Loading...
2024-04-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 10, 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 Martini. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair (online) Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Board Members Absent Judi Gladstone (excused) Richard Kuehn (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Rose Haas, Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2024 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence, former Planning Board member/chair, commented on the issue of the stated growth targets of 13,000 people and 9,000 units. After doing his own research he found that there is no justification for the expectation that the City of Edmonds is going to grow by 13,000 people in the next 20 years which is 4'/2 times the growth rate of the previous 20 years. He also referred to the RM zoning and urged the City to enable smaller units (1300 to 900 sf units) which could result a 50% increase in unit count out of future development in that zone. NEW BUSINESS Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2024 Pagel of 3 A. Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Update (AMD2023-0008) The Board agreed to discuss this topic but wait to make a final recommendation at a future meeting when more members are present. Planner Rose Haas presented the proposed code update and summarized staff recommendations on areas where staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board — reduction in rear setbacks, total gross floor area restrictions, parking requirements, and whether to have impact fees. The City Council public hearing is scheduled tentatively for May 7. Via Perkins Eastman, the consultant, is projecting 2,010 ADUs to be built by 2044, or 105 per year. There some discussion about the illustrations and a request for a 3-D model showing potential ADU development for better visualization. Staff responded to clarification questions about the City's ability to require parking, whether ADUs can be built in front of a primary residence, and the relationship between planning for development and building the infrastructure. The group debated proposed size restrictions, possible setbacks, and heights. The sizes seemed appropriate to some members. The height of the units appears to be the biggest concern for people in proximity to their existing houses for privacy, light/views, and aesthetics. There was a suggestion to expand incentives (such as reduced setbacks) for single story to other parcel sizes instead of just the smaller parcels. Several members expressed agreement. There was a recommendation to not automatically offer the 10-foot setback on RS-6 or RS-8 in order to encourage single -story through incentives on the small lots. There was significant discussion about hypothetical and actual scenarios with varying heights and setbacks. A question was asked if stepbacks could be required for the second story in certain situations. Staff clarified that they can't restrict it more than they would for a single-family structure. There was support for having the setbacks for two-story DADUs be the same as the primary house. There was some discussion about the fact that unconditioned space for single-family homes is not currently restricted, so it cannot be restricted for ADUs as long as it meets lot coverage restrictions. It was noted that they could potentially end up with a 1200 sf ADU built over 1200 sf of unconditioned space in some circumstances. This might not be a bad thing as it is an efficient building style and could help with parking concerns. Planning Manager Clugston stressed that this would be a very uncommon situation. The group debated whether or not to require parking spaces for ADUs. Based on public concerns about not requiring parking, a suggestion was offered to allow no parking for ADUs under a certain size threshold. Those smaller units could potentially also be exempt from impact fees due to their small scale. Various options for parking requirements were discussed. The City of Kirkland's regulations were reviewed which do not require parking for one ADU but require an extra space if there are two. It was noted that this would be a way of meeting the community halfway to address concerns about parking. The idea of having residential permit parking was briefly mentioned. There was some discussion about whether it would be possible to do a public survey just on the parking topic to get a better feel of the public opinion. Planning Manager Clugston suggested that the Planning Board could provide City Council with more than one creative idea for them to debate; they don't have to provide just one solution. Ms. Haas commented on the discrepancy between the comments that staff receives on day-to-day planning and the public feedback they have gotten on this topic with regard to setbacks, parking, size, etc. It was noted that people who actually want to build want flexibility with parking. Incentives can be useful with a certain size threshold. The group was supportive of requiring impact fees to sustain growth. There was a suggestion that smaller units could be exempt (500-600 sf) due to their reduced scale. There was another suggestion to require an application if someone wants to waive impact fees. Staff raised a concern about incentivizing smaller units because of the Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2024 Page 2 of 3 lack of diverse housing this could produce. It was noted that the type of structure built would still be market - driven. There was discussion about costs to build ADUs, whether converted she -sheds would be allowed, ADA accessibility, and whether impact fees would be a barrier for builders. There seemed to be agreement that the proposed impact fees were appropriate. L rr , a member of the public raised a concern about ADUs being permitted by the City in PRDs (Planned Residential Developments) even though there might be existing HOA or CCRs precluding them. Ms. Haas affirmed this could happen, but if the PRD had an existing ban prior to a certain date, the PRD could ban it as part of that private agreement. In that instance it would be a civil issue between the homeowner and the HOA or the PRD. However, the City would not be involved in regulating it. Larry expressed concern that the only remedy available after the City approved the permit would be for someone to sue to stop the development. He recommended that they look into this further. There was some support by board members to follow up with the City Attorney and defer to the City Council. Staff added that they do not currently look at HOA documents when reviewing building permits, so this would not be different than the existing situation. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA April 24 — Green Building incentives; Detached Accessory Dwelling Units - Vice Chair Golembiewski and Board Member Maxwell will work on a draft recommendation on ADUs based on tonight's discussion for consideration on April 24. May 22 - Staff will confirm the joint meeting with the EDC. There may also be an update on the Tree Canopy study at this meeting. If so, staff will consider whether to move the public hearing for the Green Building incentives. It is not known if or when the Board will get back to the Tree Code this year. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell reported on a recent Council discussion regarding growth alternatives for the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concern about the lack of time to preparation a presentation for the City Council that would have facilitated better discussion and understanding. He recommended that the Planning Board not do anything that they don't have to do this year (tree plan, Climate Element) so they can better focus on what needs to be done with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and do it well. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2024 Page 3 of 3