2022-02-09 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, February 9, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBN090aWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
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. Announcement of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6134)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review January 12th, 2022 draft meeting minutes for corrections and approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
• January 12, 2022 Minutes (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 21412022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda February 9, 2022
4. Audience Comments
5. Unfinished Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6129)
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Recommendation
Narrative:
On January 26, 2022 the Planning Board held a Public Hearing for the draft 2022 Parks,
Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan. With the large scope of the plan and considerable public
comment, the Board formed a subcommittee to develop discussion points and suggestions for
full Board's consideration in developing their formal recommendation to the City Council.
Prior to meeting, the staff provided some suggested PROS Plan revisions based on public
comments as well as a public feedback summary matrix. (Attachment #1: PB PROS Comments
Summary Matrix).
The subcommittee met on February 3, 2022 and as a result, produced a document intended to
serve as a draft for discussion by the Planning Board in developing a recommendation from the
Planning Board to the Council for the PROS plan (Attachment #2: PROS Plan Comments from
Committee 2-1-22).
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board recommend the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan with any
suggested revisions for City Council deliberation and consideration of the final Plan approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB PROS Comments Summary Matrix (PDF)
• PROS Plan Comments from Committee 2-1-22 (PDF)
6. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6135)
Multifamily Design Standards: Proposed Work and Outreach Plans
Background/History
Staff has been working on initial efforts to roll out the Multifamily Design Standards code amendment
process. This includes initial discussions with the Architectural Design Board and Planning Board.
Staff Recommendation
Provide comments and feedback on the proposed Multifamily Design Standard Work Plan and Outreach
Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1- Multifamily Design Standards Work Plan (PDF)
• Attachment 2- Outreach and Engagement Plan (PDF)
• Attachment 3- Timeline (PDF)
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 21412022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda February 9, 2022
7. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6133)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• February 9, 2022 Extended Agenda (PDF)
8. Planning Board Member Comments
9. Planning Board Chair Comments
10. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 21412022
3.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review January 12th, 2022 draft meeting minutes for corrections and approval.
Narrative
January 12th draft meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
January 12, 2022 Minutes
Packet Pg. 4
3.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
January 12, 2022
Chair Crank 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
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy. Director
Eric Engmann, Senior Planner
Steve Duh, Conservation Technix, (Consultant)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Crank pointed out her name was misspelled at the beginning of the last paragraph of the minutes.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2021 AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2021 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH
BOARD MEMBERS GLADSTONE AND CLOUTIER ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
a
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 1 of 9
Packet Pg. 5
3.A.a
Vice Chair Pence asked if Administrative Reports would return to the agenda again. Senior Planner Engmann
replied they would likely start up again as soon as the new Planning Director gets settled in.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Seitz commented on the draft PROS Plan. She referred to the CFP and noted that most of the items are
not in the areas of need. Investments in the bowl exceed investments in any other part of the city. She expressed
concern about the lack of equity in investments and cited numerous concerns about the quality of park space in
in southeast Edmonds. She responded to Board Member Cloutier's question from the last meeting about level
of service. She noted that this analysis does not meet the State's Administrative Code. She responded to Board
Member Cheung's question about a heat map or the location of parks in relation to population. According to
the 2020 census, Tract 504.04, associated with areas northeast of 5 Corners, is the most densely populated part
N
of the city and is only served by open space and no parks. This is followed by Tract 509, associated with the
eastern half of the SR99 corridor. This is followed by two tracts associated with the bowl extending east out to
100ffi Avenue West, then south Edmonds, then the west side of SR99 corridor/Esperance, and then the area
c
south of 5 Corners. She asserted that park resources are correlated with race with the vast concentration of park
i
resources sited in the whitest parts of the city. Distribution of existing park resources is not associated with
i
density - the two most dense tracts have some of the fewest resources - and appears to be more closely associated
a
with race. This CIP in terms of magnitude and location of investments is unfortunately no different than historic
a
patterns of who the city invests in. She encouraged the Planning Board to use its authority to encourage staff to
meet with her to discuss her concerns and delay the public hearing until an analysis consistent with Edmonds
City Code and State Administrative Code can be completed so they can have the tools to more equitably and
objectively discuss the future distribution of resources.
N
Lori Sorenson thanked Angie Feser and all the staff for putting this PROS Plan together. She appreciates the
City Council who recently voted to move the Edmonds Marsh out of the Stormwater budget and into Parks and
Recreation. There is now $250,000 in the budget to develop a Marsh Master Plan. She encouraged the Planning
Board to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the eventual purchase of the entire property
for open space for the Edmonds community. She would like to see more planning detail regarding the
development of the Marsh Master Plan in the PROS Plan. She recommended creating a scientific vision of what
the area should look like once it is restored as a saltwater marsh. Input from a wide scientific community is
required to formulate a plan of this scope. The tribal community should also be included.
Jim Oganowski commented regarding the PROS Plan. He thinks it is a good overview of the existing parks
system. His major concern is the moving of the goalposts resulting in reducing the metric for park area per
resident by almost 50%. Including the Meadowdale Playfields, 50% of Lynndale Skate Park and the Underwater
Park acreage dramatically alters the perspective of what we have versus what we need. He also suggested that
this Plan could be the cornerstone of a Comprehensive Plan to develop a One Edmonds type of philosophy. This
would require integration of the thoughts of this Plan with other stakeholders; however, they would need a
vision for the City to do this right. The Plan highlights accomplishments over the past six years He asked how
those accomplishments align with the 2016 PROS Plan. He asked how the Parks budget would need to be
altered as a result of the PROS Plan. Are we starting to build a reserve fund out of the current budget for this
purpose? Finally, he noted he did not see anything in the Plan related to safety or anything about no camping
being allowed in the parks.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 6
3.A.a
Greg Ferguson discussed environmental issues which he believes should be included in the PROS Plan. These
include a Marsh Comprehensive Plan, climate change issues, water quality issues, and the impact of rising sea
levels on marine parks. He asked that the PROS Plan be delayed until they can be addressed.
Bernie Bush commented that there had been a previous discussion about putting the plans for the marsh under
Parks; however, the PROS Plan shows no money allocated until 2023 or 2024. He asked what money would be
used to leverage grants to purchase the property. He asked that this be determined as soon as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Code Amendment to Update Residential Occupancy Standards
Mr. Engmann gave a recap of SB 5235, the related city code section, and the proposed code amendment. He
N
summarized that SB 5235 would prohibit local governments from limiting the number of unrelated persons
from occupying a home with a few exceptions. This has resulted in the need to revise the definition of family in
Edmonds city code. The new definition says that "Family means individuals related or unrelated by genetics,
c
adoption, or marriage living in a dwelling unit."
0
L
The amendments would:
a
• remove the residential occupancy limits;
a
• strengthen structural/element requirements for single family dwellings such as one mailbox, water
a
meter, gas meter ... common access to living, sleeping, cooking, eating areas;
• maintain limits on number of dwellings in single family zoning districts; and
• maintain restrictions on group homes
N
N
0
Staff is recommending that the Planning Board decide whether to transmit the proposal to City Council for
review and adoption.
Board Member Questions:
Board Member Gladstone asked why they didn't include electrical meters in the list of uses for
structural/element requirements for single-family dwellings. Mr. Engmann explained that the City doesn't do
electrical permits so it would not be easily checked or monitored. Board Member Gladstone expressed concern
because this is one thing that is often metered separately. Water and gas are rarely metered separately.
Vice Chair Pence commented he believes that ADUs should have the option of a separate mailbox.
The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. and public testimony was solicited. Seeing no public comments,
the public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Rosen expressed support for Board Member Gladstone's and Vice Chair Pence's comments.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 7
3.A.a
Board Member Gladstone asked if, as they forward this to the City Council, they can recommend areas for the
City Council to look at as part of their review. Chair Crank replied that they could. Board Member Gladstone
asked that both of the issues that she and Vice Chair Pence raised be flagged for the City Council.
Mr. Engmann summarized the Board's two recommendations:
• Single family dwellings shall be limited to one electric meter, and
• An additional mailbox may be permitted for an approved accessory dwelling unit.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GLADSTONE, TO FORWARD THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE WITH CONSIDERATION OF THOSE TWO POTENTIAL CHANGES. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan
Parks Director Feser introduced this item. She was very happy to have members of the public reviewing the
Plan and providing comment.
Consultant Steve Duh from Conservation Technix made a PowerPoint presentation regarding the draft PROS
Plan. He gave an overview of the Plan and steps to building it including inventory assessments, community
engagement, system -wide needs assessment, goals and policies review, capital project planning,
implementation and funding strategies, and plan review and approval. He discussed the project timeline and
reviewed community feedback.
Community feedback revealed that priority improvements to the park system included connecting gaps in the
trail system and expanding trail connections, improving or upgrading existing parks and amenities, buying more
conservation and open space lands, renovating or replacing the pool, and improving restroom facilities. In
recreation programming, there was a strong interest in community events such as outdoor movies and Hazel
Miller Plaza summer concerts. There was also continued and strong interest in outdoor programs, youth
programs, and youth sports programs and camps.
Mr. Duh reviewed the Plan structure and content. The contents included Introduction & Community Profile,
Community Engagement, Goals & Objectives, Inventory & Classifications, Parks & Open Space, Recreation
Programs & Facilities, Trails & Connections, Capital Projects & Implementation, and Appendices. System
analysis used in the PROS Plan involved examining system gaps related to park access and distribution; physical
accessibility; diversity of places and spaces; programs, events, and activities; serving today's residents; and
planning for future growth. He reviewed approaches to analyzing service standards used in this Plan including
acreage/population-based, distribution/proximity-based, and quality/condition. One of the recommendations of
this Plan is to adjust the service standards to be more focused toward the community/neighborhood parks and
the open spaces, realign standards for trails around the notion of connectivity, and reframe some of the
calculations on active -use and open space. Some other metrics include discussion of current quality, distribution,
and usage.
Key recommendations include:
Q
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 8
3.A.a
• Acquisitions to fill gaps in the system, specifically in the south/southeast portions of Edmonds, and for
conservation (such as areas that are adjacent to city properties or conserve a unique natural resource).
• Park development and upgrades such as Civic Center Playfield as well as Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra
Park, Yost Memorial Park, Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park, and Pine Street Park.
• Trail and bikeway connections — acquire easements and rights -of -way for trail connections, coordinate
with the Comprehensive Plan regarding bicycle and pedestrian system improvements
• Yost Pool Replacement — Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool.
• ADA and accessibility enhancements such as removing barriers and improving universal access to and
within parks, natural areas, and trails
• User convenience improvements such as upgrading and replacing restrooms and improving signage and
wayfinding
Staff will be coming back in two weeks for a public hearing and more discussion.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Board Member Gladstone referred to comments heard from the public earlier in the meeting and asked about
equity in the Plan, the per capita requirement decrease, a reserve fund for land acquisition, and climate change
planning. Regarding climate change and climate resiliency, the Mr. Duh explained that the Plan references the
Urban Forestry Management Plan as a primary tool for the City to use. Concerning the interest in equity and
the additional investment in south and southeast Edmonds, the Plan puts forward a strong stance that the City
should do more in investments to provide for residents in that area. Specifically, the Plan references
enhancements to Mathay Ballinger and identifies three neighborhood parks for potential acquisition in that area.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is not a budget, but it does identify rough estimates of what those
investments might cost. Ms. Feser discussed how parks would be prioritized based on areas that need attention.
Regarding questions about property acquisition around the marsh, she noted this would be discussed in tonight's
capital program presentation. Mr. Duh addressed the per capita/density standard change and explained this is a
local choice to have a standard that is both appropriate and pragmatic. The intent is not to be solely reliant on
an acres -per -thousand -residents standard. Ms. Feser referred to the counting of Meadowdale and Lynndale
Parks which are owned by the City of Lynnwood. She emphasized that Edmonds has made significant
investments to improve those parks and has interlocal agreements with the City of Lynnwood for the use of
them. The CIP earmarks $500,000 to go to the City of Lynnwood to support improvements to those parks. From
a user perspective and an investment perspective it makes sense to count those as part of the City's inventory.
Board Member Kuehn asked how the "no camping" issue related to this. Ms. Feser explained that a camping
ordinance would relate to being in a public park or public property outside of park hours. Deputy Director
Burley explained it is unlawful to remove someone from a public space; however, park hours are enforceable
so this is the one area in which overnight stay can be prohibited and enforced. A camping ban would likely be
instituted to prohibit similar things in other public spaces and would be initiated and approved by the City
Council. It would probably not come from the Parks Department.
Vice Chair Pence referred to the non -Edmonds parks that are close to, adjacent to, or within the City of
Edmonds. When it comes to assessing the quantity of park land available to the residents of Edmonds, he thinks
they should ignore those jurisdictional differences to avoid public policy issues.
a
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 5 of 9
Packet Pg. 9
3.A.a
Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the robust efforts that went into the community engagement for this
Plan. He had the following questions regarding the survey analysis:
• Were responses of the survey weighed to reflect the demographics of the community?
• How many non-English responses were there?
• Cross tabs: Did you look through the lens of neighborhood, age, differences in homes with children,
owner occupied versus renter, language spoken, gender, etc.?
• Community feedback highest interest level items (Packet page 51) all seem to be things that parents
would really want. Was this looked at through the lens of those with and without children?
Mr. Duh replied that the responses were not weighted. The responses are the actual numbers gathered from the
survey itself. He emphasized that the mail survey had a 25% response rate and reflects a statistical random
sample of the community. This was compared to the additional 1400 responses received from the online only
survey. They feel they received a strong representation of responses in the community. The responses between
the online and mail survey were generally consistent. In terms of the cross tabs, the survey included three
primary sub -groups — age group, homes with and without children, and geography. They did not capture
demographic data regarding gender, language or owner -occupied versus renter. He discussed some examples
of points where sub -group responses were different; these are called out in the appendix. In terms of non-English
responses, the survey captured only 8 responses (2 Chinese, 5 Korean, 1 Spanish) even though they went to
considerable effort to reach out to non-English communities. Finally, the community feedback highest interest
level items on packet page 51 do reflect the general sentiment in the community across all sub -groups.
Board Member Rosen referred to Goals and Objectives which start on page 89. There are 8 goals and 55
objectives. He asked what the process will be to balance and prioritize money, staff, and timing. Ms. Feser
replied that staff is still processing a lot of this information. The capital plan will be the implementation of the
PROS Plan. The goals and objectives are guidelines and aspirations. Moving forward they will move with a
lens of equity and inclusion and making sure they are providing programs, facilities, and opportunities to the
entire community. This is why they have the acquisition recommendations and improvements in the areas they
do.
Board Member Rosen asked about the justification for the emphasis in the Plan on bikeway connections. Mr.
Duh explained they gathered information from the community in several ways and tried to filter this information
in a way that made sense to community priorities. Ms. Feser added that there isn't a lot of bike riding allowed
in the parks, but they have heard of a lot of people interested in biking in the parks. The PROS Plan is
encouraging Parks to work with Public Works on a non -motorized transportation system using sidewalks, bike
lanes and connections to get from place to place. Ms. Burley commented that the pandemic has heightened the
awareness of lack of access for people to ride bikes.
Ms. Feser made the presentation regarding the 2022 PROS Plan Capital Program. She reviewed the proposed
project list and explained how it was organized. The project list is a wish list containing everything included in
the PROS Plan. Substantial projects include the replacement of Yost Pool and 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
Expenditures not in the CIP include Marsh Acquisition and Development and the Parks/Facilities Maintenance
Building. She also noted that the Marsh Restoration Project was transferred to Parks and Marina Beach Park
was awarded two grants totaling $1 M from RCO. Council is questioning whether to accept the grants or not
and has paused the grant for now. She reviewed revenue sources, staff resources, and the proposed project list
and revenue.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 6 of 9
Packet Pg. 10
3.A.a
2022 Council Approved CIP Projects:
• In Progress — Civic Park, citywide renovations
• In CIP — Playground upgrade, Yost Pool, acquisitions
• Carryover Projects: Greenhouse replacement needs a variance, City Park pedestrian pathway, Johnson
property demolition/security (not approved, but is a priority)
The project list was reviewed by category, and feedback was solicited on each one.
Acquisitions: Edmonds Marsh Estuary, Neighborhood Park SE1, Neighborhood Park SR99, Neighborhood
Park SE2, Interurban Trail
Feedback:
• Board Member Cloutier expressed strong support for acquisitions.
as
Planning: Parks & Facilities M&O building, Neighborhood Park SE2, Waterfront Walkway, Edmonds Marsh
Estuary, Johnson Property, Neighborhood Park SR100, Neighborhood Park SE3, 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor
0
Feedback:
• Chair Crank recommended prioritizing the Johnson property to protect against cost fluctuations. Lowest Q.
on her priority list was the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. The marsh is also high priority to her. Q-
a
• Board Member Cloutier echoed Chair Crank's comments.
• Board Member Cheung also agreed with Chair Crank and added that the 4t' Avenue project seemed
very pricey.
• Board Member Gladstone commented she would like to see what might be pushed out in other
categories because of the $500,000 assigned to the Waterfront Walkway.
Development: Edmonds Marsh Estuary restoration, Parks & Facilities M&O Building construction, City Park
pedestrian safety walkway, Civic Center Playfields renovation, Mathay Ballinger Park paved loop pathway,
Mathay Ballinger Park restrooms, Mathay Ballinger Park small shelter with picnic tables, cemetery
columbarium expansion, Marina Beach Park Master Plan implementation, Pine Street Park small shelter with
picnic tables, Pine Street Park canopy shade trees, Pine Street Park paved connecting pathway, neighborhood
park SE3, Waterfront Walkway, neighborhood park SR101, Elm Street Park nature playground, Elm Street
Park small shelter with picnic tables, neighborhood park SE4, 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Feedback:
• Chair Crank recommended keeping the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor at the bottom of the list, keeping
the marsh at the top and prioritizing Mathay Ballinger Park projects.
• Board Member Gladstone suggested acquiring properties faster and delaying projects such as Pine
Street Park in order to prioritize equity.
Renovations: Greenhouses replacement, Johnson property demolition and securing site, Meadowdale Playfields
renovations, Yost Park trail bridge and boardwalk, Yost Park pool repair, Yost Park playground replacement,
Olympic Beach Park restroom upgrade, Sierra Park playground replacement, Yost Park tennis courts,
systemwide signage and wayfinding, Yost Park pool upgrades/renovation, Maplewood Hill Park playground
replacement, systemwide playground replacement/inclusive level, Elm Street Park habitat restoration, Yost
Park pool replacement, Seaview Park restroom replacement, systemwide capital repairs
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 11
3.A.a
Feedback:
Board Member Cheung asked about the possibility of sharing costs with Lynnwood on their pool so
Edmonds residents could get a preferred rate like Lynnwood residents. Ms. Feser noted that would be a
great thing to look at when they start looking at alternatives for Yost Pool. She commented that in the
PROS Plan outreach they got feedback from residents that an outdoor local pool was the preference.
Board Member Cheung commented that he was thinking of this option in addition to Yost Pool. Ms.
Burley commented that Shoreline just lost their pool. It may be worth having a conversation with them
about a shared use agreement.
Board Member Gladstone commented that she likes the creative thinking around the pools. She asked
about mapping where the proposed capital improvements are being done and color -coding by year so
they can have a visual of what this will look like in the end. This will enable the Board to have a better
understanding of the equity component. Ms. Feser indicated staff could work on this.
Ms. Feser thanked the Board for their feedback and noted they would be back in two weeks for a public hearing.
c
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA c
Mr. Engmann reviewed upcoming agenda items: introduction of the new Planning Director and her work plan 0
0.
review, PROS Plan public hearing, outreach plan discussion, trees, and Planning Board Retreat (tentatively 0.
scheduled for March 9). <
Chair Crank commented there had been some discussion about doing the retreat in person, but it might be
challenging given the current pandemic situation. Board Member Gladstone recommended leaving the option
of an in -person meeting open because they are generally more productive. Chair Crank suggested getting more
input from staff about the implications of an in -person meeting because it would include not only the Planning
Board and staff but also possibly the public.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank thanked everyone for a relatively smooth first meeting. She noted that Paine Field Master Plan
public input has been extended to the end of January. She also reported that Paine Field is getting an interesting
new tenant called ZeroAvia.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Pence said he is looking forward to the introduction of the new Planning Director and the proposed
work plan. He hopes it will include major progress on the Development Code rewrite. He would like to see
briefings on a comprehensive look at all the projects up on SR99 - the welcome signs, the median development
project, gateway work and Comprehensive Plan updates.
Board Member Gladstone encouraged board members to watch a TED talk she had sent out on the nexus
between housing and climate change resiliency and mitigation. She also gave a heads up that this legislative
session has quite a number of housing related bills. She commented it might be useful to hear about these.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 12
3.A.a
Planning Manager Chave announced that he will be retiring at the end of the month. Board members
congratulated him and thanked him for his service.
Mr. Engmann noted that staff is tracking the legislative session. HB 1782 would have major impacts and zoning
and usage. Staff will provide an update when they get further along in the process and know more.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Q
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 13
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2022
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Recommendation
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Angie Feser
Narrative:
On January 26, 2022 the Planning Board held a Public Hearing for the draft 2022 Parks, Recreation &
Open Space (PROS) Plan. With the large scope of the plan and considerable public comment, the Board
formed a subcommittee to develop discussion points and suggestions for full Board's consideration in
developing their formal recommendation to the City Council.
Prior to meeting, the staff provided some suggested PROS Plan revisions based on public comments as
well as a public feedback summary matrix. (Attachment #1: PB PROS Comments Summary Matrix).
The subcommittee met on February 3, 2022 and as a result, produced a document intended to serve as
a draft for discussion by the Planning Board in developing a recommendation from the Planning Board
to the Council for the PROS plan (Attachment #2: PROS Plan Comments from Committee 2-1-22).
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board recommend the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan with any suggested
revisions for City Council deliberation and consideration of the final Plan approval.
Attachments:
PB PROS Comments Summary Matrix
PROS Plan Comments from Committee 2-1-22
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
v ' EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
To: City of Edmonds Planning Board
From: Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Date: January 31, 2022
Re: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Draft— Planning Board
Comments/Recommendation development
With considerable public feedback in the form of emails and public comment during the January
26, 2022 Planning Board Public Hearing, the Board requested additional time to consider their
formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the draft 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open
Space (PROS) Plan. The Board formed a subcommittee to develop suggested recommendations
for consideration of the full Planning Board.
This document is to assist in the subcommittee's in their discussion. It includes a review of the
purpose the PROS Plan, how it fits in with other citywide plans and a summarization of public
feedback topics with related PROS Plan information.
Purpose of PROS Plan
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan is a guiding master plan for operating,
managing and enhancing the Edmonds's parks, open space, trails, recreation facilities and
recreation programs as based on community engagement representative of the entire city. The
PROS Plan focuses primarily on City -owned, managed or operated facilities and programs. The
PROS Plan is a specific, functional area plan providing strategic direction, goals and objectives,
recommended initiatives and capital projects built on public process. It is designed to function
as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted by reference and adheres to Growth
Management Act guidelines. In addition, it supports, but does not replace or duplicate, other
city plans, initiatives, and policies, such as the Urban Forest Management Plan; Community
Cultural Plan; Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and the upcoming Climate Action Plan.
Implementation of those other plans may intersect at times with the objectives of the PROS
Plan, but each plan serves a unique policy and functional purpose.
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
General Recommendations
After hearing, reading and reviewing public comments and feedback, staff has the following
recommendations for the subcommittee to consider.
1. In the Director's message, incorporate and highlight the focus of the public process to
include the traditionally lesser heard constituents and the wide range of voices heard as
a result. Also, how the community priorities have shifted and changed over time.
2. Add an Executive Summary to highlight the purpose of the PROS Plan, its core focus, its
reliance on other city plans/efforts (ie, UFMP, climate, etc), key points on how it's
different from 2016 and key project recommendations.
3. Revise some of the goals/objectives to pull together a short list related to sustainability
(environmental) efforts.
4. In the Community Profile (chap 2), add a short paragraph to highlight the economic
benefits of Parks & Recreation and call out the Underwater Dive Park specifically.
Packet Pg. 16
5.A.a
Public Comment Summarization by Topic Area
Topic Area
Public Feedback
Summary
Current PROS Plan
Possible Plan
Revisions)/Considerations
Environmental/Sustainability
Concern about language
Stewardship Section starting on page 84
Environmental and stewardship
regarding environmental
addresses system wide stewardship and
concepts, practices, goal and
Climate Change
and Sustainability issues
discusses the impacts of water conservation,
objectives are within the plan.
as related to park
plant selection, invasive species management
Stewardship
planning, design,
and stormwater management within the park
A Goal #9 could be created,
development, and
system of City -owned and managed
pulling objectives from other
maintenance of parks
properties.
goals, and possibly adding a few
**Please note volunteer and
that implement
more objectives.
stewardship activities in the
environmental and
Goal 8 and Objectives
past 2 years have been
sustainable practices.
Goal 8: Maintain and operate a modern,
decreased due to COVID.
efficient park system that provides a high level
of user comfort, safety, and aesthetic quality,
and protects capital investments.
8.2 Develop, maintain and update asset
management plans for major assets to support
improved stewardship, reduce
costs, and increase maintenance and
replacement efficiency.
8.3 Incorporate sustainability and low impact
development into design, development and
maintenance of the park system and be a
leader in sustainable building practices.
8.4 Utilize, as appropriate, native and lower -
resource requiring vegetation for landscaping
in parks and city owned properties to
FL
r
0
O
W
a
m
c�
a
U)
c
m
Q.
O
0a
c
0
a�
ci
m
N
Y
a
x
�L
R
E
E
N
C
a�
E
E
0
U
U)
O
W
a
m
n
r
c
m
E
t
r
a
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
minimize maintenance requirements, and
control invasive vegetation through removal
and other environmentally responsible means.
8.7 Encourage and promote volunteerism
from a variety of individuals, service clubs,
local watershed councils, steward groups, faith
organizations and businesses to enhance
community ownership and stewardship of
parks, trails, and open space.
Note: Parks Maintenance Division does have
and implements an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Plan, which is an internal
maintenance protocol and has significantly
reduced the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Urban Forest Management
The implementation of
"The City adopted its Urban Forestry
Some additional clarifying
Plan
UFMP in the PROS Plan.
Management Plan in 2019 to take an active
language about how the UFMP,
role in preserving and enhancing the value of
and other Plans, work in
canopy trees on public lands. Park operations
tandem with the PROS Plan.
and volunteer activities can work to
implement aspects of the forestry plan
through native tree planting, environmental
education programs, public planting and
stewardship events and interpretive signage."
(p. 83) One example of UFMP reference in the
Plan.
Edmonds Marsh
Marsh restoration plan
Assessments (p. 141) recommends a master
Language of "daylighting Willow
plan to daylight Willow Creek and
Creek" could be revised to
maintenance considerations including
"connecting Marsh to Puget
Edmonds Marsh East (across SR 104).
FL
r
0
O
W
a
m
c�
a
c
m
Q.
O
c
0
a�
L
m
N
L
c�
a
x
R
E
E
N
c
a�
E
E
0
U
U)
O
W
a
m
a
c
m
E
t
r
a
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
Marsh funding —
Sound" or the like, to provide a
acquisition and
Proposed Capital plan includes Unocal
wider interpretation and scope.
development
Property acquisition; Marsh Restoration Plan
and Restoration project.
Survey Q13 results (p. 161) prioritizes Marsh
purchase and expansion sixth out of six
options for community prioritization of capital
projects behind improve existing parkland,
complete Waterfront Walkway (Ebb Tide
condos), buy additional conservation and open
space, new aquatic center, and additional
parkland.
Brackett's Landing
Importance/significance
A Dive Park listed in Plan Goal 5/Objective 5.1
In the Community Profile (chap
North/Dive Park
of the Underwater Dive
noted as a unique natural feature; Park Site
2), add a short paragraph to
Park located in Brackett's
Assessments (Brackett's Landing North) (pg.
highlight the economic benefits
Landing North
123)
of P&R and call out the
Underwater Park specifically
Southwest County Park (a
Recommendation by
Acquisition of land for open space and
The suggestion of transferring
number of email comments
public to transfer
conservation is a key recommendation.
ownership of this specific park is
have come in since the Jan.
ownership from County
more of a consideration to
26 PB public hearing.)
to City
enhance the level of service for
open space rather than a PROS
Plan goal or objective.
FL
r
0
O
W
a
m
c�
a
c
m
Q.
O
0a
c
0
a�
L
m
N
L
c�
a
x
R
E
E
N
c
a�
E
E
0
U
U)
O
a
m
IL
r
c
m
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.b
Planning Board Subcommittee
DRAFT PROS Plan Comments & Questions
1. Equity
a. Identify metrics for accomplishing equity, e.g. geographic accessibility, amenities in the
parks.
b. The map of improvements highlights geographic disparities that are not remedied in the
CIP. For example, can the department delay Pine Park and waterway walkway, to
achieve greater equity to allow for earlier development of parks in S. Edmonds area.
c. In objective 6.1, if you allow decisions to be based on high demand, that may conflict
with serving a wide range of diverse populations. By making it a consideration rather
than a driver it allows the Parks department broader discretion in prioritizing parks
improvements/acquisitions.
Diversity
a. Create new objective that promotes programs being offered in various geographic
locations throughout the city.
b. Goal 2 and 7.2 needs to be "inclusive of diversity" rather than "reflective of diversity"
given that Edmonds is about 83% white, 3% African American, .7% Native American, 7%
Asian, 5.3% Hispanic,.3% Pacific Islander, 2% other races, and 4.1% from two or more
races. I'd like to be sure this won't be interpreted as being based on the size of the
different populations or we won't see much variety of cultural, heritage or arts events.
Environmental Stewardship
Goal and objectives need to be added related to how parks facilities are providing
adaptation and mitigation for impacts of sea level rise, carbon footprint and other
climate change impacts, to make climate change more prominent. Objectives should be
directly related to operations of the Parks Department.
Include an objective to identify metrics that accomplish
environmental/sustainability/climate change adaptation and mitigation, e.g. add
sequestration value, water conserved, canopy coverage, and be compatible with the
Climate Change Plan goals.
c. Goal 8.12 should include consideration of how they can help mitigate for and adapt to
impacts of climate change.
4. Clarify and formalize relationship with the Underwater Dive Park stewards.
In goal 8.7, if you are promoting volunteerism, it needs to be supported with appropriate
staffing and other resources like tools, etc.
Packet Pg. 20
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2022
Multifamily Design Standards: Proposed Work and Outreach Plans
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
Staff has been working on initial efforts to roll out the Multifamily Design Standards code amendment
process. This includes initial discussions with the Architectural Design Board and Planning Board.
Staff Recommendation
Provide comments and feedback on the proposed Multifamily Design Standard Work Plan and Outreach
Plan
Narrative
Staff is sharing the draft Multifamily Design Standard Work Plan and Outreach Plan to provide more
transparency and receive early feedback in the code amendment process. The intent will be to gain
general support and hear feedback on the proposed approach. Attachments include the Draft Work Plan
(Attachment 1), the Draft Outreach and Engagement Plan (Attachment 2), and the Draft Timeline
(Attachment 3).
Action Needed
This action is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will review the proposed code
language and make a recommendation to City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Multifamily Design Standards Work Plan
Attachment 2- Outreach and Engagement Plan
Attachment 3- Timeline
Packet Pg. 21
Draft
6.A.a
City of Edmonds
Multifamily Design Standards (MFDS) Code Amendment
Work Plan
I. Purpose Statement
The purpose of this code amendment will be to establish meaningful design
standards for new multifamily development in Edmonds. These standards will
create design criteria and guidance that provide a better connection between
these buildings and the surrounding neighborhood.
II. Objective
The objective will be threefold:
A. Community Enhancing Design. Ensure that new multifamily developments are
designed to high quality standards that align with the City's Comprehensive
Plan goals and enhance the Edmonds community.
B. Housing Cost Consideration. Ensure that any standards created are not so
onerous or cost prohibitive that that they effectively prohibit these
development types from building.
C. Public Involvement. Provide meaningful opportunities for people to contribute
to these multifamily design standard changes throughout the code
amendment process.
III. Scope of Work
It is important to establish the perimeters of this work to create an understanding
of all that is involved with the work plan and where the limits lie. Although
changes of work can occur in any project,
A. Use Type. This code amendment will focus on development standards for the
multifamily use type. This use covers attached residential development units
that can be in the form of an apartment/condo style development or a
townhouse style development.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 22
Draft
6.A.a
It should also be noted what this is similar to, but does not include, the large-
scale multifamily development areas in the Highway 99 or Westgate Mixed
Use area that have separate zoning and standards to address these uses. It
also does not include mixed -use development, which is the combination of
non-residential (commercial, retail, office) and residential in the same building.
B. Locations/Zones. The multifamily uses are focused on the RM (Multiple
Residential) and BD (Downtown Business) Zoning Districts. These areas
account for most of these "missing middle" multifamily residential
developments.
C. Development Components. The intent of this effort is to focus on elements
that have the most impact on the perception and design of a project, without
significantly increasing the cost to develop a multifamily project. This typically
involves standards that focus on how a building is perceived from the street,
also known as the public realm. These development components are discussed
in more detail in section V of this document.
IV. Outreach and Engagement Strategy (Summary)
Most of this strategy is included in the supplementary Outreach and Engagement
Strategy Plan, Attachment 2. This will ensure the public is aware of these changes,
can provide meaningful comments and suggestions, and this engagement is done
throughout the process.
We have identified three stakeholder groups that will be key to establishing a
well-informed outcome.
A. Residents
1. Individual Community Members
2. Neighborhood Groups
3. Local Businesses (Owners and Staff)
B. Development Community
Page 2
Packet Pg. 23
Draft
6.A.a
1. Builders
2. Development Associations/Groups
3. Contractors
C. Government
1. Staff
2. City Appointed Boards and Committees
3. City Council
We have also identified several methods to inform and engage with stakeholders
and establish prospective, including:
• Webpage and City Facebook Updates
• Public Notices in Paper and News Outlets
• Online Surveys
• Open House/Digital Engagement Meetings
• Neighborhood Walks
• Stakeholder Focus Groups
• Public Meetings
V. Design Standard Components
The intent is to focus on elements of design that add to the perception and "feel"
of a building without affecting the larger programing requirements of a
development. This would focus on how a building appears from the street or
public realm which has the largest impact on how it "fits" with the larger
community.
A. Building Articulation.
Requiring some articulation or modulation in the building has a major impact on
how a building is perceived. This adds variety to the structure and removes the
"plain box" effect. These can include things like extensions, naves, balconies,
alcoves, and variety in the roofline. Staff will show visual context and examples of
what can be done to establish articulation criteria. Note: this differs from the
Page 3
Packet Pg. 24
Draft
6.A.a
massing or buildable area which have a larger impact on the cost of a
development.
B. Building Fagade Treatments
Blank walls along the public realm are some of the most common negative
comments about many multifamily developments. Requiring a variety of
materials, textures, and colors can help break up the mass of the building and
differentiate units. Other techniques include fenestration (window) requirements
to have better context with the street. It can also require a developer to consider
the context of the surrounding neighborhood when selecting a specific fagade
treatment. These elements have a major impact on how a building is perceived.
C. Entryway Features
The presence of a front door and entryway provides a welcoming connection to
the larger community. Allowing entry features, such as porches, within the front
yard setback is a way to promote these elements without a major impact on the
building's overall massing.
D. Garage/Driveway Placement
The location and placement of garages and driveways play a major role in how
these buildings are perceived. Standards and guidelines can create a balance
between the need for vehicular ingress and egress and the need for better
pedestrian connections, green space, and street presence.
E. Open Space/Green Space Requirements
Having adequate green and open space plays an important role in developing a
property. These areas provide opportunities for recreation, drainage, trees
placement, urban refuges for wildlife, and help soften the massing of a building
Another important consideration besides the amount of open space required is
guidance on where the open space should be located. Consideration for buffers
along the street edge, around existing trees or wetlands, and places for the
residents to recreate are all factors that should be considered.
F. Other Factors
Page 4
Packet Pg. 25
Draft
6.A.a
There are other factors that have are important in considering design criteria that
will be reviewed including, but not limited to:
• Walkways and pathways
• Utility equipment placement and screening
• Fencing (limits) within street (front yard) setbacks
• Lighting Elements
Staff will be continually evaluating this list, in discussion with stakeholders, to
develop the specific standards and guidelines.
VI. Timeline
This code amendment is anticipated to take about a year to finish, based on the
complexity and involvement desired to create a final product. The proposed
timeline table is included (Attachment 3).
The timeline is broken down into the three phases of work expected by month
• Formulation- Understanding the issue and creating ideas to solve it.
• Articulation- Refining the ideas into tangible code standards and guidelines.
• Adoption- Official review and approval of the development standards.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Graphics.
Staff will be seeking assistance to develop graphics related to this amendment.
This amendment requires a great deal of discussion between different
elements of design and site planning. Because it is very visual, having good and
comparative graphics will be paramount.
B. Mechanism for Primary Comment and Review of Draft Criteria.
Another consideration will be the primary way to deliver and receive
feedback from a group that helps formulate and evaluate the criteria. There
are two options for this:
Page 5
Packet Pg. 26
Draft
6.A.a
Option 1. Reliance on Existing Boards.
One option will be to utilize the City's existing Architectural Design Board (ADB)
and Planning Board (PB) to help with this. The idea would be that the ADB would
be used for a "deeper dive" into the specifics of the criteria and options and PB
would be utilized to review, comment, and evaluate these criteria. It takes
advantage of an existing connection of volunteers appointed to address these
types of issues. Note: the Timeline attached utilizes the Option 1 approach.
ADB focuses on design and project review, so they are aware of the challenges
and possible solutions that exist. It is also comprised of people representing the
building and design fields. Also, the ADB typically has more time available for this
type of work whereas the PB schedule is often very full.
PB would then focus on reviewing these initial ideas developed with the help of
stakeholders and the ADB. PB would provide an opportunity for additional review
and comment before making the final recommendations to City Council.
Option 2. Create a Separate Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
Another option would be to create a separate stakeholder group made up of a
variety of people to work on this topic. It would typically include a diverse group
of people that represent the three stakeholder groups (listed in Section IV). This
group would be able to evaluate these issues in depth and can be selected to
represent the entire Edmonds community.
Page 6
Packet Pg. 27
Draft
6.A.b
City of Edmonds
Outreach and Engagement Plan for
Multifamily Design Standards Code Amendment
I. Purpose of this Outreach Plan
The purpose of this plan is to outline the process to gain insight and inform
people about this proposed code amendment. As the Edmonds Planning Board
has stated:
"Meaningful public engagement can be achieved if it is proactive and
designed to be easy for the community and provides them with critical
resources that are easily accessible. Meaningful engagement will secure
facts, values, and perspectives that might not otherwise be revealed and are
vital to a sound decision process."
II. Objective
The outreach and engagement objective will be threefold:
A. Inform. Provide opportunity for a wide array of people to hear about the
multifamily design standard changes.
B. Involve. Provide meaningful opportunities for people to contribute to these
multifamily design standard changes, throughout the process.
C. Accountability. Create accountability and trust in this process by allowing
people to see how the process will work and stay up to date on the proposals.
III. Identifying Stakeholder Groupings
Stakeholders, those who may be interested in the crafting and outcomes of this
update, have been categorized into three groups. Although categorized, this does
not mean that those within these groups will be assumed to represent a
homogeneous or singular opinion. Seeking a variety of voices and opinions from
different people will be an important component to track and consider.
A. Residents
Page 1
Packet Pg. 28
Draft
6.A.b
• Individual Community Members
• Neighborhood Groups
• Local Businesses (Owners and Staff)
B. Development Community
• Builders
• Development Associations/Groups
• Contractors
C. Government
• Staff
• City Appointed Boards and Committees
• City Council
IV. Methods to Identify Stakeholders
A. Resident Stakeholders. Creating resident engagement opportunities can be
very rewarding but it can also be the most difficult to garner involvement and
feedback. The desire will be to inform residents early in the process and give
them the ability to engage and provide insight throughout the process.
1. Referrals. Word-of-mouth referrals are a great way to find early contacts
and spread the word about the code update. This can come from a variety
of sources such as city staff or other residents.
2. Associations. Identify and reach out to neighborhood groups, associations,
and organizations to let them know about this effort. It can also provide
opportunity to talk with the group via the leadership or email blasts.
3. Media. Correspond with local media and offer to contribute information
about the update. This can provide another outlet to reach residents and
those typically not involved in public processes or neighborhood groups.
B. Development Community Stakeholders. The development community tends
to be well organized into associations. There are also several developers who
have worked on recent projects within Edmonds. It can sometimes be difficult
to gain meaningful feedback and participation from the development
Page 2
Packet Pg. 29
Draft
6.A.b
community unless they have direct experience or plan to build within the
specific municipality.
1. Referrals. Word-of-mouth referrals are a great way to find early contacts
and spread the word about the code update. This can come from a variety
of sources such as city staff or other residents, especially when a developer
is working with staff on a specific project within Edmonds.
2. Associations. Identify and reach out to professional associations, and
organizations to let them know about this effort. Provide opportunity to
talk with the group via the leadership or email blasts. Staff often utilizes
groups like the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties
(MBAKS) to spread the word and talk with members about upcoming
actions.
C. Government Stakeholders. Although this seems straightforward and intuitive,
identifying government (internal) stakeholders is not always easy. There are
members of staff that work on specific code updates, but there are many
others who aren't directly engaged and involved. These stakeholders can
include those from other divisions or departments such as the Building
Divisions, Engineering, Public Works, etc. It can also represent engagement
with other city sponsored boards and groups such as the Diversity
Commission, Youth Commission, Tree Board, etc.
1. Referrals. Word-of-mouth referrals are a great way to find early contacts
and spread the word about the code update. This can come from a variety
of sources such as city staff or other residents.
2. Presentations. Presenting at other city sponsored boards and commissions
are a way to inform people about the changes (the board members and
general public) and find other referrals for outreach.
V. Methods to Engage/Update
Below are eleven ways for people to contribute and provide feedback on the
proposed standards. Note that not all these methods may be used, depending on
timing, interest, and staffing considerations.
Page 3
Packet Pg. 30
Draft
6.A.b
A. Webpage. A webpage has been created to provide information to the public
about this and other code updates. This will be the primary source for information
about the code update and ways to engage. On the webpage, the public can:
1. Learn about the topic, background, timeline, and specific recommendations
2. Sign up for and receive notifications
3. View upcoming events and engagement opportunities
4. View documents such as presentations, surveys, and draft code
5. Contact staff and ask questions
B. Direct Communications. Emails or phone calls with staff to discuss the topic
and provide feedback on an individual basis.
C. Online Media. Staff can utilize forums such as the City's Facebook page and
submitting articles to MyEdmondsNews to share information.
D. Interviews. Staff can conduct interviews with stakeholders early in the process
to gain a sense/ scope of the issue and get early feedback.
E. Online Survey(s). Surveys can be used to gage preferences and rate
issues/items based on importance.
F. Neighborhood Walk(s). Provides an opportunity for people to meet with staff
and discuss real world examples to help with crafting the desired design standard
outcomes.
H. Group Presentations (as needed). Staff can present information to various
groups or organizations to solicit feedback, hear preferences, and inform about
recommendations. This could be at neighborhood associations, professional
organizations, etc.
I. Open House(s). Provide opportunity for the community to come to a
centralized and in -person location to:
1. Hear about the code update ideas and proposals
2. See displays and graphics about options and/or the proposed changes
3. Opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback
J. Online Web Discussion/ Digital Town Hall. This option may be done instead of,
or in addition to, the open house(s). This would provide a way for people to hear
Page 4
Packet Pg. 31
Draft
6.A.b
and contribute without having to commit to arriving at a set venue. This would
also allow the session to be recorded for later viewing.
K. Focus Group (as needed). This is an opportunity for small group discussions, to
discuss specific recommendations and help facilitate mutual understanding build
consensus.
L. Public Meetings. Scheduled public meetings such as the Planning Board,
Architectural Design Board, and City Council will be used to share information,
hear public feedback, craft draft recommendations, and make decisions. These
public meetings will be an opportunity for feedback and discussion in an official
forum.
VI. Resources Considered by Staff to Assist with Outreach and Engagement
A. Graphics. Staff will be seeking assistance to develop graphics related to this
amendment. This amendment requires a great deal of discussion between
different elements of design and site planning. Because it is very visual, having
good and comparative graphics will be paramount. This will:
1. Make it easier to see comparisons between options,
2. Avoid biases or complications within only using photographs, and
3. Help translate code language into a visual medium.
VII. Final Outcomes and Lessons Learned
At the end of this process, stakeholders should feel like they have had the
opportunity to:
• ask questions,
• provide recommendations,
• understand the code amendment process, and
• contribute to the recommended code changes.
Opportunities for "lessons learned" or reflections may be beneficial after the code
amendment adoption to identify successes and find additional ways to improve
the public outreach and engagement components.
Page 5
Packet Pg. 32
6.A.c
Code Phases
Formulation
Articulation
Adoption
Month
Public Outreach Method
ADB Meeting
PB Meeting
Staff Work
1
Discuss/ Finalize Work Plan
2
Online Open House and MBAKS Contact
Bring on Consultants
3
Discuss Sptecific Components
Work with Consultants on Graphics
4
Neighborhood Walk (possible)
Discuss Sptecific Components (2)
Work with Consultants on Graphics
5
Open House & MBA Presentation
Continue if needed
Discuss Components from ADB and Feedback
First Code Draft
6
Discuss Code Options
7
Neighborhood Walk (possible)
Discuss Code Options
Consultants convert code to graphics (if needed)
8
Continue if needed
9
Open House of Draft & MBA Roundtable
Joint ADB and PB Meeting
Joint ADB and PB Meeting
Finalize Draft/ Update Graphics (if needed)
10
(Outreach focuses on Public Meetings)
Updates per Joint Meeting
Discuss Draft
11
Public Hearing
SEPA
12
SEPA
13
City Council Review
14
City Council Adoption
Q
Packet Pg. 33
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Extended agenda attached for review and discussion.
Attachments:
February 9, 2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 34
�y ()IF
Af
a
7.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
KAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
February 9, 2022
Meeting Item
rcul ual y cvcc
February 23 1. Development Services Department 2022 Work Plan
2. Public Hearing - PROS Plan
Note: Renoticed due to technical issue with recording of 1/26 PROS
Plan Public Hearing
March 2022
March 9 1. Planning Board Retreat
March 23 1. Recap of 2022 Washington State Legislative Session: Planning
Related Context
,pril 2022
April 13 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
Q
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2
Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2022 3.
Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4.
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
5.
Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
6.
Subdivision code updates
7.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
8.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
9. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
10. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
a
Packet Pg. 36