Loading...
2024-06-12 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting June 12, 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. He noted that Richard Kuehn had put in his notice of resignation for the Board due to increased work and family obligations. He wished him all the best and thanked him for his years of service. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Staff Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Judi Gladstone Tristan Sewell, Planner (online) Lee Hankins Jeff Levy, Senior Planner Susanna Martini (online) Nick Maxwell Steven Li Board Members Absent None READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2024 AS AMENDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence, commented regarding the Transportation Plan Update. He recommended that the internal Transportation Committee be reformatted to be an open type of group like the Mayor's Climate Advisory Committee so members of the public could come observe or offer comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Pagel of 5 A. Green Building Incentives Pilot Code Amendments City Planner Tristan Sewell reviewed some background on the impetus for the Green Building Incentives pilot code. He highlighted the objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with development or redevelopment. Potential incentives could be related to building height, setback lines, lot coverage, density, parking, fees, and review timelines. He reviewed generally how neighboring jurisdictions and other organizations are addressing this and discussed proposed constructions standards. Single-family residential would use Built Green 4-Star; commercial, multifamily and mixed use would use LEED Gold. These would be flexible, point -based systems, and not prescriptive. They would be periodically updated in response to the market, and regulation and would be third -party verified. Mr. Sewell presented shared examples of the proposed standards and incentives as they might be applied for single-family residential Built Green 4-Star; multifamily residential LEED Gold or Platinum; and business zones LEED Gold. He discussed enforcement requirements. Ongoing work includes developing incentives for the Waterfront Commercial (CW) zone and ensuring compatibility with the Shoreline Master Program. There is a question of whether DADUs should be eligible for the 5' height bonus for all portions sloped 4-in-12 or steeper. Questions for discussion: • How might these incentives impact housing affordability? May it contribute to housing displacement? • Who would benefit most from these incentives? Who might face unintended outcomes? Who is left out? • Do the land use incentives reflect the community's 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? • What's the best way to address multiple incentives applying to one project (e.g., ADU setback incentives for height)? The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m., and public comments were solicited. Public Comments: Roger Pence expressed concern that the slideshow was not in the packet and not available to the public prior to the meeting even though it had substantially new material. He feels this project has been under the radar. Allowing single-family homes to go from two stories to three stories has never been part of the public conversation. He was frustrated that this was presented when staff knows the public has concerns about density and development. Why wasn't this wrapped into the Comprehensive Plan discussion? He urged the Planning Board to send this back to allow for an appropriate public process. Mike Applebee, resident, property owner, developer, Master Builder member, noted that the state law is requiring changes to be made, and everyone has to do their part. He urged support of the business and waterfront commercial change because of the opportunities that are going to come forward with the amount of population they are expecting to see. They are already bursting at the seams in that area, and this could allow businesses to have more space to work with. He noted that many areas on the waterfront or Harbor Square areas are already at or above the 35-foot height limit, so the impact would be very minimal. Regarding residential, he was supportive of a 35-foot height limit because that is what allows for a townhome product. This is the same height limit allowed in the Esperance area and the rest of the county. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Susan Paine (online) stated she was very pleased they were including commercial zones for the Built Green incentives. They need to hear more about what this means for residential areas, but for commercial areas, an additional five feet is very appropriate. She agrees with Roger Pence that there are opportunities to spread this information more broadly. She is eager to see more information about this. The public hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m. Discussion: Board members encouraged consideration of incentivizing other energy -saving programs, questioned who pays the costs related to LEED certification for developers, and recommended specifying which version of LEED they are talking about and clearing defining the LEED and Built Green programs. If those are trademarked phrases they need to be marked as such in the code. There was a question about incentives for general commercial. Staff explained there is not much left to offer general commercial; it is also more complicated in terms of design, but they are open to suggestions. There was a question about an end date to the pilot program. Staff is not envisioning an end date, but they are expecting to update it. There was some discussion about lessons learned from other jurisdictions and the need to be mindful of impacts on displacements and cost/affordability that might be related to green building requirements. The practical benefits to builders of having an extra five feet in height were discussed. Questions were asked about the types of buildings and the sectors of housing that have taken advantage of this and the impacts in other jurisdictions. It was noted that some of that information is available on Built Green's website. Concerns were raised about whether the proposed enforcement procedures and penalties are adequate and if they can be more impactful. Director McLaughlin commented on the need to balance desired outcomes with available staffing resources to be able to administer whatever they come up with. Board members felt the penalty for not following through with the performance requirements should be commensurate to the incentive that had been applied. Some developments in Edmonds that had not met performance requirements were brought up. There was a brief discussion about how changes to single-family zoning might impact this code. The discussion was continued to a future date. Staff will bring this back after they have resolved how the Shoreline Master Plan interfaces with the CW zone. There will also be further consideration of enforcement procedures and penalties. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Canopy Cover Goal Update Senior Planner Jeff Levy made the presentation. He reviewed some background, where Edmonds is with its current tree canopy, and where areas for additional trees could be located. In order to increase the City's tree canopy, there needs to be participation on private property because of limited space on public property. Public outreach will be used to help determine the appetite for tree canopy growth. Mr. Levy brought up the average cost of $500 per tree for the city to plant on public property (the tree plus labor costs). There was some deliberation about how this would translate to private property and discussion about how the tree potential by land use numbers were calculated. If they want to maintain the existing tree canopy 220 trees per year need to Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 3 of 5 be planted. As the percentage goes up (over 150 trees per year), more and more trees would have to go onto private properties because that is where the majority of suitable planting area is. Next steps are to have a webinar to get public feedback and report back to a joint Planning Board/Tree Board meeting with findings and recommendations for a Tree Canopy Goal. A recommendation from the group for formal adoption would then be presented to the City Council. Discussion: There were questions about reasons for setting a Tree Canopy Goal. There was a strong recommendation to be clear in public outreach about the implications of the goal, not just in cost, but also in tree code requirements. It's also important for the public to understand what limitations are within the different planting areas presented. Staff agreed and added that they also need to be careful to not bar paths to create middle housing to help with the housing crisis. It is a balancing act which will be clearly expressed to the public so they understand. NEW BUSINESS A. Transportation Plan Update Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, and Rob English, City Engineer, and consultants Patrick Lynch and Paul Shannon from Transpo Group made the presentation. The group reviewed the Edmonds Transportation Vision, the Active Transportation Network goals; existing conditions and draft pedestrian and bicycle networks; the existing bus network and the draft transit network; and the MMLOS (Multimodal Level of Service) update. Staff is recommending following corridor travel time for vehicles and transit along selected corridors and system completeness for active transportation projects. The Transportation Committee will continue meeting through the completion of the Plan in late 2024. Public outreach, next steps, and the upcoming schedule were reviewed. Due to limited time, it was requested that questions be sent to Mr. Clugston. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston brought up the option for the Planning Board to draft a quarterly update memo to go to the June 25 City Council meeting regarding any issues they want to bring up. There was deliberation about whether or not an update was needed due to the Planning Board's recent involvement with the Council. There was agreement to share enforcement concerns related to the Green Building Incentives and suggestions for the kind of information that goes to the public related to the Tree Canopy Goals. Board Member Maxwell will draft a memo and bring it back to the group. June 26: Critical Area Ordinance Update, Climate Legislative Package Introduction; Land Use Permit Timeline Updates July 10: Site Specific Rezone Public Hearing; Parks, Recreation & Human Services Report; Climate Legislative Package Public Hearing. The intent is to hold a joint meeting with the Tree Board regarding the Tree Canopy Goal Discussion/Recommendation. The Planning Board recommended not having this at the July 10 meeting as that agenda is very full already. December 16 will be tentatively scheduled as a Special Meeting. Mr. Clugston announced that Jeff Levy has taken another job and will be leaving the City towards the end of the month. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 4 of 5 A board member reiterated a request to get CIP/CFP information earlier this year to give the Board more review time. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 5 of 5