Loading...
2024-04-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 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. The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Gladstone. New board members Lee Hankins and Steven Li were welcomed and introduced themselves. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Lee Hankins Richard Kuehn (online) Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Steven Li (alternate) Board Members Absent None Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Planning Manager Rose Haas, Planner Leif Bjorback, Building Official Tristan Sewall, Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2024 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-0) WITH BOARD MEMBERS GLADSTONE AND KUEHN ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Update (AMD2023-0008) Planner Rose Haas shared information about the current and projected number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). There was clarification about how the numbers were calculated. A question was asked about case Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 24, 2024 Page 1 of 4 studies for other cities that have implemented this type of ADU code and the percentage of people that are choosing to build ADUs. Staff explained this is a paradigm shift based on House Bill 1337 which has a lot of rules intended to reduce barriers. This is new territory especially with the enabling of middle housing. Ms. Haas explained Kirkland had a goal of 3% participation rate several years ago. Tables showing existing code and proposed code updates and development standards by zone were reviewed. There was discussion about ownership scenarios of these units, how ADUs accommodate multigenerational housing, and how the condominiumization component opens up a lot of space for smaller, more affordable housing. It also counts for more affordable housing as it relates to House Bill 1220. The Planning Board draft recommendation was reviewed with a focus on how it differs from staff s recommendation. The memo states that the Board generally supports having a reduced setback in exchange for reduced height. The memo also recommends not having an automatic setback reduction for ADUs, and only allowing the reduction for reduced heights. Options for parking requirements, impact fees and utility metering/connections were highlighted and feedback requested. There was some discussion about the differing opinions of the City and of Olympic View Water and Sewer on how utilities should be treated. The draft utilities recommendation in the memo was based on staff s recommendation and the Engineering department recommendation, but it was noted that the sewer district policy will prevail. There was discussion about the Planning Board's purview with the utility issue and how to best present the Board's recommendation to the City Council. There was some debate about how much information to include about other alternatives that were discussed. Height & Setbacks The group debated pros and cons of various setbacks. It was noted that Building and Engineering codes would always take precedent over reduced setbacks. There was also discussion about incentives versus requirements and about the desire to encourage one -level ADUs. Allowing a larger setback for one-story ADUs could mean the difference between being able to build or not build on some smaller lots. Not giving the automatic reduction to 10 feet also makes it more consistent with single-family. There was some discussion about having differing regulations for single-family versus ADUs. Kirkland's regulations were discussed and some support expressed for allowing flexibility to make construction possible for more people. There was a question raised about where setbacks come from, and a brief summary of the purpose of design guidelines followed. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THE PROPOSAL REGARDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS THAT IS IN THE MEMO ON PAGES 49 AND 50. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Parking There was a question about how one would demonstrate that they have on street parking available within 600 feet and a recommendation to take out references to on -street parking. There were several comments about the significant amount of public feedback about not requiring parking. This could be a compromise and help allay some fears about new development. Clarification questions about the intent of the proposed language were answered. The property owner can add more parking if they want to; they just would not be required to add more than the one extra spot for a second ADU. There was a comment about how it is reasonable to expect that only a very small percentage of homeowners will build two ADUs and the impacts to parking of this small Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 24, 2024 Page 2 of 4 number will probably not be noticeable. There was a recommendation for no parking restrictions on this in order to provide more flexibility and give more people the opportunity to build. It was noted again that the proposed extra parking space was only for those people who would be adding two ADUs; it would not apply to those just adding one ADU. The group debated whether there should be no additional parking requirements for ADUs or whether there should be a requirement for one parking space for the second ADU. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT ON PAGE 50 RELATED TO PARKING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELETING THE SUB -BULLET A REGARDING ON -STREET PARKING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Impact Fees There was support for the recommendation as written in memo and as recommended by staff. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO RECOMMEND IMPACT FEES AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED ON PAGE 50. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). T TtilitieR There was some discussion about whether or not Planning Board should even address utilities. Staff s opinion was that this is not in the Planning Board's purview, and their recommendation was not to vote on it. The Engineering department will be assessing what needs to happen based on their code, so it doesn't need to be a policy discussion. There was debate about whether the Board should be involved with making a recommendation and whether Engineering has standing utility standards because it varies with providers. A concern was raised about the implications of requiring versus allowing separate utility meters. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION IN THE MEMO THAT THE UTILITIES SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDING ENGINEERING STANDARDS. CHAIR MITCHELL OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THAT UTILITIES IS NOT IN THE PLANNING BOARD'S PURVIEW AND SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY ENGINEERING. BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The group agreed to have Vice Chair Golembiewski write up the final recommendation memo with some context for each one. There was also agreement to include something about PRDs and state that they discussed it but have no recommendation. Chair Mitchell, Board Member Gladstone, and Board Member Maxwell will attend the City Council meeting on May 7; Chair Mitchell will present the recommendation. B. Green Building Incentives Program Building Official Leif Bjorback and Planner Tristan Sewall made a presentation regarding the Green Building Incentives Pilot Program intended to encourage development with reduced environmental impacts. They reviewed the policy context and low numbers of Built Green projects in Edmonds compared to Shoreline. The Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 24, 2024 Page 3 of 4 greatest opportunity for customers to use this program is with residential construction, especially with additions and remodels because that is where the most permits were issued. Construction standards for this program include Built Green 4-Star or better for single-family residential and LEED Gold for commercial, multifamily, and mixed use. Staff reviewed draft Permit Review Incentives which would expedite review time and Zoning - Based Incentives related to setbacks, heights, and parking. Enforcement will include a two-year performance bond: permit review bond valued at 50% of the building permit fee and land use incentive bond valued at 5% of the project valuation. Failure to certify within two years surrenders the bond to Planning & Development. Clarification questions were asked about the certification timeline and process; how the incentives would be applied to hypothetical residential remodels and DADUs; and how these could be integrated with the Planning Board's recommendations. There was a comment that providing incentives in exchange for green building is a good way to improve flexibility. There was a recommendation to have a memo in the packet for the May 22 public hearing about how these Green Building Incentives would integrate with the Planning Board's other ADU recommendations. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA • May 8 — Waterfront Vision discussion; introduction to land use permit timelines (tentative) • May 22 — Public Hearing on Green Building Incentives; joint discussion with EDC There was some discussion about having a joint meeting with the Tree Board regarding the Tree Canopy policy update and about the status of the Highway 99 Landmark Site. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS • Board Member Kuehn welcomed new Planning Board members. • Board Member Hankins thanked the group for an illuminating meeting. He is looking forward to participating. • Vice Chair Golembiewski concurred and added that it's nice to have a full board. • Board Member Li was also happy to be part of the group. He enjoyed the conversation. • Board Member Maxwell thanked the new members for jumping in tonight. • Board Member Martini welcomed the new members. • Board Member Gladstone welcomed new members and thanked Vice Chair Golembiewski and Board Member Maxwell for working on the draft recommendations. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Mitchell echoed previous comments and wished everyone a good night. I_l la [$111 N►hJ 101►Y W The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 24, 2024 Page 4 of 4