Loading...
2021-02-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom February 10, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Monroe read the land acknowledgement. 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 Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Roger Pence Daniel Robles READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner VICE CHAIR CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2021 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen 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. REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff. Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently. Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and "Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or outdoor open decks. Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking spaces are not part of a business's required parking. Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements, including making sure that access was ADA compliant. Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information. Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use. Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020 (Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections. However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010. He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply. Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5), which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24'. CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application, the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 2 Citizen Design Collaborative is proposing to add the Downtown Business (BD) zones to the areas in Edmonds where the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision is applicable. He reviewed that United Lot Subdivisions are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multiple Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed use (WMU) zones. He said the applicant has submitted a parallel application for design review for a 14-unit complex at the old Baskin Robbins and Curve site. The proposal is to construct residential and live/work units on the site and then apply the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision on top of the buildings once constructed. However, this isn't currently allowed because the property is located in the BC zone. Mr. Clugston said there have been a number of Unit Lot Subdivision Projects over the last several years in the RM, WMU and CG zones that have worked out very well. Staff believes the proposed amendment makes sense in those areas in the BD zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor. The amendment might also be applicable to other areas of Edmonds, and staff is suggesting the Board consider the option of making the amendment more general to cast a broader net to include all zones where ground -floor multifamily dwelling units are allowed. This would include Office Residential, Firdale Village Mixed Use and Downtown Business zones, as well as any future subarea plans that allows ground -floor residential units. Board Member Pence noted that Unit Lot Subdivisions were only written into the code in 2017. He asked why the provision was written so narrowly to apply only to a limited set of zones. Mr. Clugston said he doesn't recall exactly why. But, generally, the RM, CG and MU zones were areas where they anticipated that Unit Lot Subdivisions would occur first. Five of the six projects were in RM zones. Based on these projects' success, staff believes it makes sense to allow them in the other zones, too. Mr. Chave said, sometimes, there are unusual configurations of property, and you don't always see how a multifamily use that fits this kind of development could occur. That may be why they missed applying the use more broadly. Board Member Pence agreed that application of the provision should be broadened as recommended by staff. Chair Rosen asked the worse concern staff can imagine someone might raise at the public hearing. Mr. Clugston said he can't think of one at this point. The look of the development on the ground would not change, as Unit Lot Subdivision would simply drops property lines on walls. It is an alternative to the condominium process, and he felt it makes sense to allow it wherever ground -floor multifamily units are allowed. Vice Chair Crank said the only concern she foresees is about the look and feel of the downtown core. She noted a recent story that was posted on MY EDMONDS NEWS about the design of the proposed project has already caused a stir. Mr. Clugston said the proposed amendment is a separate issue from the design. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, the applicant could build the units as long as Design Review and Building Permit approval are obtained. The question is how ownership will be divided up. The applicant could construct the units and then go through the condominium process, and the City would have no say whatsoever. If the amendment is adopted, the applicant would go through a separate process (Unit Lot Subdivision). In either case, the look of the buildings would not change. He agreed that this is something that would need to be clearly explained at the public hearing. Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed amendment could result in parking impacts. Mr. Clugston answered no, and advised that parking would be addressed as part of the Design Review and Building Permit processes. Board Member Monroe asked for reasons why developers might want to use the Unit Lot Subdivision option as opposed to the already established provisions in the code. Mr. Clugston answered that, currently, there is no provision in the code that would allow the applicant to do a subdivision. Right now, Unit Lot Subdivisions are only allowed in RM, CG and WMU zones. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow the use in the BD zone to specifically take advantage of the fee simple option as opposed to the condominium process or rentals. Board Member Monroe asked why Unit Lot Subdivisions are an advantage over the condominium process. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the condominium process is more difficult, is not a public process, and it is hard to get insurance for the units. The zero -lot -line process used in other cities is the process that a lot of developers use to create fee -simple lots. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the adoption of the proposed amendment would not change the density allowed, the look and feel of development or the parking requirements. He noted that condominiums haven't been built in Washington for a number of years because of insurance issues, and the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision would make it easier for developers. He said anticipates that the greatest concern that might be raised at the public hearing is that the amendment would densify Edmonds and particularly the downtown core. Vice Chair Crank agreed with that concern. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 3 Board Member Pence suggested one reason developers do not like to do condominiums has to do with builder's liability. Under Washington's Condominium Law, builders have a very long period of time when they are liable for defects in the buildings, and they have been hit with some major lawsuits by homeowner associations. With Unit Lot Subdivisions, all of these issues go away. Board Member Robles noted that builder's liability lasts for eight years. In addition, there are building envelop laws associated with condominiums. You can't simply flip a building from an apartment to a condominium. You have to make sure that the building is structurally sound and that the building envelope, itself, meets a new standard. The windows have to retain certain energy requirements and other requirements would apply, as well. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment would be a quick way for developers to get around a significant amount of regulation associated with the condominium process. Board Member Cloutier observed that once a property is subdivided, each new division would have to meet all of the standards for construction. Mr. Chave said Unit Lot Subdivisions should be thought of as a different form of ownership: condominium versus subdivision. The standards and requirements would be the same for either. Chair Rosen asked if the potential concerns that the amendment would change the character or increase density could be considered fatal flaws that lead the Board to recommend denial. Mr. Clugston emphasized that the amendment would not result in changes in the character of an area or increased density. He referred to the "Purpose" section, which clearly states that "Unit Lot Subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which they are proposed. " Board Member Monroe said he appreciates that the proposed amendment would not change density. However, it should be noted that the current condominium law is holding back densification. By removing that dam, they could see a tidal wave of redevelopment in the downtown. He said he isn't a huge fan of the proposed amendment, as it will not do anything to address housing for the "missing middle." It seems it will simply make rich people richer. He suggested it is disingenuous to imply that the City isn't making it easier to develop this type of unit in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Pence agreed that the code change related to ownership options would make the construction of town homes a more attractive option for developers. However, it is important to consider that town homes are, by definition, a low to moderate density development for a downtown area. If they receive push back from the public, he doesn't believe it will be well-grounded. Vice Chair Crank asked if a Unit Lot Subdivision would include the ground floor. If so, could commercial be part of that ground -floor level? Mr. Clugston explained that the subdivision could apply to a live/work unit where the ground floor is a commercial use, with residential uses above. But primarily, the developments would be entirely residential. Board Member Pence asked if ground -floor commercial is required in the BD zone along 51 Avenue, or is it just an option the developer is choosing. Mr. Clugston answered that commercial is required on the ground floor along certain street fronts, including 5' Avenue. The applicant's solution is to develop live/work units, where there is a commercial use on the ground floor with residential above where the operator or owner of the business would live. Board Member Pence noted that some cities require the occupant of the ground -floor space to have a business license to establish the voracity of the business use so it doesn't become just another town home. He asked if the City would require a license. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be something to consider, as it makes sense to have the uses separated in some way. Board Member Monroe commented that the intent of the first -floor commercial requirement is to activate the space. Spaces that are occupied by businesses that do not invite the public in goes against the intent of the zoning. Mr. Clugston advised that any commercial use can be located on the ground floor in theory, and there is currently a broad range of businesses in the downtown area (office, service, retail, etc.). Mr. Chave added that, historically, live/work units are found back east. When the country was young, that was fairly typical. The use is not quite as common in the western United States because developers tended to build out because there was so much space. However, with the new urbanism that has occurred over the last two decades, live/work situations are becoming more common. They are seeing more demand or interest from people Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 4 who want to live close to where they work. Board Member Monroe commented that if the live/work units must be owner - occupied, people would have to move if their businesses close down. Vice Chair Crank said she plans to seek feedback from a friend who owns live/work space in Seattle. His optician business is on the ground floor, and he lives above. Vice Chair Crank asked if the proposed amendment would override the ground floor commercial requirement in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clugston answered no. Chair Rosen asked if the Board would have an opportunity to weigh in on how the regulations associated with Unit Lot Subdivisions are enforced. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment is related solely to the Unit Lot Subdivision provision, and is unrelated to the ground -floor commercial use or other zoning requirements. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of a live/work unit could use the ground floor space for a business, but rent out the upper floor to someone else. Mr. Clugston noted that the City hasn't permitted any live/work unit development to date. The use and owner -occupancy requirement will need further thought. However, that is a separate question from the proposed amendment. Chair Rosen suggested the Board Members keep the questions raised in their minds as they become further informed at the public hearing on March 24'. In preparation for the hearing, he suggested that the Board provide feedback to staff about whether the amendment should be geographically specific to the BD zone or opened up to a broader area. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the amendment might be more difficult to adopt if it is applied broadly. Mr. Clugston didn't believe that would be the case because Unit Lot Subdivisions are already allowed in many other parts of the City. The amendment would simply allow a developer to drop property lines down on a use that is already allowed in the zone. Vice Chair Crank said she is open to consider a broader application of the amendment to other zones in the City, but she isn't ready to recommend its application in the BD zone at this time. Chair Rosen asked if the applicant could develop the same project under the current zoning if the amendment is denied, and Board Member Monroe answered that the project would not likely pencil out. Board Member Cloutier requested that staff provide the Board with a before and after map to illustrate the areas that would be impacted by the proposed amendment based on the two options. Chair Rosen asked if the Board could recommend denial of the amendment now. Mr. Chave answered no and explained that the Planning Board must conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. The Board indicated general consensus that the amendment should be presented in the broader context at the public hearing. The description for the hearing should make it clear how the amendment evolved, and that it is being sparked by a very specific request for a very specific property. BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE BROADER APPLICATION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPOINTMENT OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Rosen asked about the process for appointing a new Student Representative to the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would advertise the position next week. He recalled that, in the past, the Board set up a subcommittee to interview the candidates and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board agreed to follow that process, with Board Member Robles taking the lead. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 5 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen advised that the Board would discuss potential code amendments related to electrical vehicle charging stations on February 24'. The Planning Board Retreat will be on March loth, and the March 24' agenda will include two public hearings on potential code amendments related to Unit Lot Subdivisions and Outdoor Dining. Given the importance of the Housing Commission's work and affordable housing, in general, Board Member Pence suggested it would be helpful to invite a member if the Commission to provide an overview of the Housing Commission's report on February 241. Chair Rosen said he is also curious about their recommendations but noted that many of the items will be irrelevant to the Board's work. He suggested the Board should wait until the City Council has had an opportunity to discuss the recommendations and provide guidance. Board Member Pence said that if he was convinced the City Council would act expeditiously, he would support waiting. He said, as per the Planning Board's charter, the Board doesn't need to passively wait for the City Council and staff to throw issues at them. The Board has the ability to initiate issues that are important enough. Mr. Chave cautioned that the Housing Commission was specifically set up to advise the City Council, and the Board should be hesitant to get in the way of that process. Again, Board Member Pence commented that affordable housing is an important issue and he is nervous about the Board laying back and waiting for the City Council to take action. Chair Rosen asked the other Board Members for feedback on whether they should invite the Housing Commission to brief the Board on their work or wait until the City Council has provided further direction. Vice Chair Crank agreed that the Board should wait and not try to circumvent the City Council. Board Member Cheung agreed. Board Member Cloutier suggested that Chair Rosen meet with the City Council president to convey the Board's desire to tackle housing issues as soon as the Council provides direction. Vice Chair Crank noted that she and Chair Rosen have already reached out to the City Council President and Mayor Nelson, and the Council President has already prioritized a joint meeting between the Board and the City Council after the Housing Commission has presented its report. Board Member Monroe said he would support the Board reaching out to the Housing Commission for a briefing. Board Member Robles recalled that, when the Housing Commission was formed, the Planning Board reached out with an offer to work with them. He felt the Board should continue to offer help. Chair Rosen agreed to follow up with the City Council President, indicating the Board's interest and eagerness in helping implement the Housing Commission's recommendations. He would also ask about the City Council's timeline and when the Board might hear more about items that will be coming their way. Vice Chair Crank asked when the Housing Commission would present its report to the City Council. Mr. Chave said the Housing Commission recently provided a brief summary of the report, and he believes the more detailed presentation will occur in March. He agreed it would be appropriate for Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank to speak with the Council President to get a feeling of where they are in the process and when the Planning Board will begin to actively work on implementation. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Robles reported that he received correspondence from past Student Representative Connor Bryan, following up on his request for information about how the Board could make the Student Representative position more meaningful. Mr. Bryan provided some very good suggestions, and there may be an opportunity actually form a curriculum around the activity. With Chair Rosen's permission, he agreed to forward the comments to each of the Board members via the City's email. Board Member Pence suggested that the Board should work more closely with the student to make the experience better for him/her. Chair Rosen agreed that the Board should find ways to involve the Student Representative more. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 6