Loading...
2024-03-06 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting/Retreat March 6, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the special meeting/retreat of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Plaza Room at the Edmonds Public Library and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Gladstone. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone (online) Susanna Martini (online) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn (excused) Nick Maxwell (excused) Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Jeff Levy, Senior Planner, Deputy Project Manager — Comp Plan Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update — Growth Alternatives Director McLaughlin reviewed the EIS process with the assistance of Senior Planner Levy. She discussed the Final EIS contents and the process for finalizing the alternatives for the Draft EIS. There was a question about how to handle other ideas that aren't included in the alternatives. It was explained that the Board should include other ideas in one of the other alternatives rather than creating a new one; policy discussions will happen later. There were various questions about the timeline for the whole process. Staff discussed the steps in the process. Director McLaughlin's presentation continued and covered the 15-minute neighborhood approach, neighborhood centers description, hubs description, incentives, land use designations, Alternative A (Focused Growth), Alternative B (Distributed Growth), an explanation of how the alternatives differ, and how ADUs impact the count. There is some question about the number of ADUs required per lot. There were questions about if the two ADUs per lot is even realistic and implications of assuming only one ADU per lot. Senior Planning Board Retreat Minutes March 6, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Planner Levy explained they were only talking about the applicable lots and reviewed how the calculations were done. A board member asked about the breakdown of housing types and costs. Staff explained that middle housing prices are still high cost. ADUs would allow Edmonds to enable middle housing, change land use designations, and ensure housing affordability. There were questions about potential downsizing and about having a pie chart showing Highway 99 and downtown. This will be more relevant down the road when the Planning Board start talking about policy choices. Director McLaughlin continued the presentation and reviewed the evaluation framework for the alternatives. There was debate about balancing the density within the Highway 99 subarea and the takings law. Mr. Levy discussed potential zoning changes with the various alternatives in specific areas such as downtown, Highway 99 Subarea, and neighborhood centers and hubs. There were questions about potential height changes and accessibility, which will be discussed during policy discussions at a later date. A board member asked if additional height would be an incentive tied to affordable housing. Director McLaughlin explained that the incentives would be tied to infrastructure and open space. There will be other affordable housing policies and affordable housing types. For the growth incentives they are allowed to count the top floor so that's the incentivized floor toward growth targets. They don't need to decide the policies related to the incentives at this point. There was another review of capacity comparisons with the pie charts. Public Comments: Larry Williamson asked if there are any hubs missing in the map, specifically 76th between 203'd-205t'. Staff will review this. Mr. Williamson also asked about green building incentives. Director McLaughlin replied that staff is currently working on green building incentives program but has not yet rationalized those with the incentives mentioned tonight. They do not anticipate this being an extra story in addition to what was mentioned. She anticipates that the green building would be one of the incentives. Erica asked about how transportation infrastructure is being factored into the Comprehensive Plan and if they are being done in isolation or in coordination. Director McLaughlin explained how land use leads the process, but they are working closely with Transportation and the rest of the Comprehensive Plan because there is a codependency between the Transportation Element and this information. Mike McMurray (online) said he was happy to see that Yost Park was considered to be a possible recommendation by the Planning Board. He thinks it would be good for the community to have a year-round facility there. He referred to economic vitality and expressed concern about views being blocked with some of the increased heights. He expressed concern about not requiring parking with ADUs and recommended looking into this further. He recommended looking into how they could meet the state policies in a more reasonable while still being a good neighbor. Additionally, with all the development and higher density, he wondered why they don't recommend a low -profile parking garage strategically placed downtown. Alan Meams, (online) commented on the climate implications of all the concrete and new surface area. Is heat and circulation being considered for these centers and nodes? Commission Comments/Questions Planning Board Retreat Minutes March 6, 2024 Page 2 of 4 A board member asked if all neighborhood business zones had been looked at when coming up with the neighborhood hubs. Director McLaughlin thought they had been considered but said they would look into the one brought up by Mr. Williamson. Upcoming events and meetings related to the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed. A board member asked if it was accurate that the final EIS would show both alternatives but the Comprehensive Plan would pick somewhere between the bookends. Director McLaughlin thought that they would select a preferred but it could be a combination of the two. She stated she wanted to get confirmation from Herrera that her understanding was accurate. A board member expressed interest in having the consultant present in order to better understand the public engagement portion. Staff made some comments regarding public engagement, the online open house, and Community Champions. (Many of these comments were inaudible.) There was a question about the age range of the people who made comments and a comment that the younger population needs to be energized to be involved because this long-range planning will affect them the most. Director McLaughlin and Mr. Levy commented on the hope and optimism they have experience in working with the younger demographic that has been part of this process as well as the seniors and other members of vulnerable populations. There was a comment about looking at offsetting some of the density in the neighborhood and hub centers and freeing up some area for two or three-story courtyard apartments along the arterials with the bus routes. There was also a concern that at the community forum the public would be so focused on the presented alternatives that they might not get comments about things that are missing. Director McLaughlin spoke to staff s focus on the hubs rather than corridors because of its impact on pedestrians. She explained how they justified the medical district because of its proximity to Highway 99 and the transit infrastructure there and how they are trying to be mindful of the distribution within each neighborhood center and with each of the hubs. A board member referred to accessibility and asked for clarification about what a "15-minute walk" really means because it is so different for different people. Director McLaughlin explained that the 15-minute radius refers to a 3/4-mile radius from certain points. From an infrastructure perspective it is easier and more efficient for the City to leverage improvements in a smaller area rather than a long corridor. AUDIENCE COM1 ENTS None NEW BUSINESS A. Planning & Development Department 2024 Work Plan Director McLaughlin discussed the budget challenges, staffing challenges, and the busy year ahead. She reviewed the 2024 Planning & Development Department work plan with anticipated completion timeline by quarter. • Q 1: Title 19 Update; Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code amendment • Q2: Street Tree Plan; Green Building Incentive Program; Tree Canopy Goal; DADU code amendments; Climate -related code amendments Planning Board Retreat Minutes March 6, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Q3: Reimagining Street Typologies/Update Official Street Map; Reimagining Activation Permit Structure; Climate champion series/public art Q4: Comprehensive Plan; Landmark 99; Permit review process revisions (per SB 5290); Design Review Modifications (per HB 1293); Tree Code updates PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Clugston reviewed the extended agenda as contained in the packet. Board members debated if they still wanted to hold the public hearing on draft alternatives on March 20. There was discussion about accommodating various schedules, the benefit of having a two-way dialogue, staffing challenges, public involvement, noticing, and capturing public comments. Several board members expressed interest in being part of the public forum on March 23 and being part of creating dialogue. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY CHAIR MITCHELL, TO CANCEL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 20 AND SELECT TWO OR THREE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE COMMUNITY FORUM IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY ON MARCH 23 AND PRESENT THAT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 27. It was clarified that the board members selected would work with staff to figure out their level of involvement. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Board will select the members to attend the community forum at the next meeting (March 13) which is the joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Staff will create an agenda for the joint meeting along with questions that will be salient for the two bodies to be discussing rather than just presenting information. Board members suggested including the topics of having little nodes of commercial in multifamily residential areas around it; land production of areas they are upzoning; and the relationship of the draft alternatives and j ob targets. Staff explained that the j ob targets for Edmonds are already met through mixed use and remote work, but the EDC is excited about the 15-minute neighborhood concept as it relates to economic development. They expect the conversation to look at the strategy and multifaceted nature of how 15-minute cities can help the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan as they shift to policy development. The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code amendment will also be on the agenda next week. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Mitchell reviewed the Planning Board powers and duties and stressed the need to be very efficient at meetings with the workload in front of them for the rest of the year. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Planning Board Retreat Minutes March 6, 2024 Page 4 of 4