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