Loading...
2021-03-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom March 24, 2021 Chair Rosen 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 Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe (joined at 7:15 p.m.) Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner The minutes for the March 10, 2021 meeting were not available for approval. 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. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENTS TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS (FILE NUMBER AMD2020-0003) Mr. Clugston advised that this is a code amendment request from a private applicant, Citizen Design Collaborative, who has proposed a 14-unit townhome project at 614/615 5t1i Avenue S that is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board. He explained that Unit Lot Subdivisions (ULS) are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multifamily Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed -Use (WMU) zones. The applicant's proposed amendment would expand Staff subsequently proposed an alternative amendment that would further broaden the applicability language to include any zone where multifamily residential development is allowed on the ground floor. He pointed to the following attachments that were included in the Staff Report: • Attachment 1 — Cover letter from the request from the applicant, Citizen Design • Attachment 2 — Draft code amendment • Attachment 3 — Minutes from the Planning Board's February 10, 2021 meeting • Attachment 4 — A Map of ULS applicability in Edmonds Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ULS process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities to divide fee -simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivisions. At that time, it was felt that the ULS process would apply best to the CG, RM and WMU zones. When the proposed amendment came in, staff agreed that the ULS process could work well in the BD zones, and felt it could be further broadened to include the Office Residential (OR) and Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zones. He recalled that staff discussed both options with the Planning Board at their February 101 meeting, and the Board determined it would be appropriate to move the broader language to a public hearing. Mr. Clugston said that, as he prepared for the hearing, he noticed that some additional clarity was needed. As a result, he proposed the following small change to the language the Board considered at the last meeting. • ECDC 20.75.045(B) — Applicability. The first sentence would be changed to read, "The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhomes, and rowhouses in any zone where ground floor dwelling units or live/work units are allowed. " Live/work units are considered a residential building type according to the Building Code, and the change makes the language more specific as to where a ULS could occur. Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) showing the zones where ULS is currently allowed, the proposed zones where ULS would be allowed if the code amendment is adopted, and the location of the five ULS projects that have received approval or are currently under review. He summarized that the amendment would encompass the BD zones, as well as a few parcels in the OR and FVMU zones. He said staff believes the proposed amendment would create the ability for some interesting new projects in those areas. He reminded them that all projects would require design and building permit review before a ULS could be applied over top of them, and a ULS would not change density or allowed uses. It is simply a way to create fee -simple lots that have townhouse -type units on them. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, said Mr. Clugston did a great job presenting the proposed amendment. He said the intent of the amendment is to provide an alternate means of ownership for project types that are already permitted under the code. Presently, the ECDC allows the construction of live/work units and townhomes in the BD zones, but they cannot be subdivided and sold fee simple. This requires them to be condominiumized instead. The intent is to provide some flexibility to property owners in the zone in terms of how the ownership structure of a given project will be put together. Dr. John Hogue, Edmonds, said he is a member of the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC), and serves on the EDC's Neighborhood District Subcommittee, of which Firdale Village is one. However, he was present to speak only as a private citizen. He said he is opposed to expanding the ULS provision to the BD, OR and FVMU zones, as he felt it would further erode existing commercial space set aside for businesses and stifle job creation and business recruitment for the City. If the City truly wants live/work in Edmonds, he suggested they stop prioritizing housing at the expense of commercial space. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 2 He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, Mr. Clugston stated that ULS has worked very well in the Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone. However, this is highly debatable, as two commercial spaces are still vacant two years after Westgate Village opened. The housing above restricts the types of businesses that can use the commercial space. Because the housing is maximized, the footprint of the ground floor commercial space is minimized, and the commercial spaces at Westgate Village are small. The lack of tenants is not due to the pandemic; it is due to incentivizing housing. He expressed his opinion that the WMU zoning has not worked well at all, and he is afraid the same situation will play out in the BD and FVMU zones if they start to incentivize housing de facto by making it easier to do a ULS. Michelle Douch, Edmonds, said she has followed this process, along with the Housing Commission's work on the Housing Action Plan. She recalled that, as originally proposed, the amendment would only apply to the BD-3 zone. She only recently learned that it has been expanded to include the entire BD zone, as well as the OR and other zones where ground floor multifamily residential is allowed. She is concerned that the proposal would change the zoning in multiple areas of the City under the cover of a single project. She feels that transparency is lacking for the community to know this is happening. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to create neighborhood village plans, transitional zones, etc. that allow for this type of development, which means there will be other smaller areas in the City that would be allowed to have tract townhome development. Because the proposed amendment would be applied to a much greater area of the City, she suggested that the process be slowed down to allow for greater public involvement. They should consider its impacts beyond just this one project. Mr. Pontius clarified that the proposed amendment is intended to modify an ownership model rather than allowable uses. Regulations related to parking, design, etc. would remain unchanged. The amendment is intended to address how the property is owned post construction, and the City would retain its ability to limit uses in a given zone, require design review, etc. The ULS would occur after all of the permits have been reviewed and approved, rather than something that is done to establish properties in order for entitlement to take place later. Again, he said anything that is constructed would have to be compliant with the current code, but it could be divided and sold off. As no one else indicated a desire to testify, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the meeting. Board Member Cloutier observed that a lot of the public concern appears to be that the number of residential units allowed to be developed would increase if the amendment is approved. However, based on the Board's discussion at the last meeting, the density would not change. The number of residential units allowed would not change. The only thing that would change is the manner in which ownership of the units is handled. Mr. Clugston agreed that is correct. Board Member Cloutier summarized that, if approved, the amendment would not make more units available for residential use than is allowed under the current code. Mr. Clugston again agreed that is correct. Board Member Robles said he understands that condominium development is required to pass certain standards in terms of building envelope, ceilings, windows, etc. He asked if the ULS process would enable developers to skirt these standards or if the standard of build would be the same. Mr. Clugston said he is not familiar with specific condominium requirements, but the Building Division will review all projects to make sure they comply with the applicable building requirements. While he is not an expert on these requirements, it is likely the International Residential Building Code would apply. Again, Board Member Robles observed that the requirements to build a condo include some stringent building standards, and that adds cost to construction. There is also some associated construction liability. He asked if these requirements would be equally applicable to ULS ownership as they are to condominium ownership. Mr. Chave said his understanding is that the multifamily building code standards are applicable to all multifamily development, regardless of ownership. However, he acknowledged that there may be some differences as far as insurance rates, liability, etc. Board Member Monroe asked what problem the proposed amendment is trying to fix. He also questioned if the amendment would allow developers to skirt quality standards. He voiced concern that the Board doesn't have enough information, at this time, to consider the full consequences of the amendment. Mr. Chave said the only difference would be that of ownership. It would be a choice of whether a person wants to own the entire unit separately (fee simple) or be part of a larger condominium organization. Board Member Monroe commented that there are liability requirements that protect condominium owners that would not be required for ULS. He asked if that would have an effect on the quality of construction. Mr. Chave explained that a condominium association would have certain rules for how they operate, and a single owner would operate differently. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 3 In terms of liability, there might be differences in insurance, whether it is joint insurance for the entire building versus an individual unit, but this would not impact the building standards that apply. He concluded that only the Building Official could provide a definitive answer to address this concern. Chair Rosen suggested the Board could delay its recommendation until the Building Official could answer the Board's questions and concerns, or they could make a recommendation now that is contingent upon the Building Official's response. Board Member Monroe asked why the condominium model has largely failed in Edmonds. If the answer is tied to liability or quality, he felt the Board should explore the issue further before making a recommendation. Mr. Chave responded that staff s understanding is that the proponents would prefer to do a ULS. If that doesn't work, they will simply go ahead with a condominium. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums have been constructed in the City over the past 15 years, as his understanding is that condominium development in the State of Washington has been arrested due to liability and quality issues. Mr. Chave said there were particular issues in the 1990s with how certain materials were being used or applied and that is where the issues of liability lawsuits and bank reluctance came into play. A lot of condominiums were being built using this cheap and easy method of construction, but these problems have largely been solved over the intervening years. But again, he said he isn't an expert in this field. He suggested the Board ask the applicant to respond to why he is interested in doing a ULS as opposed to a condominium. Mr. Pontius said he can't speak to this issue directly. The decision was made by the developer, and he was directed to pursue the option. His somewhat limited understanding is that, from the developer's perspective, the target market prefers the fee - simple ownership model to the condominium -association model. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums the developer has constructed in the State of Washington over the past 15 years. Mr. Pontius said he has only been in the profession for the past 7 years, so he hasn't done very many. He said he could follow up with his colleagues to see how common they are. His firm typically does apartment buildings that are sometimes condominiumized and sometimes held for rental. This decision is made by the owner later in the process. However, their townhouse developments are usually ULS rather than condominiumized. Vice Chair Crank said she would prefer to delay the Board's recommendation, as she feels that some subject matter expertise is missing in order for her to make a definitive recommendation. On a larger scale, she said she is feeling quite uncomfortable making a recommendation for the whole when the amendment was submitted to address one particular project. She doesn't want to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project only to find out later that it isn't appropriate for some areas. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern that these questions were not raised at the last meeting, and Board Member Robles answered that they were. Board Member Cloutier said he did a quick search and there are no different rules for construction of condominiums. A condominium is a method of ownership of an apartment, townhouse or other building envelope. The building envelope and how it is subdivided is what determines the rules for construction in the code. Condominium associations can establish their own rules, but that is not the Board's concern. The Board's concern is about the use of land. In this proposal, the use of land would not change in any way except how it is owned. He questioned how changes in how the land is owned would impact the community. Board Member Robles observed that there is a litany of requirements associated with converting apartments to condominiums, including the air tightness, insulation, window quality, door quality, water vapor penetration through the skin of the building, sealants, etc. It is barely feasible, particularly since the new condominium laws were enacted in 2015 to protect the owners. The Planning Board's mandate is to do what is in the best interest of the citizens. The laws are there for a reason, and he isn't entirely sure they have fleshed out the cost and benefit to society in having this one project influence other future projects. While he is not recommending denial at this time, the Board needs some definitive answers to address the concerns. Mr. Chave said the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for must the BD zones, consistent with the applicant's original request. The only reason staff suggested the larger applicability was the desire to avoid piecemeal changes over time. He commented that converting rental units to condominiums is an entirely different issue because it involves a single property owner dividing the building into individual ownerships. With ULS and condominiums situations, there are separate owners for each unit and the building standards do not vary. When converting an older rental building, the Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 4 Building Official will look much more carefully at how the building complies with the current building codes. With new construction, developers would have a choice as to the type of ownership they are building for, but the constructions standards would remain the same. Board Member Cheung observed that the proposed amendment would not prohibit condominium development. It would simply open it up to allow townhome development, too. Mr. Clugston said it would allow both fee -simple and condominium ownership. Board Member Cheung questioned the Board's interest in deciding whether one ownership option is better than another. He said he doesn't know how allowing only condominium ownership would benefit the City. Unless he hears that the City has a special interest in only allowing condominiums, he is ready to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Robles said his concerns are related to building standards. If he was assured that the building standards would be the same for either condominiums or ULS, he would support the proposed amendment. Board Member Cheung noted that staff has indicated that the only change would be related to ownership and all other building standards would apply in either case. Board Member Robles said he wants to make sure that is, in fact, the case. He wants assurance that the proposed amendment would not open the door for a developer to build a lower -quality project than what would be required for a condominium development. Board Member Monroe didn't disagree with the comments provided by Board Members Cloutier and Cheung. However, he felt it would be entirely appropriate for the Board Members to consider the potential consequences. They should acknowledge that condominiums are more difficult to build because they come with strings attached and developers can be held responsible for poor quality. These same requirements would not apply to ULS projects. The amendment would make ULS projects easier to build, and they could presumably have worse quality. Even if the quality were the same, there would be no recompense to sue the developer once they are done. Vice Chair Crank said she is hesitant to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project. She would feel better about making a recommendation now if the Board had the ability to come to consensus on the original amendment that would apply only in the BD3 zone. Chair Rosen reviewed the Board's potential options as follows: • Continue the hearing to a future date and request more information from staff. • Make a recommendation on the original amendment proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. • Make a recommendation on the broader amendment, as presented in the Staff Report. • Make a recommendation on either the broader amendment or the original amendment, but make it conditional. Board Member Cloutier referred to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.55 (Multifamily Construction Defect Claims), which applies equally to condominiums, apartments, etc., and simply address how a building is constructed. Again, he said there are no separate laws that only apply to condominiums. In a transfer of ownership, the code name is condominium and the exact same building requirements apply. He said he doesn't see any reason to object to the proposed amendment or postpone a recommendation. He suggested that the Board consider two recommendations. First, they could make a recommendation on the applicant's original proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. Second, the Board could make a recommendation on whether or not the proposed amendment should be applied more broadly, as recommended by staff. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FIRST, AND THEN CONSIDER ITS BROADER APPLICATION TO OTHER ZONES IN THE CITY AS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston clarified that the applicant's original proposal was to apply the ULS process in all of the BD zones throughout the downtown area. It was not specific to the applicant's property or even just the BD3 zone. Staff s proposal was to expand the amendment to also apply to the OR and FVMU zones. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 5 VICE CHAIR CRANK MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO APPLY THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN ALL OF THE BD ZONING DISTRICTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Robles asked why the applicant's proposal was so broad to include all of the BD zones. Mr. Clugston said the applicant requested to change the applicability of the ULS process to add the BD zones. It was not specific to the BD3 zone. Again, staff suggested that the amendment be expanded to include the OR and FVMU zones. Board Member Monroe said he has environmental concerns regarding the proposed amendment, as well as how it might impact the City's housing strategy. He is also concerned about the points raised by Dr. Hogue about its potential impact to commercial development. The Board has an opportunity to postpone its recommendation to allow more time to get it right. Board Member Cloutier again asked how the amendment would change the density allowed, the number of units or housing availability. The only change would be to ownership. The issue to be addressed in the housing strategy is having units that are affordable, and the amendment would not have any impact. He suggested that the Board Members should have raised all of these issues and requested additional information at their earlier discussion in February. It is not acceptable to raise these concerns late in the process because it appears to be throwing up roadblocks as an excuse not to get things done. Once again, Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) and pointed out that the ULS process can be applied in all of the red areas, which is a mixture of RM zones primarily along 212t' Street SW, 76r' Avenue W, 196t1i Street SW and Edmonds Way, as well as the WMU zone in the Westgate area and the CG zones along Highway 99. There haven't been any ULS projects in that WMU zone yet, but there have been some in the RM and CG zones throughout the City. The applicant's request is to add the BD zones, and staff added three parcels zoned OR and the FVMU zone. He concluded that the process is already used in a number of locations, and it is just one more option in the toolbox that developers have. Board Member Robles asked why the amendment was not initiated by staff or the Housing Commission. If it is such a great underlying strategy for the City, it should come from the City staff rather than from a developer. He cautioned that it isn't possible to understand all of the condominium laws based on one Google search. There is more to it than that. Again, he asked why staff didn't propose the amendment. Mr. Clugston said the original application of the ULS process came through a private -developer request in 2016-17, and the Board reviewed and recommended approval of the request to apply the ULS process in the CG, WMU and RM zones. While staff could have proposed an amendment to apply the ULS to additional zones, it wasn't on their radar until it was brought up by a private developer to address his project in the BD3 zone. In both cases, the ULS amendments were proposed by developers. Mr. Chave added that it is also a question of timing. Staff has a lot of code amendment issues on their plate, and it hadn't occurred to them to propose the change. The developer felt it was important enough for their project to submit a development code amendment. Board Member Robles said he supports approving the change for just the project area, but the Board needs to have a broader discussion, as well as more information, before it can be applied to other zones in the City. Board Member Cheung commented that the fact that staff recommended a broader application of the amendment leads him to believe that they think it is a good thing that will allow developers more options. Board Member Monroe asked if staff's intent is to encourage more development in the BD, OR and FVMU zones. Mr. Chave disagreed that the proposed amendment would encourage more development. From staff s perspective, it would provide more housing ownership options, which is a good thing. Staff doesn't believe the only choice for multifamily housing should be apartments or condominiums. It makes sense to allow developers to sell individual units, and it is actually quite common for the townhouse model where units are set up on individual lots. That is basically what the applicant is proposing. In the applicant's case, it would also allow live/work units where the ground floor space is commercial, with residential above. However, each unit would still be owned separately. Chair Rosen recognized that the City is currently undertaking a larger discussion about housing, and the proposed amendment could have potential impacts on that strategy, as well as how the public is engaged in the discussion. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY TO THE PROJECT AREA ONLY. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 6 Mr. Chave cautioned that the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for the BD3 zone only, but it cannot recommend changing the zoning for an individual property when talking about the overall zoning code. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE BD3 ZONE SPECIFICALLY. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. Board Member Cloutier questioned if the Board Members have a clear understanding of exactly which properties in the downtown are zoned BD3. If not, then he cautioned against singling them out for the change. Chair Rosen said his motion to amend was intended to draw a smaller circle around the proposal. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4-2, WITH CHAIR ROSEN, VICE CHAIR CRANK, AND BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS MONROE AND ROBLES VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO 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 Interim Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, partially in response to the limitations placed on dining during the pandemic. For several months, outdoor dining was the only way to accommodate patrons, other than take out. It was noticed that the City's codes pertaining to outdoor dining were extremely restrictive and required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which could take two or three months to process. The ordinance clarified the conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process for approving this type of use on a commercial property. Specifically, it eliminated the CUP requirement entirely, but still required that outdoor dining located directly adjacent to residentially -zoned properties must comply with the landscape requirements in the existing code or be screened by a building and/or 4-foot wall, hedge or solid fence. Mr. Chave advised that, previous to the interim ordinance, seating was limited to 10% of the existing interior seating or 12 seats, whichever was greater. This typically equated to just a few tables, and anything beyond that required a CUP. The interim ordinance increased the seating capacity to 50% of the existing interior seating or 30 seats, whichever was greater. In addition, a requirement was added that any dining area adjacent to vehicle parking had to be separated by landscaping, curb stops, wall or other suitable barrier. Although the CUP requirement was eliminated, the interim ordinance clarifies that building and/or fire permits would still be required for some elements associated with outdoor dining such as canopies, electric heaters, etc. He concluded that the proposed amendment would make the interim ordinance permanent. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. As no one indicated a desire to provide testimony, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Chave recalled that, at the Board's last discussion on the proposed amendments, Board Member Pence suggested that some of the provisions in the ordinance could be combined for greater clarity. He observed that ECDC 17.75.010 deals with the land use standards, ECDC 17.75.020 talks about when a building or fire permit would be required, and ECDC 17.75.030 talks about buildings and structures having to comply with the building and fire codes. Perhaps the latter two could be combined, but ECDC 17.75.010 addresses something totally different. Again, he said the way the ordinance is currently constructed is fine, but it might make sense to combine the last two sections. Vice Chair Crank said she would support combining ECDC 17.75.020 and ECDC 17.75.030. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDED TO COMBINE ECDC 17.75.020 AND ECDC 17.75.030. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 7 MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note, Board Member Cheung was having technical difficulties and did not vote.) REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen reviewed that the Board's next meeting will be a joint meeting with the City Council on April 13'. The Planning Board's regular meeting on April 14' has been cancelled. Mr. Chave suggested that, at the joint meeting, the Planning Board could confirm the City Council's priorities and what they see the Planning Board's role being on some of the hot issues that are coming forward for the remainder of the year. The Board has a particular interest in a time table for implementing the housing strategies, as they are anticipating it will involve some significant code amendments that will come through the Planning Board. The Planning Board's Extended Agenda can be provided as part of the packet for discussion, so the City Council can see what is on their plate. While the City Council has reviewed the Board's extended agenda previously, a lot has changed. In addition to code amendments relative to housing, he also anticipates a lot more tree code issues will come before the Board in the immediate future. The City is hoping to hire a code writing assistant soon, and that means staff will be extremely busy with not only the Board's current agenda items, but the long-term general code rewrite, as well. He anticipates an extremely busy year ahead of them. Vice Chair Crank said she also anticipates there will be some discussion with the City Council related to the Tree Code. They have spent several meetings discussing this issue, and the Board should be prepared to accept and respond to that input. The Tree Code and housing issues might consume the majority of the time allocated for the joint meeting. Chair Rosen said he intends to stress that the Planning Board exists to help the City Council make good decisions. Specifically, he will ask if there are things the Board could do differently or better to help them in their decision -making processes. He said he would work with Mr. Chave to prepare materials for the joint meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe referred to the earlier public hearing and suggested that the Board could do a better job of inviting experts to share important information with them. Vice Chair Crank noted that the country is going through a rough month, not only with the pandemic, but with Asian hate crimes, too. She is encouraged to see community members across the City and County banding together against hate. Board Member Robles said he is happy with the outcome of the hearings, and he is glad there was some dissenting vote on the first hearing. Whenever the vote is not unanimous, it raises flags that there are issues that need to be considered. Hopefully, the concerns will be addressed. Board Member Robles said he hasn't received any applications for the Student Representative position, but he suggested that the requisition for the position may need to be clarified. He said he notified a few people at the high schools, inviting them to share the opportunity with their students. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 8