Loading...
2024-02-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting February 28, 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 Kuehn. Board Members Present Staff Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Judi Gladstone Rose Haas, Planner Richard Kuehn Susanna Martini (online) Nick Maxwell Board Members Absent None Tristan Sewall, Planner Leif Bjorback, Building Official Chair Mitchell reported that February 14 was both Lily Distelhorst's and Emily Nutsch's last meeting due to personal obligations, READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARING A. Accessory Dwelling Unit code Update (AMD2023-0008) Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 1 of 7 City of Edmonds Planner Rose Haas made the presentation regarding the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Code Update. She gave an overview of public engagement and highlighted the Planning Board feedback which had been integrated: • Setback reductions on small parcels (I 0-feet); • Setback reduction incentives on small parcels if property owners limit height of ADU to l 5' to preserve privacy and views of existing neighborhoods (RS-6, RS-8) to 5 feet; and • Eliminating additional ADU parking requirements. She further elaborated on proposed development standards related to • Height restrictions and decreased setbacks. o Decreasing rear setback requirements to allow for more flexibility on smaller lots (RS-6 and RS-8) o Lot coverage will remain at 35% for all single-family zones o Limiting DADU (Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit) height to no less than 24 feet. o No setbacks for ADUs that abut a public alley. Gross Floor Area: o Limiting ADUs to 1000 sf of gross floor area on small lots (RS-6 and RS-8) o Allowing ADUs to have up to 1200 sf of gross floor area on one or two floors on large lots (RS- 10, RS-12, RS-20) Parking Requirements: o No additional parking requirements for ADUs. Since 2021, no additional parking has been required for ADUs within'/4 mile of a major transit stop. Ms. Haas reviewed some visuals depicting how the proposed development standards would apply with various configurations. Board members asked questions related to how many lots might actually be able to accommodate ADUs. Staff has not done that analysis, but the State assumes it would be no more than 10% of properties. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board draft a recommendation memo on allowing ADUs on lots that contain critical areas, ADU size restrictions, ADU setback restrictions, parking restrictions, and whether or not to waive impact fees. The timeline and next steps were reviewed. Board members asked clarification questions about the timeline, the definition of an alley and how it is designated, and fire safety considerations. The public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Public Testimony: Eric Tucson asked about regulations related to multifamily units. He suggested allowing attached ADUs in order to allow more units without having the fire code issues. Regarding critical areas, there are still a lot of areas that are not built that are on steep slopes. He recommended allowing development on these. Roger Pence, former member and chair of the Planning Board, stated he has a lot of questions that don't have answers and is not able to provide an informed testimony at this time. He expressed concern that there has not been a forum for citizens to ask questions and get answers. He urged the Board to recess the public hearing after public testimony and continue it at some later date after there has been an opportunity to have a public forum or open house. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Larry Williamson, resident of Westgate neighborhood, spoke on behalf of ACE, the Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds. They have been hoping that HB 1337 would be implemented without going way beyond its mandates. They have been hoping the City would set a baseline code, implement the law, and then revise the code after a few years as needed. He reviewed a couple areas where the City is going beyond the requirements of the state regulations. These include requirements for size, parking reductions, setbacks, and PRD applications. He spoke in support of the 1000 sf minimum size with 200 sf to be used as an incentive to keep the development at one story. They do not like the elimination of parking throughout the city and recommend using the actual language in 1337. He thinks the EV charging station should be applied to both ADUs and DADUs. He thinks the Planning Board and staff should completely review the parking requirements and the electric vehicle charging station issue. John Brock, Woodway, suggested revisions to the proposed code update. He agreed with the suggestion to limit ADUs to 1000 sf or with the option to go up to 1200 sf if it is kept to one story. Regarding off-street parking, he recommended treating ADUs and DADUs as if they were extensions of the primary residence and not a separate dwelling by simply counting bedrooms. He spoke in support of maintaining the current front and side yard setbacks for fire safety. He recommended limiting the proposed rear setback variance to half of the alleyway to maintain the fire break distance. He is happy that ADUs and DADUs will have to fit within the existing 35% impermeable area zoning requirements. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds resident, commented that HB 1337 is rather disruptive for the entire state. He wondered why Edmonds is going beyond the requirements as the first step toward it. He recommended complying with the minimum requirements and having some options to go above it. After some time, they can learn from it and adjust accordingly. Regarding critical areas, he recommended keeping it simple and using the existing GIS map and exempting critical areas identified there as allowed by 1337. He echoed previous comments related to setbacks and parking. He expressed concern about allowing ADUs in PRD which he feels is government overreach, particularly in areas that have restricted governance and deeds associated with them. He thinks the code should require applicants to show their deed to ensure there is not a restricted covenant associated with it. Mackey Guenther (online) commended staff for drafting a great code. He commented that the Housing Commission which was commissioned by the City Council recommended back in 2021 that the City look at legalizing this low cost, attainable, accessible housing option that doesn't exist in the housing market today. It's too bad it took this long for the City to listen to itself. He thinks that ADUs in Edmonds is a great idea. Regarding parking requirements in the proposed code, he was glad to see that they are recognizing that homeowners have different preferences around parking. Flexibility is important. Some people want parking, and some people don't. Requiring parking would be a mistake because it would incentivize driving. He encouraged more thought around expanding the habitable square footage on smaller lots. He thinks that a 1200 sf maximum is still really reasonable for those zones. He likes the thoughts around setback reduction incentives in certain cases. He is glad Edmonds is heading down this path. Colton Grant (online) said he is happy to see the legalization of ADUs moving forward in Edmonds. He also agrees with the Planning Department's suggestion to not require additional parking for ADUs built in the city. There is a lot of on -street parking available, and adding parking should be at the discretion of homeowners. As Edmonds goes forward looking to meet its housing growth goals, they should be doing whatever they can to encourage additional growth without adding additional hurdles for development of ADUs. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 3 of 7 Bruce Wallace (online), Woodway resident and Edmonds property owner/landlord/real estate developer, said he is encouraged by what he has seen so far. He asked the Planning Department to check with Seattle and Kirkland on the percentages of ADUs and DADUs that are developer -built versus homeowner -built. His guess is that 85-90% of these are done by developers. He encouraged Edmonds to stay on track and not get sidetracked. Regarding parking, he recommended allowing the market to decide whether they provide parking. He stated that he would never do a project outside of the bowl area that did not have parking or a garage. He doesn't think the buying/renting public is ready for no parking yet. Regarding the size of the units, he recommended using the limitations based on lot coverage and setbacks. There may be oversized lots or undeveloped space where a larger ADU or DADU would be a great fit. He noted that the stormwater code will also dictate the size of these. As impervious surface is added to a site, stormwater mitigation requirements go up and can be quite costly. The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. Planning Board Discussion: Board members commented on the good number of public comments they have received. There was a request for more information about HB 1337 and PRDs; the possibility of expanding reduced setbacks in exchange for lower heights into other zones; and the possibility of doing single -story front yard ADUs for lots where the house is not set at the front of the lot. There was a question about the feasibility of counting bedrooms as suggested by one of the public comments. Ms. Haas did not think they would be able to track that and correlate it to parking spaces. There was a question about what kind of uses occur in alleys. One board member suggested considering having another online question and answer session to answer questions that the public might still have. Other clarification questions related to EV charging stations. Ms. Haas explained that outstanding issues are utility connections, critical areas, and impact fees. There is a discrepancy between what Olympic View Water and Sewer District is recommending and what the Engineering Department is recommending for utility connections. Critical areas will potentially be resolved with an upcoming house bill. Impact fees needs to be worked through with the City Attorney. Another issue is how the density will be viewed. This will be spelled out more in HB 2321 once it is official. The issue is whether they want to potentially allow any ADUs to count toward the HB 1110 density or not. Staff will be back to discuss some of the unresolved issues prior to making a recommendation. There was some discussion about possibly forming a subcommittee to draft a Planning Board recommendation. One board member brought up concerns about unconditioned space. The size limitations are only regarding the habitable space so there are concerns with regard to the overall size of the units and that the unconditioned space is not being counted towards the total permissible buildable area. Ms. Haas referred to HB 1293 and noted they can't treat the ADU with different developmental standards than they do for single family. The City doesn't have a differential for conditioned and unconditioned allowable space for single family so they wouldn't be able to limit the unconditioned size for ADUs either. A lot of these issues are going to be sorted out because of the lot sizes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 4 of 7 MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. Green Building Incentives Program Planner Tristan Sewall and Building Official Leif Bjorback made the presentation regarding potential incentives including: • Additional building height • Reduced property line setbacks • Increased lot coverage • Density • Reduced off-street parking • Expedited plan review Board members had questions about how the expedited plan review would work. There was a recommendation to hire temporary staff if needed to not slow down the rest of the applications. A board member asked about the cost to the applicant to be able to qualify for the incentives. Staff explained that the only cost is the commitment to build green. They reviewed Built Green and LEED building standards. Staff reviewed draft land use incentives with examples for Single -Family Residential with Built Green 4-Star or Better and Built Green 5-Star or better and Multifamily Residential LEED Gold (baseline) and LEED Platinum (further incentives). There was a question about the value of the 5-foot height incentive. Staff also reviewed the Business Zones incentives with LEED Gold. Commercial, Mixed Use, and Master Planned zones are excluded because incentives already exist in those zones. Required EV parking will be calculated off the standard parking requirement. Staff reviewed draft RS code and additional questions for consideration. Hard questions to consider: • How might these incentives impact housing affordability? May it contribute to housing displacement? • Who would benefit most from these incentives? Who might face unintended negative outcomes? Who is left out? • Do the land use incentives reflect the communities best interest? Are they meaningful to development professionals and homeowners? • Can staff successfully implement accelerated review? Can we handle the incentivized applications with current staffing? Staff also responded to previous Planning Board questions related to Edmonds' building emissions and estimating emissions reduction potential. They reviewed the timeline and next steps. There was a question about how this would apply to a remodel. Would the entire home be subject to this improvement or just the portion that is remodeled? Staff provided a link to the Built Green Remodel program and checklist which might answer those questions. A board member asked about incentivizing green building techniques for remodels for homeowners who are not used to the cumbersome process. Staff explained it is often the design professional or contractor who would be selling this. A board member suggested a city rebate Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 5 of 7 program for smaller projects. There was some discussion about ways other cities do this and potentials for Edmonds. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Mitchell asked the Board for feedback on requesting a Planning Board public hearing on the draft growth alternatives that were presented to the Planning Board before the April 13 EIS. Board members discussed the value of public comment and debated the best time and way to get more public comments regarding the draft alternatives. There were concerns about how the timing of a public hearing could impact the draft EIS. A board member asked if there is any flexibility with the draft EIS date. Mr. Clugston did not think there was. There was interest in having a special meeting to have a public hearing on March 20 to help the Board's recommendation process. The Board generally discussed what a recommendation to Council might look like. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 20 TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHAIR MITCHELL. Vice Chair Golembiewski moved to amend the motion to say that the Board would like to schedule a public hearing prior to making a recommendation to Council on April 10 and that they would confirm the date at the March 6 meeting. Planning Manager Clugston reviewed public hearing notice requirements and timeline. Vice Chair Golembiewski withdrew her amendment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston continued to review the rest of the extended agenda. The bulk of the next four or five meetings will be Comprehensive Plan topics. The March 6 Retreat will be a high-level review of alternatives. ADUs will come back for discussion on March 13 along with the joint meeting with the EDC (Economic Development Commission). There was consensus to hold the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on the 20t'. There was a comment about the order of the Comprehensive Plan work. Since they are looking at the alternatives first and then the policies in May, it seems like they could end up with a lot of discussion between May and July. After some discussion the group seemed to have a preference of having summer break on August 14. There was a question about the week of spring break (the first week of April) but the group will be off that week anyway. Mr. Clugston gave an update on board member position openings and recruitment efforts. Clarification questions followed. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell expressed appreciation to everyone for the meeting and the great input tonight. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 6 of 7 Board Member Gladstone expressed appreciation to the group. Board Member Martini thanked everyone for putting up with her and for a good meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Page 7 of 7