", adding "Nothing in this section is to be construed to allow trimming or cutting of trees in the right-of-way without a permit." He was of the opinion that reference to the Tree Ordinance might lend greater clarity to Ordinance No. 687. Mayor Becker emphasized that the effective date of this ordinance should be 90 days after approval, rather than the usual five-day period. Council Member Demitriades suggested that an article be inserted in the Medina Newsletter alerting citizens about the passage of this ordinance. Following further discussion, Council Members agreed by consensus that City Attorney Wines should incorporate the suggested changes to Ordinance No. 687 for Council approval. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNICATION WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Becker announced that in an effort to improve communications, the Council had agreed by consensus to invite both the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment to the July Council Study Session. Council Member Morgan stated that the R-16 Committee comprised the first joint task force between the Council and the Planning Commission within the last four to five years. He gave a synopsis of the history relating to initiation of the R-16 Committee. Council Member Morgan indicated that the majority, or 750 out of the 1,200 lots in Medina were zoned R-16. He continued that many of the R- 16 lots had been platted under King County rules that were different than those for Medina, which meant that there were a number of nonconforming lots. Council Member Morgan emphasized that the lot sizes varied from 8,800 square feet to over 90,000 square feet. He continued that the R-16 Committee trend had been to increase the lot coverage with the smaller lots, which would allow an owner to build a comfortable home, no matter how small the lot. Council Morgan was of the opinion that accepting the setback that was the norm for King County should decrease the number of variances requested. He noted that there had been R-16 Committee discussion of the roof cut City Council Study Session July 24, 2000 Page 3 wherever the setback was less than ten feet to allow sunlight to adjacent lots, and that the Committee hoped to have a solution shortly. Council Member Morgan turned to the issue of lot mergers and the ensuing effect upon the area. He noted that lot amalgamation could result in the potential for a very large structure. However, he noted, there would be no relief for the residential height restriction. Council Member Morgan indicated that the next Council meeting would include discussion pertaining to reconstruction of residences. He commented that if a home were being totally rebuilt, the R-16 Committee would recommend that any non -conformity be removed. Council Member Morgan noted that Planning Commissioner Todd Nunn had repeatedly pushed the idea of neighborhood preservation, and he was in agreement with that concept. He emphasized that it was important to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Becker commented that most of the neighborhood redevelopment was exterior rather than interior, adding that the Comprehensive Plan addressed maintaining neighborhoods rather than redeveloping them. He suggested that the Planning Commission should review and possibly revise the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Becker asked if Medina was looking for a redeveloped city, or did residents want to maintain the preservation of the neighborhood? Planning Commissioner Robert Brog commented that it was difficult to make a hard and fast rule in terms of reconstruction, because in some cases, there were older Medina homes that would not warrant a facelift. He indicated a preference for something more modest than mega homes. Planning Commissioner Miles Adam added that there were a number of very old homes in his neighborhood that did not look out of place, and that they actually enhanced the neighborhood. He cautioned against making decisions that might inadvertently eliminate such older homes. Mayor Becker commented that concern had been expressed regarding what would happen in the R- 16 zoning areas, such as an increase in building height, reduction of the setbacks to fill out R-16 lots, replacing a small home with a large one on a modest -sized lot, etc. He emphasized that cases being heard by the Board of Adjustment should be evaluated in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Morgan pointed out that homes which were too large for the lots had an impact upon the surrounding houses, and that the Council should protect residents living in such areas. Planning Commissioner Nelson added that homes adjoining the property were affected as well. He had noticed that there were residents who had lived in Medina for a long time and who wished to maintain the character of the area and still respect people's privacy. Planning Commission Vice Chair Nelson emphasized that clear cutting removed privacy, and most Medina residents valued large trees. Mayor Becker suggested that a joint committee be formed to review the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Wines announced that the Planning Commission must first review the Comprehensive Plan before it could be forwarded to the Council. However, a task force could work on the Comprehensive Plan before it proceeded to the Planning Commission. Council Member Lawrence queried whether or not the Comprehensive Plan was legally binding. Mayor Becker explained that the Comprehensive Plan defined the type of land use within Medina. Council Morgan added that the Council had developed an ordinance whereby clear cutting could not be done without a plan for replanting and reforestation, pointing out that the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance worked together. Council Member Cohen noted that the Comprehensive Plan set the vision as a legacy which the Council could leave for future generations of Medina citizens. She added that there was not a single vision for all of Medina. City Council Study Session July 24, 2000 Page 4 Council Member Morgan indicated that the Council appointed both Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission members, and therefore, could not dictate to them how to view an issue or what action to take. City Attorney Wines agreed, adding that both the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission were quasi-judicial bodies. Council Member Morgan suggested that if either the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission detected a trend emerging at their hearings, they should so inform the Council. Planning Commissioner Adam emphasized that the Planning Commission needed to be in the loop so that they could stay attuned to the Comprehensive Plan review process. Planning Commission Vice Chair Nelson agreed, adding that he viewed the Comprehensive Plan as a mission statement, without which goals and objectives would be impossible to attain. He added that the resident survey to be taken at Medina Days would be an excellent instrument to help determine the goals and objectives of the citizens. Mayor Becker queried whether or not it would be a good idea to conduct joint meetings on a quarterly basis. Those present agreed by consensus that quarterly joint meetings would be an excellent idea. Council Member Morgan asked if the Planning Commission had enough time to complete their work, or whether consideration of variance requests should be shifted to administrative review. Vice Chair Mark Nelson responded that there were times when the Planning Commission had reviewed tram cases, staircases next to trams, and dock structures. Planning Commissioner Adam added that if such cases were moved to administrative review, the Commission might start losing contact with what was happening in Medina. He noted that the Commission was reviewing more and more swimming pool variance requests in the setback area. Council Member Morgan noted that the Commission had the ability to shift such land -use review over to staff or to the Board of Adjustment. Council Member Cohen asked if the Commission had considered the option of a hearing examiner. She continued that from a liability standpoint, it might be better for the City to have such issues be reviewed by a hearing examiner. Council member Morgan emphasized that the Council should have a feedback control mechanism to tell them what kinds or ordinances or changes were needed. Council Member Odermat added that caseload documentation helped the Council to understand the kinds of issues that should be addressed. City Attorney Wines commented that the King County Hearing Examiner went before the King County Council and informed them of the issues they needed to address or change. Council Member Lawrence suggested, and Council members agreed by consensus, that this issue should be addressed at the next Council meeting. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVISED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM GUIDELINES Council Member Demitriades announced that the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) had published their final draft of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines for public comment. He suggested that a team of Council Members, Planning Commissioners, consultants and staff review these guidelines and submit their remarks by the end of the comment period on August 7, 2000. Council Member Cohen indicated that it might be difficult to comply with such an imminent due date. Council Member Demitriades gave the Council a brief synopsis and distributed a matrix entitled Local Planning/Land Use Impacts 2000. He noted that the package provided by Roth Hill Engineering pointed out that the only acceptable alternative to pass the City's legal compliance check would be City Council Study Session July 24, 2000 Page 5 Path B. Council Member Morgan pointed out that the biggest obstacle facing waterfront homeowners would be repair of existing docks. City Planning Manager Schultz explained that the proposed regulations would allow for repair of existing docks; however, they would much more stringent than in the past. Council Member Cohen noted that those homes with existing docks and bulkheads could maintain them. However, those presently without docks would face more problems. Council Member Demitriades suggested that all comments be submitted to City Planning Manager Schultz, who could coordinate them for submission. Mayor Becker requested that Council Members submit their comments to City Planning Manager Schultz by July 28, 2000. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:58 p.m. and under authority of RCW 42.30.110, Mayor Becker announced that the Council would go into Executive Session, for discussion of potential acquisition of real estate and matters of potential litigation. ADJOURNMENT At 6:34 p.m., the Council reconvened the Study Session. Council Members agreed by consensus to adjourn the June City Council Study Session at 6*34 p.m. Daniel 6ecker, Mayor Attest: Caroll P. Wedlund, Interim City Clerk