Loading...
2022-06-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting June 8, 2022 Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Campbell read the land acknowledgement. Board Members Present Alicia Crank, Chair Roger Pence, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn (excused) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Kemen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 25 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Mr. Lien explained that they plan on keeping the boards all virtual for now with an in -person opportunity for public participation at the Waterfront Center. Staff will be exploring options for hybrid meetings for the future. Chair Crank thanked staff for being responsive and getting information to the Planning Board. Vice Chair Pence asked if someone from staff was at the Waterfront Center to assist any members of the public who might show up. Mr. Lien confirmed that there was a staff member there. Vice Chair Pence asked what communication happened with the public to let them know about this opportunity. Mr. Lien stated there was a note at the top of the Planning Board agenda. When they have public hearing going forward, they will have that information along with the Zoom link for participation. Board Member Gladstone asked why they couldn't see the room on the Zoom screen. Mr. Lien thought there was just a tv and a phone in that room but no camera. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 1 of 6 AUDIENCE COlV MENTS None NEW BUSINESS A. Wireless Code Update Introduction Mr. Clugston and Ms. McConnell reviewed some history of wireless in Edmonds and discussed why the update was being done. He explained that cities are not allowed to regulate based on health impacts — real or perceived; however, staff reviews each application for compliance with radiofrequency (RF) limits as set out by the FCC. Updates are being done to respond to some additional FCC mandates, to implement new best practices around concealment and camouflaging, to apply lessons learned from recent projects, and to clean up the code. Summary of Proposed Amendments: • Applicability — clarify master permits, licenses, and specific permits; establish a review of ROW installations after 10 years to ensure consistency with future wireless code amendments for aesthetics • Clarify shot clocks and application requirements; create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections; create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions • Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates — updates proposed to track with FCC mandates; create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections, create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions • Clarify maintenance and abandonment language — administrative clarification • Update nonconforming language — language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible Facility Request standards; will be included as redline/strike-out in public hearing draft • Small cell dimensional, location, and aesthetic standards — intended to minimize visual impact of small cell installations Mr. Clugston explained that small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather. They are primarily located in the right of way. Antennas are smaller and lower power than macro wireless (20-40' ideal height); however lower installations need more sites to cover the same area. Full concealment is possible. He reviewed examples of Edmonds' Location Preference Hierarchy: LP 1: Hollow utility pole (no solutions available yet) LP2: Freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight LP3: Wood utility pole — on top (PUD doesn't allow yet) LP4: Wood utility pole — side mount LP5: Strand -mounted — on wires Applicants are required to demonstrate they cannot fulfill each level before proceeding to the next lower priority level. There has only been one small cell application come through the City so far, and it was for Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 2 of 6 LP4. Chair Crank asked about the two strongly preferred options (LP1 and LP3) which are not available. Mr. Clugston explained they are still hopeful to eventually have options for those. Small Cell Dimensional, Location, and Aesthetic Standard Amendments: • Revise facility dispersion requirements — Existing is 300' for all installations. Staff is proposing no requirements for dispersion with LP1; 150' with LP2; 300' for LP3-LP5 • Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless facilities (LP2) — allow for additional height (35-38') and width (20-22"); update location/clearance requirements; encourage use of LP2 • Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments (LP3 & LP4) — PUD doesn't allow LP3 pole -top attachments but solutions exist and discussions are ongoing. LP4 was the landing spot for the first small cell application. Staff is proposing requiring the mounting of conduits and equipment as close as possible to pole; requiring power from overhead, if available; and multiple points of attachments versus single for different features. Discussions are ongoing. Mr. Clugston stated there is a public hearing tentatively scheduled for July 13. Staff will continue to do additional research for small cell standards and will include "nonconforming" redline/strike-out in next draft. Board Member Cheung asked if cost can be a reason for infeasibility. Ms. McConnell replied it cannot. Board Member Cheung asked why PUD is not okay with it being on top, but they are okay with it being on the side. Ms. McConnell replied that there are certifications required to work in the electrical space. Currently it is PUD that has to do that work; wireless companies cannot. Board Member asked if there will be some sort of consistency with the types of poles with the LP2 option. Ms. McConnell replied they are still working on that. hi downtown Edmonds there is a certain type of pole that has been identified, but elsewhere they are still working through options. Board Member Campbell asked why they wouldn't want to have the same requirements elsewhere in the City as they do in downtown. She was strongly in favor of having a uniform standard for the small cell. Board Member Gladstone asked who installs and maintains the streetlights. Ms. McConnell replied that both the PUD and the City install streetlights, but the majority of the lights in Edmonds are PUD lights. Board Member Gladstone thought that LP5 looked less intrusive than LP4. She wondered why this was a lower priority level. Ms. McConnell acknowledged this and explained they also considered what else was already up there on the wires. Board Member Gladstone asked if they have a sense of how many applications they will get in the future. Ms. McConnell replied that they do not know what to expect. Mr. Clugston thought there would be dozens and dozens of them. Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the regulations they have created to protect the City as much as possible. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE MISSING AMENDMENTS REFERENCED BY STAFF AND TAKE THIS TO A PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED (6-0) WITH BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE ABSTAINING. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 3 of 6 B. BD2 Designated Street Front Mr. Lien introduced the Designated Street Front recent history, ordinance history, and map revisions. With the adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, councilmembers voiced an interest in having commercial office to support the retail core. Legislative history has favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street as part of the original designation. With the new regulations there must be commercial use within the first 45 feet of designated street front; and there are minimum ground floor requirements of 12 feet in BD2 and 15 feet in BD 1 and different design standards. There are also changes to the use table which clarify ambiguities, fills in blanks, and reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements. Mr. Lien reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Goal E, E-1 for the Downtown/Waterfront Area to provide for a strong central retail core while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding area and to support a mix of uses in downtown including a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The BD zoning purposes state that it is to provide a strong retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding retail core area. Staff had wondered if Designated Street Front restrictions would inhibit market demand for residential development, if there is a market demand for a mixed commercial building, and if there is a market demand for solely commercial buildings. An analysis by staff of commercial shows that the commercial leasing market appears to be stable. The multifamily rental market shows that there is short supply and high demand for rental units. He reviewed drawings of designs of development they might see in the BD2 zone with the Designated Street Front. The overall conclusion of the market analysis is that the risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make mixed -use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer. The interim ordinance passed by Council will expire on December 1. To make it permanent it will have to come through the Planning Board. Some of the councilmembers want to take a broader look at the Designated Street Front. Staff is not recommending a broader look at this time but possibly in the future in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted it is possible to extend the interim ordinance for more than six months if there is a work plan for how they are going to address it. He suggested a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission on this. Discussion: Board Member Rosen agreed that they should meet with the Economic Development Commission before making any recommendations. He understands staff s recommendation to not take a broader look at this time but expressed concern that the expanded area could be developed all residential before they do this. He thinks it is prudent to consider the impacts of the "dotted blue lines". Mr. Lien agreed that they should look at the dotted blue lines. If they want to take a bigger look at the Designated Street Front in other areas of the city, he thinks that should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the clarification and recommended they don't eliminate any options before meeting with the Economic Development Commission. Chair Crank concurred. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Board Member Gladstone asked about the ceiling requirement on the ground floor commercial (12 and 15 feet) and how that compares with residential. Mr. Lien replied that the examples showed 8 or 9 feet for residential. Mr. Lien explained the code shows the ground floor requirement for the first floor in the BD zone is 15 feet from the first floor to the top of the 2nd floor level and 12 feet in the BD2 zone. The taller ceilings are desirable for commercial. Board Member Gladstone commented that desirability is subjective; she wondered if there was a more objective reason. Board Member Cloutier commented that no one will rent a commercial space with a low ceiling. There is a feeling of more light and more air with the higher ceilings. When there is commercial space already on the market that is not renting, this would be building non -usable nonrentable space. Board Member Gladstone welcomed the opportunity to do a walking tour around how things are zoned the way they are so she could have a better grasp of the topic. Board Member Cheung asked about councilmembers' reasoning of having commercial use because it would support retail. Mr. Lien explained that in the BD 1 zone commercial is required on the ground floor. He thinks the Council was interested in protecting commercial/office space outside the BD 1 core but also having residential use downtown that supports the commercial use. Board Member Cheung recalled councilmembers' statements quite a while ago about having more office space people would give life to commercial as they were walking around at lunchtime but wondered if those statements were made pre- Covid. He thought that now, when more people are working from home, it might have shifted, and the residential might be what gives the life to commercial in the downtown area. Vice Chair Pence expressed concern about submerging the main floor as a way to still get three floors. Since there is some general recognition that this is not a desirable building form, can they do some tweaking to the allowable building heights and floor -to -ceiling heights to allow developers to get a functional 3-story building that still keeps with the desired aesthetics. Mr. Lien commented that it would only take an additional two feet to make three floors feasible. He noted that this same discussion has occurred over the last 50 years regarding downtown Edmonds but people are resistant to increasing building heights. Board Member Campbell agreed with looking at raising the allowable building height in order to provide economically feasible buildings that can have people inhabiting them. She thought that people who don't live in the downtown core are less likely to use those businesses than people that live there because of parking challenges. Board Member Gladstone stated she is one of those people who has historically resisted increased building heights, but she has always assumed they were talking about adding another 10 feet to get another floor. This is the first time she has heard it is only two feet. She asked if there were ever renderings done to show what it would look like if they did that. Board Member Cloutier suggested looking at meeting minutes from 2008- 2010 where renderings were made to show the difference between setbacks and cake backs. Mr. Lien noted that building form is what they need to look at to preserve the light and openness. He commented on some of the discussion that occurred in the past and offered to pull up the meeting minutes from way back to give some insight into those discussions. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and discussed a potential meeting with the Economic Development Commission in July or August. There was consensus to try to schedule a joint meeting with the EDC at the Planning Board's regular meeting on August 10 and have a summer break on August 24. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 5 of 6 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Gladstone expressed appreciation for the dialogue surrounding meeting options (in -person, hybrid, online) and noted these are challenging times to navigate. Vice Chair Pence recommended having a public announcement about the meeting room opportunity down at the Waterfront Center to broaden awareness. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Crank had the following comments: • She agreed this is a challenging time for everyone. She urged everyone to be vigilant and careful. • She encouraged board members to use their various social media platforms and other connections to get the word out about what is going on with meetings. • She noted that the first draft of the Snohomish County Airport Commission Master Plan Update is out. She invited everyone to go to the Paine Field website to check it out and provide input. • She is working on an event on June 29 at the ECA, which will be an educational conversation around Juneteenth and the 4t' of July. • She thanked everyone for their feedback about meeting platforms. • She reminded board members to be careful about cc's and bees so they don't end up with accidental meetings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 6 of 6