2020-09-23 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/93282361794?pwd=WlkvbzU3b2RLVipsNzRsYSswRGpXQT09
Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794. Passcode: 868680.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4916)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve September 9th, 2020 meeting minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB200909d (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 9/1812 02 0
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 23, 2020
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4913)
Director Report
Background/History
The Director Report is reviewed at each meeting
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Director. Report. 09.23.2020.finaI (PDF)
B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4900)
Presentation on Development Activity
Background/History
The Development Services Department gives a periodic update on development activity in the
City.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Development Activities Presentation (PDF)
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4912)
Joint meeting with Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 911812 02 0
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 23, 2020
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4911)
Review of Extended Agenda
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 9/1812 02 0
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/23/2020
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Michelle Martin
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve September 9th, 2020 meeting minutes
Narrative
Meeting draft minutes attached
Attachments:
PB200909d
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
September 9, 2020
Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Z
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Board had a brief discussion with staff about when the minutes can be corrected to accurately reflect what a Board
Member said versus when a Board Member wishes to clarify a statement made at a previous meeting for the record.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no general audience comments.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLOOD ON FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW CHAPTER 19.07
IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, noting that his presentation would be brief given that the proposed ordinance was
presented previously to the Board, and no one from the public had joined the meeting. He reviewed that the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), which became effective June
19', and the City was required to update its flood regulations prior to that date to remain in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). However, pandemic -related restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act prevented the City from following
the normal process for code updates. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance that allowed the City to remain in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Now that some of the restrictions have been lifted, the updated Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance.
Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to
purchase insurance protection against loss from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is an agreement between local
communities and the federal government. Local communities adopt and enforce the floodplain management regulations,
which must be approved by FEMA. FEMA then makes flood insurance available to properties within the community.
Mr. Lien compared the old FIRMS (Attachment 3) that were adopted in 1999 with the new FIRMS (Attachment 4). He
explained that, under the old FIRMS, the floodplain was largely confined to the Edmonds Marsh and along the shoreline. The m
updated FIRMS expand the floodplain to cover much of the waterfront area, including Harbor Square and portions of the41
Salish Crossing site. On the updated FIRMS, the extent of the floodplain along Shell Creek was reduced to include just the
mouth of the creek. There were no changes to the floodplain in the City's jurisdiction around Lake Ballinger. There is no
base flood elevation (BFE) in the 1999 maps, and no BFE was added to the 2020 maps. However, both Edmonds and
Mountlake Terrace have established a BFE elevation at 286.14 feet based on historical data for Lake Ballinger.
>
0
L
Mr. Lien reviewed that, prior to the interim ordinance, the City's flood regulations were sprinkled throughout the code
a
(Building Code, Critical Area Code and Shoreline Master Program), and the interim ordinance consolidated the regulations
Q
into a new chapter in the Building Code (ECDC 19.07). With the exception of modifications to ECDC 19.00.025
(International Building Code) and ECDC 19.05.020 (International Residential Code), most of the other changes came from
Q
the Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance (FDPMO) that was put together by FEMA. There was one minor change to
c
the Critical Area Code for frequently flooded areas (ECDC 23.70) to reference the most recently updated FIRMs.
M
Mr. Lien recalled that when the interim ordinance (Attachment 6) was presented to the City Council, they had some questions
about why it did not include more of the language in the FDPMO (Attachment 5). Since that time, he and the Building
Official have reviewed the FDPMO to identify the provisions that are applicable to the City of Edmonds and should be
included in ECDC 19.07. Many of the provisions in the model ordinance are not applicable to the City. He referred to the
updated code language provided in the Staff Report as Attachment 1 and reviewed the changes as follows:
• ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. New definitions were added for basement, functionally dependent use, lowest
floor, manufactured home, start of construction, substantial damage, substantial improvement, variance and water
surface elevation.
• ECDC 19.07.025 — Administration. Language was added to identify the Building Official as the Floodplain
Administrator. It also lays out the application requirements and the duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain
Administrator.
• ECDC 19.07.030 — International Building Code (IBC) and ECDC 19.07.040 International Residential Code
(IRC). This section has to do with reconstruction after damage or demolition has occurred.
• ECDC 19.07.065 — Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas. In the model ordinance, this language was included
in the administrative section. However, these regulations are not under the Floodplain Administrator's purview, so
they were given a separate section in the City's version of the ordinance.
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
• ECDC 19.07.095 — General Requirements for Other Development. This section was added since the Board's
last review of the ordinance.
• ECDC 19.07.110 — Variance. The City Council requested that language be added related to variances.
Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, the Planning Board wanted to ensure that affected properties were notified of the
proposed changes. He reported that notice of the proposed hearing and a description of the updated FIRMS and proposed
ordinance were provided, and two written comments were received. One was included in the Planning Board packet and the
other was emailed to the Board Members earlier in the week.
Mr. Lien reviewed the following changes that were recommended by the Board at their last meeting:
• ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. A definition was added for "Area of Special Flood Hazard."
ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1)(a) — Additional Requirements for Issuance of a Variance. As recommended by the
Board, the specific dollar value for the rate insurance increase was deleted. Staff consulted with the State's
Floodplain Manager, who indicated the change would be acceptable.
Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the two written comments from Mr. Boye and Ms. Ferguson, he spoke to another
property owner who was satisfied following his explanation of the changes. All of the comments that were received were
from property owners around Lake Ballinger. One suggested that the floodplain designation around Lake Ballinger should be
removed altogether, and another suggested that it should be changed. Mr. Lien explained that the City is not responsible for
establishing the FIRMS; they are established by the Federal Government. The City of Edmonds, in conjunction with the City
o
of Mountlake Terrace, has established a 286.14-foot BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger. The BFE is based on historic
flooding at the site and the North American Vertical Data Datum (NAVD) 88. Mr. Boye's letter referenced some BFE
o
elevations that were adjudicated for Lake Ballinger in the 1940s and again in 1983. However, the elevations in the
a
adjudications were based on NAVD 29 elevations, and the NAVD 88 elevations are 3.65 feet higher. Mr. Boye's referred to
Q
a golf course project near the outlet of Lake Ballinger, where a culvert was removed and a bridge installed. The current BFE
for Lake Ballinger was last updated in 2014 and the project occurred after that. He concluded that, while the City cannot
CD
change the mapping of the floodplain, it could potentially revisit the data used for establishing the BFE at some point in the
future.
o
0
N
m
Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson's letter referenced the proposed provision that requires properties that are damaged to 50% or
a
greater must to be reconstructed or repaired to current floodplain standards. Ms. Ferguson noted that the proposed definition
for "historic properties" requires that a property must be on a state, local or federal register in order to be exempt from the
E
requirement. He suggested that historic properties that are not on these registers should also be exempt from the requirement.
t
Mr. Lien explained that the language in the FDPO is similar to the City's nonconforming ordinance, which requires that
M
properties must be on a local, state of federal register to be granted an exemption. However, the City's nonconforming code
Q
states that properties that are on a historic survey that comply with the state regulations may also be exempt. While none of
the City's historic surveys have included properties on Lake Ballinger, the Board could recommend that the definition for
"historic properties" be changed to include properties on a historic survey.
Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson also asked what would be included when calculating "substantial damage." Would it include
fire, flooding, wind, etc.? Mr. Lien answered that full compliance with the code would be required for all repairs and
renovations that equate to more than 50% of a property's value.
Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance was adopted in June and expires in November. Following the Planning Board's
recommendation, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council on September 22°d, followed by a public hearing
on October 61. The goal is to adopt the permanent ordinance before the interim ordinance expires. He recommended the
Board forward a recommendation of approval of the ordinance to the City Council as presented in the Staff Report.
Chair Robles recalled that, at a previous meeting, there were questions about the process for appealing the 50% damage rule.
Mr. Lien clarified that the Floodplain Administrator (Building Official) would make the determination, which would be
appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He reviewed that the Floodplain Administrator would analyze the cost analysis
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
prepared by the project consultant. If there is disagreement, the applicant could appeal the Floodplain Administrator's
decision to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is a land -use attorney the City contracts with. Chair Robles asked
if the process is outlined in the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Chair Robles commented that it is
important that people are informed upfront so they can adjust their proposals, as needed. Mr. Lien said staff warns applicants
upfront.
Chair Robles referred to Ms. Ferguson's letter regarding historic property on Lake Ballinger and noted that the FIRMS map
hasn't changed for that area. Mr. Lien said Ms. Ferguson was talking about the extent of the map, which is meaningless
without a BFE. The updated FIRMS established a BFE for the downtown waterfront area, and the City has established a BFE
for Lake Ballinger. The FIRMs are used similar to the City's other Critical Area Maps. If a property shows it has a critical
area, the City takes a closer look when development permit applications come in. Properties that have floodplains will have
to indicate elevation as part of a development permit application. Ms. Ferguson's house is located above the 290-foot
contour line on the GIS maps, which is above the current BFE for Lake Ballinger.
Chair Robles recalled that at the Board's May 12t' meeting he commented that the maps are developed by algorithms, and he
has seen situations where a person with a house sitting on top of a hill in the middle of a floodplain is required to get flood
insurance when it is completely obvious that the property will never be flooded. He pointed out that the maps are generated
by computers and not validated by humans. He asked if this type of situation could potentially occur in Edmonds, and Mr.
Lien said he isn't aware of any situations like this. Mr. Lien said the floodplain at Lake Ballinger extends onto the residential
properties that slope up from the lake. A flood certificate showing the elevation of construction is required when
development is proposed on these properties. If the flood certificate confirms that the development would be above the BFE
of 286.14 feet, the property would be considered outside of the floodplain. He emphasized that the updated FIRMS do not
change the process.
0
Board Member Cheung asked if Mountlake Terrace has adopted a similar floodplain ordinance for Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien >
said he doesn't know about Mountlake Terrace, but other jurisdictions in Snohomish County have done so. Jurisdictions are a
required by FEMA to have consistent floodplain regulations in order to remain in the NFIP. Q.
Q
Board Member Cheung asked if flood insurance is optional for properties located within the floodplain. Mr. Lien said he M
doesn't know the details, but he would assume a lending agency would require flood insurance for properties within an Q
identified floodplain. It might be optional for properties that do not have a mortgage. o
Chair Robles asked if the proposed ordinance would impact a property owner's ability to refinance a home any more than the
prior regulation. Mr. Lien answered that the proposed ordinance simply outlines development standards to ensure that
development within a floodplain is constructed in a way that minimizes damage to the structure if it were to flood. It does
not change the insurance requirements or where the floodplains are located. The FIRMS were established by the federal
government.
Vice Chair Rosen asked how the ordinance would be applied to properties that are on a local, state or federal historic register.
Mr. Lien answered that these properties would be exempt from the substantial damage rule.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that, although the Ferguson property appears to be higher than the contour line for the
BFE, rebuilding the home may require a variance. She commented that the variance section is an area of the ordinance that
hasn't been discussed by the Board in detail. Mr. Lien clarified that a variance is not required to build or rebuild in the
floodplain, but certain building codes would apply. For example, a structure would have to be built 1 to 2 feet above the
BFE. The variance process would be utilized if a property owner doesn't want to build to the standards. A variance could
affect the flood insurance rate because the property owner would not be minimizing damage to the property. Board Member
Rubenkonig said it would be helpful for the Building Official to speak to the variance process.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has the ability to certify Ms. Ferguson's historic property so she can qualify as a
"historic building." Mr. Lien responded that Ms. Ferguson could apply for her property to be placed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places. Because this issue did not come up at the last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig said she is
unprepared to consider the ramifications of the ordinance on Ms. Ferguson's property. She is concerned that there may be
much that hasn't been addressed concerning Lake Ballinger and the history of the area. She recognized that placing the
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
property on the City's historic register is a different process, but she is feeling a big unsettled about how to move from the
current discussion to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Mr. Lien's earlier statement that the City could adopt a different BFE for Lake
Ballinger. She asked how and when that would happen and if it needed to be included in the current discussion. Mr. Lien
responded that the BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger was adopted via policy by the Floodplain Administrator
(Building Official) in coordination with Mountlake Terrace. The current level was established based on historical data and
references a flood event that occurred in 1997. Mountlake Terrace could reconsider that BFE given the more recent project
on the golf course where a culvert and bridge were removed. He talked with the City's Stormwater Engineer, who confirmed
that flooding still occurs on some properties around the lake. He concluded that it would take some serious modeling to
establish a new BFE, and the City would have to work with Mountlake Terrace, as the jurisdiction designated to regulate the
levels at Lake Ballinger per a 1983 agreement. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that altering the BFE is a policy
change that could be made at a future time, and the City of Mountlake Terrace is already pursuing that option. Mr. Lien
clarified that he didn't say that Mountlake Terrace was pursuing the change. Rather, if the City of Edmonds chose to do so, it
would have to be done in conjunction with Mountlake Terrace.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has a reason to pursue a change to the BFE around Lake Ballinger. Does that
need to be decided now, or is it a policy decision of the future? Mr. Lien said it does not have to be decided now, and it is a
policy decision of the future. The ordinance currently before the Board does not talk about what the BFE is. Board Member
Rubenkonig commented that Mr. Lien's clarification helps her set aside the concerns raised by Mr. Boye and Ms. Ferguson.
However, she still may ask the Board to table its recommendation so their concerns can be discussed with the Building
Official. Mr. Lien cautioned against tabling their recommendation given the timeline set out by FEMA for adoption of the
ordinance. Again, he pointed out that BFE is not part of the proposed ordinance. The ordinance simply outlines the
standards for development within the floodplain. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like the Building Official
to address the situation in which the Ferguson property might find itself in the future.
>
0
L
Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing, but there was no one who indicated a desire to participate. Vice Chair
a
Rosen noted that the Board received two written comments from the public, which the Board should consider when making
Q
their recommendation to the City Council. It was noted that 180 notices of the hearing were sent out to affected property
M
owners, and the City Council would conduct another public hearing before final adoption of the ordinance. Chair Robles
Q
closed the public portion of the hearing.
o
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CHAPTER 19.07 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND AN UPDATED
REFERENCE TO THE NEW FLOODPLAIN MAPS IN ECDC 23.70.010 AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 2.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Cheung said his understanding is that if the ordinance is adopted as recommended by staff, the issue related
to BFE at Lake Ballinger could be addressed at a later date. Mr. Lien emphasized that the BFE is not established by the
proposed ordinance. Board Member Cheung summarized that the ordinance is intended to make the City's floodplain
regulations consistent with what the federal government has laid out. Mr. Lien clarified that the Planning Board is not being
asked to make a recommendation on the FIRMS. They are being asked to make a recommendation on the ordinance that
outlines the standards that apply to development within the floodplain, as identified on the FIRMS. While the FIRMS
establish a BFE for the floodplains along the Puget Sound shoreline, a City policy decision established the BFE for the
floodplains around Lake Ballinger. At this time, the Board is not being asked to make a recommendation on the FIRMS or on
the BFE for properties around Lake Ballinger.
Mr. Chave explained that establishing the BFE for Lake Ballinger requires an interjurisdictional process between Edmonds
and Mountlake Terrace. It involves a lot of time, money and studies. It is not a trivial process and must be done very
carefully. The last time it was done, it took quite some time to reach a result. It is not something that can be quickly
resolved.
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Ferguson questioned the FIRM, itself, which the Board cannot address.
Ms. Ferguson also went into detail about how the 50% substantial damage rule might impact her property should a major
flood event occur. Her understanding of the current code is that Ms. Ferguson could address the situation via the
nonconforming rules or pre-emptively having her property added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien
explained that if the property is certified as a historic structure, the 50% substantial damage rule would not apply. He noted
that certain criteria would have to be met in order for a property to be on the register, and not all old houses are historic.
Board Member Rubenkonig said a financial investment would also be required for Ms. Ferguson to pursue such a process.
Mr. Lien said the application for placing a property on the City's register is free, and there are benefits associated with the
designation. He explained that the register is a voluntary program, and properties that are nominated for the register must
meet certain criteria. If a property on the register does a major renovation, there is potential for tax breaks. However, before
any work can be done, properties on the register must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission to ensure the work does not impact the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Chave emphasized that the criteria
for inclusion on the register is fairly strict, and age is not a sole determinant.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Ms. Ferguson raised a good point, but it has less to do with the proposed
ordinance. She agreed that the City hasn't assessed the historicity of Lake Ballinger, and she is concerned that this needs to
be attended to. She recognized that is a conversation for another time, but Ms. Ferguson presented some well -stated
concerns. She asked if the Board Members feel that Ms. Ferguson has enough options and is in a position to handle any
future event. Chair Robles expressed his belief that all of the bases were covered regarding this concern.
rn
m
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
c
TREE REGULATIONS CODE PROCESS UPDATE
0
Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed tree code amendments, but they were tabled until the City >
adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He advised that the City adopted the UFMP in July of 2019, which a
included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. At that time, the City Council authorized staff to hire a Q.
part-time code writer to assist with rewriting the Tree Code. This effort was stalled due to a number of factors, including the Q
pandemic
Mr. Lien referred to the table provided in Attachment 1, which outlines the broad topics and possible concepts that will be
explored while reviewing and updating the City's tree -related regulations. He explained that regulations that impact tree
retention are scattered throughout the code, and the items in the table are listed in priority. He reviewed the items as follows:
Tree Retention. One of the primary concerns the City has heard over the years is when properties are subdivided
and/or developed, all of the trees are cut down to accommodate development. Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 18.45.050 requires that trees be retained to the maximum extent feasible, but "feasible" is often
difficult to determine. The Critical Area Regulations is the only section of the code that has a tree retention
requirement. Properties within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that have steep slopes, streams or wetlands associated
with them are required to maintain or establish a 30% native vegetation. The City could explore regulations that
require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed beyond
an established threshold, developers could be required to pay into a Tree Fund.
Low -Impact Development. Low -Impact Development (LID) in the City's code is primarily related to stormwater
management. However, LID principles may be applied much broader. Other ideas to consider include flexible
setbacks, flexible lot sizes, clustering of houses, reduced road width requirements, etc. For example, you could
allow clustered development or a reduced setback to potentially preserve trees on a site. He shared an example of a
property in Edmonds that was subdivided and explained how the access and utility easements, as well as the
building footprints, impacted the number of trees that had to be removed from the site to accommodate
development. He explained how LID principles could have been used to allow a greater number of trees to be
retained. Staff will be asking the Board to consider what flexibilities could be provided in the code to potentially
result in more trees being retained when a property is developed.
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 10
• Tree Fund. The City doesn't currently have a dedicated Tree Fund. A Tree Fund could be used to issue tree
vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in the city, funding tree education
activities, and other tree -related activities. Potential funding options will need to be explored further, but could
include tree cutting violation penalties and developer fees based on the number of trees removed for development.
• Incentives. The UFMP included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property. It
included: a program to give away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds; exploring the establishment of a
property tax rebate, stormwater utility fee reduction or other technique to reward properties that retain a certain
amount of tree canopy cover; and developing a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners
who maintain a certain amount or type of healthy tree.
• Definitions. Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations can be applied to only certain types of trees.
Examples include significant trees, protected trees, landmark trees, heritage trees and/or street trees. Some
jurisdictions also regulate certain species of trees (such as red alder) and exempt them from the tree regulation
requirements.
• Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Existing Developed Properties. Currently, permits are required to cut trees in
the City. Developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt from tree cutting permits. If there are
critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be hazardous, a permit is required. The permit is a Type II
Permit (staff decision with notice) and the application fee is $1,010. For existing multi -family and commercial
properties, tree cutting is reviewed as a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the
landscaping requirements. The application fee is $315. The disparity between the cost of tree permits for single-
family versus multi -family and commercial properties should be addressed.
o
• Penalties/Fines. Currently, the base penalty for tree cutting violations is assessed based on the size of the tree, and
o
the civil penalty is not to exceed $1,000 for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree that is three inches or
a
more. The fines are tripled if the tree is located in a critical area or the right-of-way. Currently, the code defines a
Q
tree as having a caliper of six inches or greater, but the Critical Area Code permits the removal of trees less than 4
inches as an allowed activity. The tree cutting fines should be evaluated and updated to be more consistent with theCD
definition of trees.
o
• Code Location. Currently, the main tree code is in ECDC 18, which is primarily related to Public Works
requirements. Because the tree regulations on private property are administered by the Planning Manager, a new
chapter will be created in ECDC 23 (Natural Resources) to house the main tree -related code chapter. Other tree
regulations would also be scattered throughout the code. For example, allowing more flexibility in subdivision
design to encourage more tree retention would be located in ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions).
Mr. Lien advised that this presentation was intended to provide a broad overview of the project, and the Board will begin its
discussion in more detail on October 14'. He advised that the Citizens Tree Board was briefed on the code update topics at
its August 6' meeting, and it will be consulted periodically as the code specifics are developed further.
Chair Robles noted that the topics of "tree zones" or "tree districts" were not included on the list. He asked if this concept
has been dropped from the discussion or if it would come up later. Mr. Lien said it was not identified as an individual topic
of discussion. However, when they look at tree retention with development, the percentage of trees to be retained might be
different based on the zone or area of the City.
Board Member Cheung observed that trees are a topic the public is passionate about. He suggested that the City advise the
local newspapers and My Edmonds News of the scheduled discussions so that the public is not surprised at the last minute.
He suggested they solicit ideas and comments from the public throughout the process, and the public should also be invited to
all of the meetings where the topic is discussed. Mr. Lien agreed to work with the City's new Public Relations Officer to
outline a public outreach plan that gets the public engaged early in the process.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, generally, an assessment of the health of a tree will be made by a certified
arborist. One of the overriding issues within the different jurisdictions that have tree codes is the dependence on the
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
professional field to neutrally make these decisions. She asked if there are codes from other jurisdictions that the Board
should review as examples. Mr. Lien advised that at the end of 2020 the City hired a firm to review codes from other
jurisdictions (Kirkland, Redmond, Snohomish County, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Issaquah and Everett), and this information
will be provided to the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig said from the viewpoint of her land -use consulting business, she
is pleased by the direction that Snohomish County has taken to protect trees. She recognized they are now talking about
saving what trees they can, but they haven't been saving the best of what there was. They are now in a situation of trying to
dry a line in the sand. While they don't want to lose more trees, they acknowledge that some will be lost due to other
considerations. In the future they want to look at replenishing the tree inventory. Mr. Lien said that "no net loss of the
overall tree canopy" is identified as a policy in the UFMP.
Chair Robles asked if the discussion would include outlying ideas that have never been done before. He's seen it happen
where someone comes up with an idea that is so unique and/or interesting, but they can't do it because no other jurisdictions
has done it previously. He said he doesn't believe that is a good approach, and he asked how willing the City is to adopt
ideas that come from the brilliance of the citizenry. Mr. Lien responded that he is open to any brilliant idea. All of the
jurisdictions get ideas from each other, but Edmonds is also willing to go first if a good idea comes up.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many citizens in Edmonds have spent good money maintaining the tree canopy on
their private properties. The City has discussed potential incentives and an appreciation for what they are doing on behalf of
the City. There are people who are very invested in what the Board will propose, yet others will look at the issue differently.
The City has an opportunity to improve the percentage of its tree canopy, and she felt they should establish a goal. She N
m
recalled that the Board previously talked about the need to get a better assessment of what remains of the City's tree canopy.
She asked if that will be part of the process. She likes having a benchmark that enables the City to determine whether or not
the codes in place are leading the City in the right direction or if other measures are needed.
0
Mr. Lien said the current benchmark is contained in the UFMP. A coverage analysis based on 2015 Lidar mapping identified >
a 30% canopy coverage in Edmonds. The UFMP notes to report on the canopy coverage at least every 10 years, and Council a
Member Buckshnis has mentioned this recently, as well. Q.
Q
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the 30% tree canopy coverage compares to other cities. Mr. Chave replied that the M
information was provided in the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like this comparison to be part of the Q
discussion. She referred to a recent critique in the local paper saying that, as good as the City's parks are, compared to other c
cities, they don't have the percentage of parkland acreage. If the City were to increase its public land, they could more m
readily establish a tree program that would increase the tree canopy on city -owned properties. a
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles referred to a letter the Board received from a citizen regarding Meadowbrook Park. He asked when would be
the best time for the Board to respond to the concern that was raised about people abusing the park. Mr. Chave said the letter
was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council may direct the Parks Board (Planning Board) to look into the issue
at some point in the future.
Chair Robles reviewed that the September 231 meeting agenda will include a report on development activity, a joint meeting
with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee, and a status update and discussion on climate goals planning. The
October 14' meeting agenda will include a discussion on Development Code work (electric vehicle charging infrastructure
and tree codes). The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will present an update to the Board on October
28'. The first meetings in November and December will also include additional Development Code work, and the second
meetings in November and December will be cancelled.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles reported that he and Vice Chair Rosen met recently with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee. He
recalled Board Member Rubenkonig's recent comment regarding her concern of having City Council Members participate on
the citizen advisory committees and commissions, and observed that the meeting felt different than the Board's joint meeting
with the City Council. He said he believes the Board's role will be to guide the committee as to how it interfaces with other
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
City boards and commissions. Chair Rosen applauded the City for being aggressive in conservation activities. The word
"conservation" is a big bucket, and at this point, the committee has not wrestled with what the priorities are. They will need
to figure out what their mandate is and then consider how it will cross over into the work being done by others on air quality,
transportation, tree and other issues.
Mr. Chave noted that the origins of the Planning Board and the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee are quite
different. The Planning Board is, by code, an advisory to the City Council, whereas the committee is an executive committee
the Mayor established to guide him, and it was not established by code. The responsibilities of the two groups are quite
different, as is who they report to. However, there is some opportunity to collaborate and/or cooperate.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Pence recalled that the City conducted an online open house event last month relative to the 411 Avenue
Cultural Corridor, and the City's consultant will summarize the results of that effort in the next few weeks. Since the
Planning Board was deeply involved in the concept development of that proposal about 15 years ago, he felt the Board
Members should stay abreast of the situation. He suggested that the Economic Development Director or the Cultural Services
Manager should be invited to provide a briefing to the Board.
Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that a briefing would be appropriate. She noted that she had been the Planning Board
liaison on the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor Advisory Committee, but she arrived at the very end of the process and doesn't m
believe she had any input. Based on her experience, she doesn't recall any significant Planning Board input into the process.
c
Board Member Pence said they are currently working on a grand design for permanent comprehensive physical
improvements to support art and performance within the corridor for special events. It is quite a major proposal that is in the
works, and he felt it was something the Board should keep an eye on. The remainder of the Board concurred. >
0
L
ADJOURNMENT a
Q
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. M
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 13
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/23/2020
Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Director Report is reviewed at each meeting
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Director Report attached
Attachments:
Director. Report.09.23.2020.finaI
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
O� Ebb
O
U J:
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 23rd, 2020
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently
believe, and upon which we must vigorously act."
-Pablo Picasso
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is September 23rd it will include a joint meeting with Mayor's
Conservation Advisory Committee, and a presentation on devlopment activities.
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
C Puget Sound Regional Council PSRC (PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board) will
meet virtually on September 17. The agenda includes:
o Certification Recommendatsion of Regional Subarea Plans for Bellevue, Burien,
and PuyallupREgional Aviation Baseline Study Update
o Regional Equity Strategy Update
o Equity Mapping Tools
o Stormwater and Watershed Planning Resources for Jurisdictions
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
C The SCT Annual Assembly, which was originally scheduled for September 23 has been
postponed until October 28. The event will be via online and include these topics:
o Broadband and how teleworking has changed things
o Housing
o Social equity
o State of the economy and regional recovery plan
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
o Trends in traffic, aviation, and population.
❑ A subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Committee will meet this week to review
potential updates to countywide planning policies to reflect VISION 2050.
CITY NEWS
Housing Survey
Nearly 700 responses to the second community survey of the Edmonds Housing Commission have been
received. In this survey, community members were asked to share their thoughts on six topics related to
housing and 16 policy ideas. An online open house provided background information about the ideas.
Some results from the survey from the survey include:
• A majority of people (65%) want future detached accessory dwellings (sometimes called
"backyard cottages") to meet standards for parking, ownership, size, height, etc. c
• Respondents had mixed reactions to allowing new "transition areas" for duplexes, triplexes, and
other small-scale housing.
0 57% reported they were okay with this concept along transit routes adjacent to
commercial zones.
0
o Slightly less than half wanted this idea to apply to certain areas zoned for 8,000 or more
square -foot residential lots.
• A moderate majority of those surveyed (56%) opposed guidance or incentives to encourage a o
N
duplex or a two -unit townhouse in lieu of one large single-family house in residential zones. N
• A strong majority (78%) reported support for the City to work on simplifying zoning code N
language.
Here are more details about the survey or you can scroll to "Survey # 2" information at:
https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/.
The Commission's current policy ideas are preliminary and may be refined further after public
input. Meanwhile, a second set of policy ideas is being developed for community engagement in
another month or two. After that, the Commission will continue seeking public input and
preparing policy recommendations, which are due to the City Council by the end of 2020.
All policy recommendations from the Commission will still need further consideration by the
Council, including more public input and refinement from other sources. This stage would start
in 2021.
New City Program for Families with School -Age Kids
The City's Parks Department has been working to open a program that will provide a weekday
day camp for school -age kids, while supporting the student's distance learning needs with the
school district. In the program, special COVID protection practices, including separation and
sanitation, will be provided. For more information, check the webpage:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/parks-recreation-departments/about-us.html.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 16
5.A.a
City Bulletin
To view the current City bulletin or sign up for future editions by email, go to:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/edmonds-city-builetin.html.
City Council
Materials for the next City Council meeting are posted online on the Friday before each meeting.
❑ The Council's September 8 meeting included:
o Countywide Buildable Lands Report
o VISION 2050 Update
o Preliminary Findings for the Ballinger Regional Facility Feasibility Study
o Amendment of Edmonds Cares Fund Ordinance
❑ The Council's September 15 meeting agenda included:
o Update from Snohomish Health District
o Public Facilities District Presentation
o Discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60.
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Student Applications for Boards & Commissions
The City is looking for energetic and committed student volunteers to participate as student
representatives for the 2020-21 academic year. In particular, students are being sought for
positions with the Edmonds City Council, Youth Commission, and Arts Commission. Applications
for the City Council Student Representative are due September 18. Interested students should
complete an application form. More information is on the following forms:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Youth Commission Application 2020.pdf
http://www.edmondswa.gov/opportunities-contests-applications.htmI
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Press Release/PDF/2020/Student Rep Application Form 202
O.pdf
Architectural Design Board
The next meeting scheduled will be available on line. The previously scheduled meeting for
September 2, 2020 was cancelled. The Architectural Design Board last met virtually on August 5,
2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included:
❑ Westgate Station General
❑ Design Review Staff report
Arts Commission
The next meeting is scheduled for October 5, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The Edmonds Arts Commission
met September 14, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included:
❑ Creative Programs WOTS Update
❑ Grants Program Discussion
3 1 P a g u
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
Report on Capital Projects
❑ Funding Administration (2020 Budget)
❑ Staff report — LEAP program
Cemetery Board
The Board met September 17, 2020 (via Zoom) its agenda included:
❑ Chair's report
❑ Staff report on sales, burials, finances
❑ New Board members update Use of Cemetery funds
❑ Comp Plan discussions for 2020
Climate Protection Committee
The next scheduled meeting is scheduled for October 1, 2020. The Mayor's Climate Protection
Committee met last on September 3, 2020, the agenda included:
❑ Public Outreach
❑ Climate Action Plan Status
❑ City Council report
❑ Public outreach opportunities
❑ Developing partnerships
❑ Promoting Diversity and Inclusion of CPC
Conservation Advisory Committee
The next virtual meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2020. The Mayor's Conservation Advisory
Committee last met via Zoom on September 10 @ 3:00 p.m. Agenda highlights were:
❑ City Website plan and content
❑ Green website progress
❑ Salmon Safe Report, Scope of work
❑ Holistic Restoration Plan
❑ Environmental Stewardship volunteering
❑ Follow-up commitments/plans
Diversity Commission
❑ The next scheduled meeting is October 7, 2020 @ 6:00 pm. The Commission last met on
September 2, 2020. Agenda highlights were:
❑ Update from the City: Patrick Doherty, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
❑ Edmonds Police Department Community Engagement Team Q & A
❑ Subgroups — Policy Report
❑ Budget Updates
❑ Commissioner's Corner
❑ Demographics Report
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Commission has openings for two new members. Mayor Nelson particularly encourages
women, people of color, and other minorities to apply for service on this Commission. Interested
Edmonds residents must fill out and submit the official city application form, which may be found
41. Qy-
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
at this webpage: http://edmondswa.gov/boards-commissions-committees-openings.htm1.
Applications are due by 4:30, Wednesday, September 11.
The EDC's agenda for its next scheduled meeting will be available online. The Commission met
September 16, 2020, online, with the following agenda highlights:
❑ Commission Strengths — Discussion Segment
❑ Working Group discussions
❑ Goals, Solution Development
❑ Purpose of extended meeting
Housing Commission
The next meeting schedule will be available on-line
2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Public Engagement
❑ Policy Committee Updates.
❑ Round 2 Policy Ideas
❑ Next steps
The Commission met last on September 17,
Additional Housing Commission information is on the website.
Planning Board
The next meeting will be available on-line. The Planning Board last met, on-line on September 9,
2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Director Report
❑ Public Hearing on Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
❑ Tree Regulations Code Process Update
❑ Extended Agenda items
Historic Preservation Commission
The next meeting schedule will be available on-line
2020 via zoom. Agenda items included:
Li Discussion 2021 Historic Edmonds Calendar
❑ Commission Chair Comments
❑ Unfinished Business
❑ Action items
The Commission last met on September 10,
Tree Board
The next scheduled meeting is October 8, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers. The Commission
last met on September 3, 2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Street tree planting plan
❑ Web links project
❑ TB presentation to City Council
❑ Olympic Elementary School planting
❑ Tree tags
❑ Draft Tree resolution
5 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.a
New Business
❑ Senior Center plantings
❑ Possible visit to Urban Forestry Nursey — Mt. Vernon
Youth Commission
❑ The next meeting for the Youth Commissions planned to be October 7, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m.,
Frances Anderson Center. The Commission last met on September 16, 2020. Agenda
items included:
❑ Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
❑ Recruitment updates & strategies
❑ Ordinance Changes
❑ Suicide Prevention Month
❑ Increasing student representation
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
The next meeting will be available on-line. The Committee last met on July 20t" via zoom.
Agenda items included:
❑ Budget and Funding request(s)
❑ Approval of September 5, 2019 meeting summary
❑ Public Comment
Other Boards and Commissions
Due primarily to state restrictions on open public meetings during the coronavirus crisis,
meetings for the following boards and commissions were canceled for September. These include
meetings of the following groups:
Sister City Commission
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
The Community Calendar has some updates. Also, here is a reminder about the Saturday
Market:
Saturday Market (aka "Garden Market")
The farmers market in Edmonds is now located on Bell Street between 5t" and 6t" Avenues North.
Summer hours are in effect: 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. As long as COVID restrictions remain in place,
the market will have one dedicated entrance and exit, both located on either side of Centennial
Plaza. The number of customers is limited to two or three per vendor. About half of the vendors
from previous years will be set up at any one time. Spacing between booths will be maintained.
Currently, only produce vendors are serving the market. Ready -to -eat food will be added in the
next phase.
6 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 20
5.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/23/2020
Presentation on Development Activity
Staff Lead: Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Development Services Department gives a periodic update on development activity in the City.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Development Services Department gives a periodic update on development activity in the City. The
attached presentation was given to the City Council on July 21, 2020 and will be presented to the
Planning Board as part of this agenda item.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Development Activities Presentation
Packet Pg. 21
5.B.a
SHANE HOPE
Development Services Director
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES
c
0
r
R
r
c
as
N
N
L
a
c
0
c�
c
m
N
d
L
Q.
d
a
E
a-
0
a�
0
E
M
a
E
a
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 22
Development S
5.B.a
A N _.
Counter service, pre -
application meetings,
intake appointments.
a
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 23
Development 5
q:�_R7iTiTriiiiiT:
r
Packet Pg. 24
IMiM 17iYl� r r
Online Submit
Checks, Virtua
Meetings.
5.B.a
C
O
y ` O
c
a�
IL
*�T�S
14, Y
f
n
r
C
E
tals, Site
l a
a
-`'OF EDM Packet Pg. 25
f iopment 5
L�
City
Hall
Home
Office
Within weeks staff converted to an electronic
system and refined that system in the following
months.
ALL PERMITTING IS NOW ONLINE!
✓ City Hall close5.B.a
public
✓ Staff starts
telecommuting
✓ Permitting continues
Applications, plan
review, permit
issuance, customer
service
✓ Inspection procedure
modified frequently
due to construction
restrictions
✓ City website
continually updated t
assist customers
✓ City ordinance extent
permit expirations by
120 days
✓ 3 % credit card fee
suspended for all
permit transactions
CITY OF EDM packet Pg. 26
Development 5
5.B.a
- ,,.-��• =nary.,
cr woo
c
0
c
0
r
0
r
c
a�
y
L
a
CITY OF EDV
Packet Pg. 27
Development
i
5.B.a
March 23rd
Governor declares
o
shutdown of all
non -essential
business, including
a
construction
C
proj ects
0
• April24tn
Phase 1 allows
restarts of projects
previously
shutdown, along
with essential
proj ects
• June 5tn
Phase 2 allows
newly permitted
projects to start
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 28
Development 5
(Online Submittals
..ow"UyBuildingPer snit
.0
Getting Started - Resources - About Us Contact Us Help Login
■ in =MimiRai
��
1 ■ _•..
r
P,P-iiu -
k ° AimAM 0
jo
s
. ■ •.;.�, ter.
Ila
ia
rjFirl�,Win, .i
00 110
I
A
Apply for
Check
View My
Schedule
Pay
Visit Training
Permit
Status
Dashboard
Inspections
Fees
and Seminars
I
Site Visits to Local Businesses
WEA
ARRE.{
amp
•i OF ` a
i���
P10 _--
SI1PEllpjUT � ill{I� I I �.'l.r � � •IVoW.�il
N: �o:ao-s�oo
� � � l-* �� •�- a �_ _ � , i-y
I0710212K 2:40 710212UZU 16:21 — J
M
5.B.a
ir
MCOL '"r *A
Permit history, valuation
of activities, solar, impact
T fees and general facility
charges (GFQ
CITY OF EDM packet Pg. 31
Development S
5.B.a
Development Services
0
Permit History0
$2,000,000 1
$1,800,000 1 .o
$1,600,000 --- 1
$1,400,000--------------- ----- -- ------------ ------------- m
1
r
$1,200,000 --------------------------------- -- --- ------------ -- --- --- --- Q
1�
$1,000,000---------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------ ■---------- -- -- -- - o
\/-----------
$800,000
------------ -------
- -
6
6
r
c
M
4
$400,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
Q
$200,000
------------------
---
---
---
---
--
--
---
---
---
2
r
c
t
$0
0
Q
�n �0 r� 00 00 O� O N M It r— 00 01 O_ -- N M kn �0 l�
00 00 00 00 00 ON O� O) O1 O1 01 ON 0� 0� ON O O O O O O O O O O •--� •--� .-� �--� �--� �--�
00 D1
�--� .-�
a1 0� ON 0\ a1 01 01 01 O1 O\ 0\ 01 01 01 O� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O
N N
Total Devel Svc Revenue # Building Permits CITY OF EDM
'^`'
Development 5
Packet Pg. 32
5.B.a
Permits
Reviewed bydevelopment services 2018 vs. 2019
jLp_ Permit
M- # Issued # Issued
New
Single Family
Duplex
Apartment/Condo
Commercial
Mixed Use (Office/condo)
Additions / Alterations
Single Family
Apartment / Condo
Commercial
Other
Mechanical / Plumbing
Demolition
Miscellaneous
�ota�
am
57 26 $21,063,845 $11,692,071
2 (4units) 1(2units) $935,029 $131,125
1 ( 4units) 4(26units) $402,926 $3,343,502
1 0 $2,619,780 0
0
0
I
0
143 154 $9,088,843 $9,851,167
15 15 $785,891 $1,674,247
50 53 $10,100,158 $8,263,097
413/442
24
482
441/379
17
456
$3,051,647
$9,918,505
i A Packet Pg. 33
5.B.a
Engineering Division
Right-of-way, side sewer, street use, and encroachment
activity 2016-2019
Permits Issued 429
Permit Revenue $581082
Inspection & Review
$214,337
Revenue
415 460 447
$42,806 $581221 $41,595
$416,959 $2491427 $223,678
CITY OF EDM 'r'1r' !
packet Pg. 34
Development S
a
5.B.a
IMPACT FEES AND GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES (GEC's) FOR 2019 ;
0
Transportation Impact Fees
Parks Impact Fees
Water GFC
Sewer GFC
Storm GFC
$442,784
$731911
$229,805
$88,1464
$35,888
0
L
r
E
a
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 35
Development 5
5.B.a
Solar Permits
Year
..
Online
Online
2012
3
0
0%
2013
6
5
83%
2014
39
35
90%
2015
32
29
91%
2016
17
16
94%
2017
14
14
100%
2018
14
13
93%
2019
12
11
92%
0,
CITY OF EDM packet Pg. 3 !
Development S
a
5.B.a
5,745
m
Building
a
Inspections
Q
3,020
r
E
Engineering
Q
Inspections
E
a
CITY OF EDM Packet Pg. 37
Development S
0
Y ,
.a
Building
Inspections o
-
O
2019
L
2 3.9 5 avg/workir o
day
N
L
2020 >
V
April = 86
E
Inspections
June = 461
Inspections
=23.05
°° avg/working da`
_ a
CITY OF EDMmeff
k Development Spacket Pg. 38
�_
5.B.a
Key projects
I I MITJ M it 0 1 :J iy� I M"wa- - �',
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 39
Development 5
Kahlo's Cantina
Waterfront A
Center
P"Ar9
Post Office Mixed Use
Graphite
Civic Field
** Von's Bell St APT. �
Studios��
Main Street
Commons
�..�.W� lllllllll
1
F �
i Paradise Heights
Westgate Jkl
it Woods w'
Westgate II,
it Village ft � Kisan
ourt
art
Apts. --
166
An
imp
Meitzner
1
fflianji
IP
Anthology
Senior Living Kic
Founc
9 Cummings Apts. Acad
i
Edmonds
Village
i
Doufg's�
Mazda 1
' Doug's
HyunEa
Community Healt
Center €--'
GRE
Apartments
Edmonds "I�
Crossing Apts.
�' potoo
n Nyland
Apts.
`7
0
a I a
Packet Pg. 40 1
R
Post Office
-a�± -A
phase II
Peoplei
28 Units + 7,600 sf
New_Commercial
- 201 Main St .
Fina
IZ
Cummings Apartments
4. i
..la'
F.
-14
- 4 New Residential Units
20904-72ndAve W
i
Finales
,Westgate
-771
J011
%%;z-
Q ca 9
illage
v
IM JN k
lot
0 rim
IV
fi�ll 1!
- r
Lo
gg.
91 Units +3,100 i''
New Commercial {� �'
10032 Edmonds Way
AM
Fin
Edmonds V
sae
Tenant Improvement
22019 Highway 99
0 A
�l
MV
AV
-br ea.
.010.
It,
Finaled
Image Courtesy oll
I
s Founda
n
Change of Use
21827-76th Ave W
WN IP p0_
tior
i Acadei
�1
■ Y
Y�
'I
'brume
7HDFF55mm
CQ.iFll L_, '
Finaled
i
Doug's Mazda Showroom & Service Centefl,
mazoa
s,
'�1'J r. •'r r`�
II ...
"fin 2 + �• r, r'e...
-� .-Ills 0 Iowa,
a
n,,,rjr
;
r J
13,900 sf
New Commercial
22214 Highway 99
7-71
-'T
1
pqft.,Line%110-1kA
.. 46
�. , '�' .
i
ouMazda Service Center -
. .t
ki
AA
..I, WE
fp
j.
7 1 S
AW
1 V r
Awl
sf
New Commercial
22214 Highway 99 _ Isst
Doug's Hyundai Service Center
�_ i
71.
jW.
A
I moll f iuYi I l�I ��JJ� + j,lr
fli Lm
-�=
J �il
Oft
12, 000 Sf =-
New Commercial
22214 Highway 99
vaCKet Fg. 4t$
rlw-�
LWaterfront Center
L�
77
00
. . . . . . . . . . . .
26,000 sf New Commercial
220 Railroad Ave.
Issued
Packet Pg. 49
j7 -57
Kahlo's Cantina
,"I _aIII III ............o-::u..u...�.nu.... ..... -h------='=_ ,,.
u i uuun i nr��r �� r����i�i i iNuu
102 Main St. Issued
Community Health Center
AEF
go MEN 6 a
Pei
7,000 sf Addition
23320 Highway 99
1 11 one 1 ;111
ILI
Nato
Issued
GRE Apartments
ON —
of W -
..MM to
00
owe
S .�,
;woo
192 New Residential Units
23400 Highway 99
0 coq Lima'
+ It.f.
. all
Issued
ti
K'
Nyland
New Residential Units
509 244th St. SW
to
oni_ s Bell St. Apartments.
w .1/
I e,-q
r Tye-
� }I
x
4 New Residential Units
650 Bell St.
Graphite Studios
11,000 sf New Commercial
202 Main St.
Issued
".don MF`I,Moo�
Anthology o monds
MAI
ftir4 i
OJ
-A6mL-
Senior Living
192 Units
21200 72"tl Ave W.
aradise Heights
Q0
12 New Residential Units
546 Paradise Lane
Mai
Applied
Kisan Townhomes
..Sig
min.
"i7 V
18 New Residential Units
22810 Edmonds Way
0
W
ilk .._
:.: age,
em lo,
:::�=L' P"
0 P. 'L
•
Applied
Edmonds Crossing
I�I;�.;IIII1IVI�.I�Nlill
:
10 New Residential Units
1 23830 Edmonds Way
A
Applied jj
Calvarown omes
Id
El
pp!:;
4 New Townhome Units
21222 82"d pl. SW """`�
I
Applied
Pg.
60
5.B.a
iviai n street - = om mons
w �s�.,:,� .,�i•5` �,�litiy � 'y ttii lid;�� ���� 1 1w.1' � ''�,� -
pill I
. -;` .
a
EI
Retail, restaurant, and
event space
550 Main St.
O
C
O
L
a
i
m
C
d
L �
a
-
N
r
v
c
CD
Q.
0
O
7@
r
r
a
V
a
Packet Pg. 61
11�
I Civic Field
Sprague St
r
f r L
Sal D WS
MIA
THE GREAT LAWN
Sprague St
r
- ,fr
�.
'
a■>.
r�
' rwci
Edmonds 5
Applied
Single Family Remodels
x• � � _ y a4"O�
- •� �. III ,.. '- -
�.1 O 1
-AIA
{ *► ''
Main St.
1
-il
s
�YF
WhAve.
5.B.a
c
0
r
0
r
c
a�
W
a�
L
IL
ME
MmMu
CITYOF EDM Packet Pg. 64
Development 5
5.B.a
c
0
c
AFN 2OF707t Y8 R
FAVo REEAR & r
L ACT 999
PRNTE RIOAD s' o a
17,077 SF
1-UV : 57.74' w w 77,00'— f
— — — — _ — — —
to t17�LJ7Y-----�---
fASEMfN T ` — — + C f — 1 MU0,57V 80 48' — ayi
W PGa
-
f� I
` I 4 $`w iC pFM
,4 CAST ; Q
L TR OO'LOT 1
J I a0i
854 SF Pj LOT 2 LOT 3 �W E
8 551 SF -0� 0.
a 065 SF LOT 4 I' f 2
fi` r B 2a9 SF I 03BB 5F �_ >
X3' t5' Ui�ITY ORNNA E EASFi4}EIMr f
c
AND 15' SAAUTARY SEWR EA'&FMC T TO
OLWWP'C KEW WA7ER & S1ENER OSTROT � E
AFN 201' 707?W813 t
94, 77' 1 lM V647 W 4MO- ro' LIV u
0V an A9V
2'.50'
745TNG ASPHAL r
2MXM)AMVO 47 W 41a.27'
%KMS SS RCAD
TRACT 998
OPEN SPACE
f GAP;
c
s.so' E
ca
Q
CITYOF EDM Pg. 65
Development packet S
215TH
sT SW
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I III
I
I
I
T '
I
P!M@ ST
MY PLAT a•orae.:
xa Majo>asy4
— — 215TH PL SW — —
5.B.a
c
0
C
0
r
0
C
a�
aD
IL
S R
F
N
d
d
r
art 2
a
E
:z
0
t
C1
cC
Q
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 66
Development S
5.B.a
CITY OF EDV
Packet Pg. 67
Development
ew Single Family Homes
.M
-
�:
Edmo I 2ndAve N.
ew Single Family Homes
Cary Road 13'h Ave
5.B.a
THANKYOU
CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 70
Development S
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/23/2020
Joint meeting with Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
Staff Lead: Rob Chave / Angie Feser
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Joint meeting with Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee (MCAC). The Planning Board is an
advisory board to the Edmonds City Council, and the MCAC is a newly established advisory body to
Mayor Nelson.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
1. Introductions (5 minutes)
Planning Board and MCAC members
2. Roles and Responsibilities (10 minutes)
Staff summary, including who each entity reports to and their role or area of responsibility
3. Planning Board Current Priorities (10 minutes)
Summary of approved work program and priorities, including extended agenda
4. MCAC Current Priorities (10 minutes)
Current and ongoing work
5. Opportunities to Coordinate or Cooperate (15 minutes)
All
Packet Pg. 71
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/23/2020
Review of Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Review the Extended Agenda.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 72
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
PUMM S BOARD
Extended Agenda
September 23, 2020
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER, 2020
September 1. Report on Development Activity
23 2. Joint meeting with Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
3. Climate Goals Planning — Status Update and Discussion
OCTOBER, 2020
October 1. Discussion on development code work: EV Charging Infrastructure
14 2. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
October 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update
28
November, 2020
November 1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
11
November (No meeting —Thanksgiving Holiday week)
25
December, 2020
December 1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes,
9 2. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging
December (No meeting — Christmas Holiday week)
23
a
Packet Pg. 73
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates implementing the UFMP
2020-21 2.
Implementation / code updates implementing climate goals
3.
Implementation / code updates addressing WA state roadmap
4.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
5.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
6.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
7.
Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs)
8.
Nonconforming buildings and redevelopment issues
9.
Subdivision code updates
10.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
11.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — March?
4. Development Activity Update
5. Joint meeting with EDC?
Q
Packet Pg. 74