Loading...
2024-07-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting July 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 Li. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone (online) Lee Hankins Susanna Martini (online) Nick Maxwell Steven Li Board Members Absent None Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 12, 2024 Minutes It was noted that the minutes should reflect the fact that Board Member Li is now a full board member. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2024 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence commented on the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Draft Goals and Policies. He is disappointed that there is not much focused on the City of Edmonds; they read like generic housing policies that could be applied anywhere. He thinks the uniqueness of the City of Edmonds needs to be recognized. He also Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 1 of 5 thinks that civic involvement in the Comprehensive Plan process needs to be addressed. When is the public going to have an opportunity to listen to proposals, ask questions, and get answers in a public forum in real time? Online webinars where people listen and maybe are able to ask a question is not the same as a civic conversation. Vivian Olson encouraged the Planning Board to keep the vision statement, including access to nature (which includes views of water and mountains), in mind as they work through the Housing Element. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Private Rezone Request at 9514 228r' St SW (PLN2024-0032) Introductory remarks were made including a description of the project and a summary of hearing procedures. The hearing was opened. Board members were asked if they had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding this rezone application outside of the public hearing processed. All board members stated they had not. Board members were asked if they had any conflicts of interest. All board members stated they did not. Board members were asked if they had any objections to any board member's participation in the hearing. They did not. All hearing participants testified that they would be giving the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Brokenshire reviewed the rezone process, site context, public comments, rezone review criteria, and staff recommendation. Staff finds the rezone request from RS-8 to BC-EW is consistent with the decision criteria and recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation of approval to City Council. Applicant Testimony: Brian Shibayama of Fairway Apartments LLC had no comments. Public Testimony: C r stated that he and his girlfriend live across the street (228t'). They would like consideration be given to protecting residences to the north and other residences from impacts as much as possible. He expressed concern about traffic, noise, trash, and parking. Rachel Ross (online), Edmonds resident who lives in a cul-de-sac just west of this site, stated opposition to rezoning to commercial and expressed concerns about pedestrian and auto safety. 228t' Street is a very quiet, residential street with no sidewalks. There are a lot of children in the area who walk along the street which has no sidewalks. 96a' and 220 Street down to 100`' are other areas that could have pedestrian impacts. They have no sidewalks and are routes frequently used by pedestrians, especially children. She also expressed concerns about pedestrian and auto safety on Highway 104 and 95t' Place due to impacts of the commercial development. Planning Board Questions: Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Questions were asked about the zoning of the neighboring properties, access requirements in the code, setback requirements when there are two street setbacks, general setback and buffer requirements, and when ADA accessibility requirements would be addressed (upon frontage improvements). There was a question about how the Determination of Non -Significance for the SEPA process relates to future development. Staff explained that this is only for non -project action. Once there is a development action, it would have to be addressed again in a project -specific SEPA document. There was a question about why the application was not provided to the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Staff explained that the SEPA determination would have been, but the application for rezone was not (and is not usually sent out to them). Staff confirmed that if a development proposal happens, there would be a separate SEPA process which would identify impacts and mitigation. Sidewalk improvements would be considered as part of the development process. Board members asked about traffic impacts and requirements of a hypothetical development that might occur there; staff explained that would be addressed during the regular development process with traffic studies and typical development -related improvements. Anything that goes in would have to meet all the relevant development regulations. Clarification questions were asked about requirements related to the BC-EW zone including ground floor commercial, height limits, and maximum floor area. Mr. Shibayama, the applicant, was asked if he was planning on acquiring the two parcels to the east if this was rezoned. Mr. Shibayama replied that it was unlikely. CM was asked if he still had the same concerns after hearing all the discussion tonight. He replied that he did because he hadn't heard anything that would prevent egress onto 228t'. He still had concerns about traffic, parking, and other impacts on his road. It would nice if access was limited to Edmonds Way. It was noted that those discussions about hypotheticals would need to happen when there is an actual application for development. There was a question about why this is better suited to BC-EW rather than RM 1.5. Staff explained that it was left to the individual property owners to apply for the BC-EW rezone process when the Comprehensive Plan was changed. This is the last RS-zoned property to do that. There was some discussion about potential density and parking requirement differences between BC-EW and RM 1.5. The residential component is very similar between the two; the commercial uses do not seem to be traffic -heavy businesses. Rachel Ross asked about the applicant's intentions with the three lots he owns. She again expressed concern about having commercial in that area on the curve of Highway 104. She also noted that there are a lot of trees that act as a buffer there. She expressed concern about potential removal of trees and again noted her concerns about pedestrian safety. She strongly opposes commercial uses here but is less opposed to residential uses. It was noted that there is a requirement for a commercial use on the ground floor with BC-EW, but they do not know the applicant's intentions. There was a question about differences in traffic volumes in general between commercial/mixed use and multi- family. It was noted that it depends more on the specific type of business you are looking at. Staff remarked that engineering would do a sight distance study for entry and exit of the site when there is a proposal. Safety will be a primary consideration with any proposal; ideally, all of the safety concerns would be mitigated and you Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 3 of 5 would actually have a safer frontage than exists today. There was some discussion about the City's working relationship with WSDOT. Dawn Malkowski asked if there were regulations in place that would address the concerns about sidewalks if there were a back entrance off of 228d. Staff replied that there are. Erin, resident across the street, thought that the code only required sidewalks for adjacent properties and not those across the street. She expressed concern about the impacts of this commercial zoning on residential. Staff agreed that sidewalks would not be required across the street. She feels like the code doesn't really look at the impacts. Director McLaughlin spoke to developer responsibilities versus city deficiencies. She commented on things the City is looking at to address situations like expanding sidewalks. There was debate about how the Board could decide on zoning when they don't know what is being planned on the site. Rachel Ross reiterated her concerns with commercial uses on this site. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. Deliberation: The group debated how the application for rezone aligns or does not align with the six criteria. Concerns were raised about traffic and access, pedestrian safety, whether BC-EW or RM 1.5 is more appropriate, buffers, and ADA accessibility. It was stressed that any development that goes in here would have to go through the SEPA process and do traffic studies. There was a comment about the importance of the Comprehensive Plan to give appropriate guidance in providing protection for transition areas. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT IN FULL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND ATTACHMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY HEARD TONIGHT, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.40.0109 AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONE OF 9514 228TH STREET FROM RS-8 TO BC-EW. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Housing Element — Draft Goals & Policies The group continued the discussion on draft goals and policies of the Housing Element. Board members raised questions about how this relates to the DEIS and how the goals and policies turn into action. There was some debate about how to best encourage and reflect the unique character of Edmonds and the neighborhood/hubs. Staff responded to a question about the focus on high density housing around high -capacity transit locations including SWIFT BRT and not all the hubs and centers. Staff explained that transit -oriented housing relates to the high -capacity transit and the frequency of the BRT because it is automatically providing the regional employment commuter option. A concern was raised about inequities around where these are being proposed. There was a recommendation to remove the "on Highway 99" in relation to the SWIFT BRT.1 1 Board Member Martini left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 4 of 5 There was discussion about forming two subcommittees to review the Land Use and Housing Elements Draft Goals and Policies and holding a special early meeting at 6:00 p.m. to review the findings before the next meeting. There was discussion about the Comprehensive Plan timeline and how to fit it all in. Board Member Gladstone, Hankins, and Li will review the Housing Element Draft Goals and Policies. Chair Mitchell, Vice Chair Golembiewski, and Board Member Maxwell? will review the Land Use Element Draft Goals and Policies. Both subcommittees will have their comments ready to be included in the packet by July 19. NEW BUSINESS None SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA July 24 — There will be discussion and recommendations made on the Draft DEIS Impacts and Preliminary Mitigations and the Environment and Community Design Element. The CAO Update and Land Use Permit Timelines will be in the packet with no briefing or presentation. Green Building Incentives will be coming back as a draft that incorporates the Board's feedback. There was consensus to start early at 6:00 p.m. for some meetings as needed. July 24 will be a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. with a regular meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. August 14 — Vacation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Mitchell commented that there needs to be some clarification about the Comprehensive Plan process for the public. Staff explained there would be two Planning Board meetings where the Board would see the entire Comprehensive Plan; they would be asked to make a recommendation at the second meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 5 of 5