Loading...
2024-01-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting January 24, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair (online) Judi Gladstone Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Emily Nutsch (alternate) (online) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) (online) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Rose Haas, Planner Jeff Levy (online) Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NUTSCH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2024 AS AMENDED. Board Member Gladstone offered a friendly amendment to amend the 2nd bullet on page 4 to read, "Vice Chair Golembiewski expressed support for staff s recommendations." Board Member Martini accepted the amendment. MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 1 of 6 Roger Pence, former Planning Board Member/Chair made suggestions regarding Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs). He is supportive of these but acknowledged that they have some issues of controversy around them. He would like to see more public engagement on this issue to get public concerns identified and dealt with. He recommended holding some sort of public forum to begin a discussion prior to a formal public hearing. Rick Schafer, Edmonds resident, stormwater professional, stated that there is a lot of coordination that needs to go on between Public Works and the variety of different planning efforts (Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Management Plan Update, DADUs). He expressed concern about the increased density and impervious surfaces in neighborhoods with DADUs. It is likely they would fall beneath the thresholds for stormwater controls being required on site, but they will still have an impact. He noted they have been hearing about the degradation of streams in the city for years. Increasing unmitigated impervious densities is going to be a problem. ADNWOSTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None A. Tree Canopy Goal / Legal Aspects of Tree Regulation City Attorney Jeff Taraday made a brief presentation regarding legal aspects of tree regulation including various kinds of "takings". There was some discussion about competing policy priorities that can arise in developing code like the tree code. There were also several questions raised following the discussion. Some questions related to application of the takings law on the preliminary draft tree code that the Planning Board members are working on. A few questions were asked about the nexus between the tree code and future plans for a piece of property, such as downzoning or putting a DADU on a property. Director McLaughlin made a presentation regarding the City of Edmonds Tree Canopy Goals. Edmonds current tree canopy was 34.6% in 2021. Other jurisdictions in the region seem to be consistently using a 38% tree canopy goal. She reviewed three options for Edmonds depending on how ambitious we want to be with an estimated cost of $105,000 per acre of tree canopy over 30 years. Questions were asked related to what has been seen with the tree canopy over time in Edmonds and the schedule for doing the work. • 2.0% increase: 122 acres to reach 36.6% ($12.8m) • 3.4% increase: 207 acres to reach 38% ($21.7m) • 5.4% increase: 330 acres to reach 40% ($34.7m) Jeff Levy explained that the cost per acre includes the total cost of planting an acre of trees including trees, labor, and time. Director McLaughlin explained next steps include re-engaging the 2020 consultants to study possible vegetation areas and run feasibility studies. This would be followed by developing policy to increase Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 6 tree canopy coverage and promote responsible development, not hindering GMA goals with HB 1337 and HB 1110 developments. B. Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment to allow for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units - "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units in accordance with HB 1337." Planner Rose Haas reviewed a summary table of the existing code and the proposed code updates as required by HB 1337. She recapped discussion items from January 10 and the Planning Division's responses. Regarding concerns about the cost of water meters, sewer connections, and utility undergrounding, Planning Division recommends reducing costs for homeowners as much as possible and collaborating with the Public Works Department, Utility Billing, South County Fire, and OVWSD to ensure all requirements are met. Engineering Division Recommendations: • New and extended utilities must be undergrounded. (already in the code) • All units must have unrestricted access to utility control systems. • Only one water service and meter allowed per parcel. • Only one sewer lateral is allowed per parcel. • Upsizing or replacement of existing service lines/laterals may be required. Chair Mitchell asked if there would be a separate power meter. Ms. Haas was not sure about that. She offered to check with Engineering. Ms. Haas explained that OVWSD ADU policies require that ADUs and DADUs must be served by a separate water service line and meter. Shared sewer lateral is not required. Sewer pipe upsizes may be required based on site conditions. Ms. Haas explained that there can be different regulations for the water and sewer districts or the City can synchronize policies with OVWSD. Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, referred to Chair Mitchell's earlier question about power and stated that Edmonds doesn't specifically regulate how power is provided to each one of the properties and whether one meter is required or multiple meters are allowed. Snohomish County PUD is the regulatory body on that. She is not sure what their position would be. Edmonds' code would specify that whoever is residing in each of the residences has access to the controls for power systems and any shared utilities. She stated they just recently learned that OVWSD has a policy in place already for ADUs and DADUs. Staff realizes they need to have additional conversations with OVWSD. Ideally it would be convenient to have the same policies but it may not end up that way. Currently, staff s opinion is that they should require shared utility systems for each residential property. This may result in the need to upsize the current water meter, but that is less expensive than adding an additional water meter. Chair Mitchell asked about situations where the existing residence's sewer laterals are clay or concrete pipe. Ms. McConnell explained that currently when there is an addition to a single-family residence like an ADU or a DADU, they do not require that the sewer lateral be reviewed unless there is a known issue. The utility system on site may need to be upgraded depending on what will be joining to that system and how they decide to route the utilities through the site. However, if there are existing clay lines it may be to the owner's benefit to replace them anyway so they don't have a sewer issue with a future resident of one of those units. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 3 of 6 Board Member Martini asked how condominiumization would impact this. Ms. Haas replied that they would have one shared meter for the property. Board Member Maxwell explained that part of what the condominium association deals with is how to allocate the costs. Vice Chair Golembiewski asked if properties within the OVWSD have the same facility charges for new meters. Ms. McConnell replied that they have their own set of facility charges. Board Member Gladstone thought there was a potential policy conflict because the State Department of Health has been working to get people to meter for the sake of water conservation. She wondered how or if that factors in. Board Member Maxwell thought it wasn't something to worry about because these would be really small condos. Board Member Gladstone also wondered about the loss of control with just one line for DADUs unless there is a shutoff valve for the second unit so they can shut off their water. Also, she had concerns about what would happen if one property owner doesn't pay the bill. Ms. McConnell replied that currently it would be primary resident's responsibility to make those payments. If somebody failed to make a payment it would be through a shared system and could result in a water shutoff that may affect more than one unit. Ms. Haas continued to review responses to January 10 discussion topics. Regarding critical areas, Planning Division recommends allowing ADUs on lots that contain critical areas or their associated buffers so long as they can meet protection standards in ECDC Title 23 (Natural Resources). Regarding restrictive covenants, Planning Division would like to remove owner -occupancy requirements and associated covenants and allow nullification of all owner occupancy covenants on the date of code adoption ECDC 16.20.050(L). This is currently under review with the city attorney and is subject to change. Regarding setback reduction incentives if height of unit is limited to preserve views and protect privacy, Planning Division's recommendations are as follows: • Do not limit density to protect private view corridors. • It is inequitable to allow a reduction in setbacks for height limited units. Only units in largest parcels could take full advantage of this incentive. Small parcel owners may not be able to build an ADU without reduced rear setbacks. • Support housing that can accommodate families. Setback reduction incentive linked to height will limit the size of unit allowed on most parcels. • Policy does not align with Climate Action Plan and Tree Canopy Goal. Vice Chair Golembiewski thought that they would actually be increasing the density if they are allowing reduced setbacks for single stories in places where they don't have enough room to meet their setback requirements that are already in the code. She clarified that her ideas on this weren't about protecting views at all. It was an idea to incentivize the type of ADUs that she thinks Edmonds wants to see. Chair Mitchell didn't think this was any different than the CG step back incentivized options. Board Member Maxwell thought this didn't need to relate to views at all and noted it isn't a requirement. It just gives people an option to build into their setback as long as they keep it to a single story. Board Member Gladstone agreed that the incentive was not intended to preserve views but to respond to hearing people's reluctance about two-story buildings that may not fit in. She commented that the RCWs allow for incentivizing whatever you want. Ms. Haas referred to the transit stop buffers and parking requirements and reviewed that the Board had asked to see areas where parking will not be required per 1337 in addition to other areas that we could limit parking. No parking is required within a half -mile of a major transit stop, as defined in RCW 36.70A.696(8). She reviewed maps showing one half -mile buffer from major transit stops, one-half mile from transit stops in single - Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 4 of 6 family zones, and buffers from all transit stops. Staff is not recommending extending requirements beyond what 1337 is requiring. Board Member Nutsch commented that the intent of 1337 is to have more affordable housing, and she wanted to make sure they are not moving away from all the major bus stops and going to all bus stops because a lot of entry level jobs don't operate on standard commute schedule and require that people have cars to get to work. Chair Mitchell asked if they had an inventory of the number of street parking spaces in the city. Director McLaughlin explained they didn't have that level of detail. She added that on street parking should not be considered as an option to accommodate private property needs because when they are doing multimodal improvements such as transit or bike infrastructure or even pedestrian improvements, they may need to remove that parking. Chair Mitchell said he would be interested in seeing the amount of available parking spaces as they look at the DADU code and minimum parking requirement. Director McLaughlin commented that there is an abundance of parking, and there is a good reason to not require parking as part of ADUs, namely the cost it would add to the homeowner and the rental fees. Chair Mitchell recommended putting staff s recommendation for parking in the packet as part of the public hearing in order to get feedback on it. Ms. Haas reviewed the tentative schedule and public outreach efforts. She stated she would be providing the public comments to the Board prior to the public hearing. Board Member Gladstone recommended that staff promote the online public comment opportunity now so people have the ability to be able to provide comments on the draft code language before or in addition to the public hearing. There was consensus to continue the discussion on the draft code to the date of the public hearing. C. Draft CARA Memo Chair Mitchell read the draft CARA memo. The Board expressed general support for the memo. Board Member Maxwell noted an amendment in the background section, 4th paragraph, second from the last line. The word "code" needs to be added after CARA. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MEMO AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Mitchell spoke to the heavy workload this year and options available to the Board in order to cover everything. There was some interest in having a longer meeting but starting earlier. Mr. Clugston indicated that was an option but it would require it being a special meeting. Board Member Gladstone was supportive of utilizing subgroups again or holding a separate special meeting rather than extending a regular meeting even longer. Mr. Clugston reviewed the extended agenda and explained that unfortunately he didn't have more detail about the Comprehensive Plan updates. Public hearings for DADUs and Green Building Incentives are both being planned for February 28. Mr. Clugston acknowledged it was not ideal and would be a challenge. He stated if there is additional work to do, they can continue it to another meeting. The Board was opposed to having two public hearings on one night. Mr. Clugston indicated he could try to change one of them. The Board was supportive of pushing out the Green Building Incentives public hearing. There was consensus to hold the retreat as a separate special meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 5 of 6 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Nutsch expressed appreciation for the discussion tonight and everyone's willingness to be creative with some of the things that don't have simple solutions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 6 of 6