Loading...
2024-03-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting March 27, 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 Golembiewski. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Board Members Absent None Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner (online) Jeff Levy, Senior Planner (online) ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Samuel, Edmonds resident, expressed concern about the high -density rezoning proposal. He feels that Olympia is trying to turn Edmonds into a slum with mass housing and high density. He doesn't want Edmonds to turn into another Shoreline or Ballard. He is concerned about Olympia pushing this by trying to defund Edmonds and basically take over all zoning regulations. He hopes there is pushback on this. Roger Pence said he was very heartened by the involvement in the Saturday event. He is glad to see a greater degree of respect being shown to the Planning Board and attributes this to the new mayor. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he likes the idea of neighborhood hubs but noted that 15th and Edmonds Way was overlooked as a hub. He commented that the way RM zoning is structured drives large apartment units. They could get a lot more units out of the RM zone without increasing the size of the building envelope by allowing the units to be a little smaller. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Pagel of 5 MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 6 RETREAT AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (3-0). AYES: MITCHELL, GOLEMBIEWSKI, MAXWELL NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: KUEHN, GLADSTONE, MARTINI Board Member Maxwell requested addition of his comments about sticking with the more restrictive requirements and revisiting them when the new guidelines come out in 2 or 3 years. He also requested that roll call vote counts be added to the minutes. He wanted it to be made clear that he voted against the final motion. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL TO ADD THE CONVERSATION AND HIS COMMENTS ABOUT THE AQUIFER REGULATIONS. THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AYES: ALL MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIESWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED AND WITH THE AMENDMENTS REFERENCED IN BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE'S EMAIL AND IN THE DISCUSSION. THE MARCH 13, 2024 MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED (6-0). AYES: ALL The group debated how much detail they would like the minutes to contain going forward. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, TO ASK THE STENOGRAPHER TO PROVIDE SUMMARY MINUTES WITH THE ONLY ATTRIBUTION BEING IN THE MOTIONS AND THAT THE VOTES BE ROLL CALL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AYES: ALL UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Growth Alternatives Recommendation Director McLaughlin made a presentation regarding conceptual growth alternatives for the Comprehensive Plan. She shared information about how they got to the centers and hubs. There was some discussion about why Highway 99 was not included when looking at where to put the needed housing units and how Highway 99 has already accounted for a significant amount of the growth targets. There is also a desire to rebalance the growth allocation away from Highway 99. Director McLaughlin summarized feedback received from the citywide forum and online open house to date. Some new ideas were presented related to exploring new hubs; making the International District a neighborhood hub; creating the medical district as a "New Edmonds Uptown' ; and focusing growth centers around schools. When looking at the alternatives, online survey results showed more support for a distributed approach Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 2 of 5 (Alternative B) but the most responses indicated "Not sure yet". There was discussion about possible reasons why people would have selected that option including not being able to distinguish between Alternatives A and B and not preferring either of the alternatives because of conceptual reasons or because of concerns about the number of stories. Director McLaughlin reviewed ways they could modify both alternatives to limit the height to four stories without expanding the areas because they would be removing the 8% buffer and the incentive option resulting in larger developable lot areas. The difference between the two alternatives was reviewed as well as the difference between the alternatives and existing height limits. The policy framework used to support compact, mixed -use development was reviewed including PSRC's Multi County Planning Policies, Snohomish County Planning Policies, and existing Comprehensive Plan policy direction. There was discussion about how to potentially adjust the alternatives to align with the feedback received and also get the best use out of the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). It was emphasized that the end result will likely be a combination of A and B, and the group was not deciding on one of the alternatives now. Various topics were discussed including what would happen if the density in the Highway 99 zone were reduced with a step-down transition area; what would happen if the contingency were bumped up from 8% to 10 or 15%; the impacts of adding new hubs on the DEIS; and transit routes. It was noted that adding the proposed new hubs would help clean up the remaining neighborhood business parcels and update options for those areas. There were comments around ways to differentiate between the alternatives more in response to public comments and to provide enough flexibility to go in one direction or the other. There was support for having a high and a low extreme for the DEIS with the goal of eventually finding something in the middle. Board members asked questions about the difference between the alternatives in different hubs and centers, and staff clarified. There was some interest in considering a new Edmonds Uptown/Town Center and having taller buildings in the CG part of the medical district where they would match the height of the hospital. Concerns were raised about impacts to newer townhomes and residential areas nearby. Staff spoke to the capacity on Highway 99 that is already not being built and expressed concern about adding more to compete with this. Issues regarding transportation capacity and proximity to transit were raised with regard to increasing density along 76th versus Highway 99. There was consensus that the growth should occur in the hubs and the centers. Regarding bookends, there was interest in looking at five stories as an option on the high end with the recognition that they are not expecting the policy to get there. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the infrastructure with increased density and how incentives might be able to address this. Director McLaughlin suggested that they could have public process around development of incentives before the DEIS comes out. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 9:30 P.M. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AYES: ALL There was significant debate about where the high end of the bookend should be. There was agreement that the vast majority of people don't want five stories and that including it as an option is aggressive. Several board members wanted to include it on the high end for informational purposes only, noting that they can always reduce the numbers. Others expressed concern about including the five -story option at all for various reasons. Clarification questions were asked and answered about the heights in the original Alternative A. There was discussion about how they would move through the process to get to the final land use. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 3 of 5 MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, TO RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVE A AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED WITH THE FIVE -STORY CENTERS WITH INCENTIVES AS ONE END OF THE BOOKEND FOR THE DRAFT EIS. MOTION PASSED (4-2). AYES: MITCHELL, GOLEMBIEWSKI, KUEHN, MARTINI NOES: GLADSTONE, MAXWELL MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, TO RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL THE REVISED ALTERNATIVE B AS PRESENTED TONIGHT WITH THREE-STORY LIMITS IN ALL OF THE HUBS, TO GET RID OF NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONING, AND TO CONSIDER THOSE PARCELS AS PART OF THE REVISED EIS ALTERNATIVE. There was discussion about whether the 84th and 196th proposed hub near the church should be included. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AYES: ALL The group discussed next steps and decided Chair Mitchell will send out a draft recommendation for board members to return with tracked comments. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA April 10 — Transportation Element; Detached Accessory Dwelling Units May 22 is a possible date for another joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission to discuss their policy framework for the economic goals. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Martini commended everyone for their work. Board Member Maxwell thought it was a great evening. Board Member Gladstone said she is looking forward to policy discussion about the alternatives and not being hung up on the EIS alternatives which usually come afterwards. Board Member Kuehn agreed with Board Member Gladstone. He likes seeing and hearing all of the comments. He appreciates that people in Edmonds have a passion for the city. Vice Chair Golembiewski commented that it feels good to be at this stage. She is looking forward to seeing how this develops. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Chair Mitchell agreed with Board Member Kuehn and said he is really proud of the Board and what they have done to date. He appreciates the extra time they have all put in which has been helpful for everyone. He urged them to continue educating the public. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 5 of 5