Loading...
2022-08-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting August 10, 2022 Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement. Board Members Present Staff Present Alicia Crank, Chair Roger Pence, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Todd Cloutier (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS GregBrewer rewer expressed concern about the erosion of the business base in the BD2 zone as a result of changes to the permitted use tables which would allow 100% residential buildings. He urged the Planning Board to protect all of the BD2 zone. Michelle Dutch commented that the BD2 designation is defined as downtown mixed commercial. She reviewed how the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element discuss downtown mixed commercial. She urged the Planning Board to preserve commercial in the BD2 zone. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Pagel of 6 JOINT MEETING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION A. BD Designated Street Front Economic Development Commission Members Present: Darrol Haug, Keith Hamilton, Jay Hoag, Vice Chair Kevin Harris, Kevin Smith, Chair Nicole Hughes, David Kaufer, David Coffer, Councilmember Susan Paine Introductions were made. Senior Planner Clugston introduced the topic and made a brief presentation regarding the BD Designated Street Front. He reviewed: • Language from the Downtown Mixed Commercial and Downtown Mixed Residential sections of the Comprehensive Plan. • Designated Street Front regulations: must be commercial within first 45 feet of designated street front; 12-foot minimum ground floor (15 feet in BD 1); different design standards • History of 13132 projects that have occurred since 2011: Post Office, 303 Edmonds Street, 117 2nd Avenue S, 611 Main Street, 627 Dayton Street, 310 Daley. With the exception of the post office, all the other projects were residential proposals. Potential Recommendations: 1. No change — keep Designated Street Front as in Ordinance 3865 2. Accept interim map and use table in Ordinance 4262 3. Accept interim map and take broader look at all BD zones after Comprehensive Plan update (staff s recommendation) 4. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use (to have Designated Street Front requirements) 5. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use and consider zoning change after Comprehensive Plan update to facilitate two floors of residential above commercial Mr. Clugston invited discussion regarding the topic and noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 28. • EDC Chair Hughes explained that there is not necessarily a consensus among the EDC regarding this topic. • EDC Commissioner Harris asked what led the staff to the recommendation they favor if the Comprehensive Plan is the overall guiding document. Mr. Clugston replied that the timing of the project in relation to the Comprehensive Plan update is not ideal. Staff feels that making the interim ordinance into a permanent ordinance results in the changes that the Council wanted to see, but it doesn't take a larger step of redrawing an entire area in the downtown area. Planning Manager Kernen Lien explained that part of the Comprehensive Plan update process will be a visioning process where they can take a broader look at the downtown core and where those designated street fronts should be or not. • EDC Commissioner Haug referred to first floor height requirements for BD 1 and BD2 zones. He noted that a previous EDC looked at this extensively and made a recommendation to change BD 1 to allow 12-foot construction, the same as what BD2 is right now. The EDC was confused about why there was a difference in first floor height requirements between the two zones. Planning Manager Lien stated that the BD 1 height requirement had to do with the retail/display use of the ground floor. The BD2 zone had more to do with office uses where 12 feet is the standard. He noted that the ground floor height impacts the ability to potentially get three floors. The economic analysis in the packet shows that it is harder to Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 2 of 6 get three floors with the ground floor height requirement. Recommendation 5 would be to consider some flexibility with the heights to allow potentially three floors if commercial is required on the ground floor. PB Chair Crank asked for clarification about the pieces that are likely to get changed anyway in the update and visioning process so they don't spend too much time working on those things right now. Planning Manager Lien replied they will be looking at the whole downtown area. This item has been flagged as something that specifically needs to be looked at. He thinks they will likely be looking at commercial use in the downtown area and housing use/availability. EDC Commissioner Smith referred to the old post office and asked how the ground floor building heights compare to what would otherwise be available in the BD2 zone. He asked if the preferred recommendation #3 would allow the building without commercial or if it would require street fronts. Mr. Clugston replied that the post office had 12-foot first floor heights. The preferred recommendation would leave the map as it is with the interim ordinance and the few extensions that the Council approved in June as well as the updated use table. In the future they would look at the broader view of the downtown area after the Comprehensive Plan is updated. EDC Commissioner Hoag noted that the 6ffi & Main project is removing an existing commercial building to put in residential. He acknowledged that there is a housing crisis, but there was a good reason that BD2 had intentional mixed use with business on the ground floor. He thinks they will regret losing the commercial space in the BD2 zone. PB Member Gladstone asked what the drivers are to push for this now rather than waiting for the update and visioning process. Mr. Lien reviewed recent history which brought this to attention and caused Council to adopt a moratorium and interim ordinances for designated street front and design standards. The ordinances are only good for six months. If they are not addressed now, the interim ordinance will just revert back to what it was before it was adopted. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR CRANK TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OPTION 3. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. EDC Vice Chair Harris commented he doesn't have a good understanding of the risks of letting things go back to status quo or changing it to the City's preferred option. Mr. Lien explained the designated street front would get contracted back down to what it was before the interim ordinance. It was extended to protect the retail core by having commercial around the BD 1 zone and to identify areas where there were commercial uses on both sides of the street and within the primary pedestrian areas downtown. Another important part of this was the update to the use table to clarify the uses in the BD2 zone. Recommendation 3 matches what staff is hearing from Council and what they have been hearing from the public. Chair Hughes commented she was leaning towards being able to support Recommendation 3. PB Member Rosen spoke in support of protecting the area for additional business growth. He pointed out that they are not talking about either/or but how much residential. In addition, he referred to previous discussions about transition zones. He noted that people are responding to their experiences walking down the street and their interaction with the buildings. He also spoke in support of Recommendation 3 to "protect the dirt" while also saying they are not done talking about this. PB Member Gladstone asked if the interim designated street front lines reflect what is on the ground better than the actual map. Mr. Lien explained how the expanded lines in the interim ordinance were drawn. They reflect what is actually on the ground right now. PB Member Gladstone asked the Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 3 of 6 difference between making the interim designation permanent and the Recommendation 5 regarding allowing mixed use. Mr. Lien explained Recommendation 5 would also address potential height issues. • EDC Commissioner Smith commented that the Comprehensive Plan update is the appropriate time to take a deeper look at this. He cautioned against getting rid of potential commercial space as they are seeing vibrant growth in the city. He voiced support for Recommendation 4. • PB Member Kuehn expressed concern that if they only do Recommendation 3 it allows issues to happen in other areas. He agrees with "protecting the dirt" until they can take a broader look at this. He spoke in support of Recommendation 4. • PB Member Campbell spoke in support of trying to raise the building height limits in order to get to three stories. She thinks it is going to be necessary in the long run to have this commercial space. She spoke in support of Recommendations 4 or 5 to keep commercial space from disappearing. • EDC Commissioner Hoag commented that this will all lead to some reevaluation of the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't seem feasible that the current owners of the building could adjust their current building to match the interim standards and get it approved before they get to the Comprehensive Plan update. He wasn't sure if anything would ever occur if they did Recommendation 3. MOTION MADE BY PB MEMBER ROSEN TO SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDATION 4 TO "PROTECT THE DIRT" AND TAKE A BROADER LOOK AT THIS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. MOTION SECONDED BY PB MEMBER GLADSTONE. • Student Representative Distelhorst spoke to the need for more housing and spoke in support of preserving options for multifamily housing. • EDC Commissioner Haug asked if EDC members should participate in voting tonight. Mr. Lien noted that the formal recommendation by the Planning Board would be taken following the September 28 public hearing. He stated that they would like to hear the recommendation from the EDC. • EDC Commissioner Hamilton agreed that the City does need some housing in the downtown area, especially charming housing. He thinks that this will help the existing businesses. He also recommended making sure to change height requirements so that they can get three floors. He recommended Recommendation 3 which gives the most flexibility and uses the Comprehensive Plan process. • PB Member Kuehn clarified that the motion would extend the BD2 zones and take a broader look at all BD zones after the Comprehensive Plan process. It will not take away the ability to build residential units. THE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED OPTION 4 PASSED. Mr. Lien stated that staff would bring back Recommendation 4 to the public hearing on September 28. Chair Crank thanked the EDC for joining them tonight. EDC Chair Hughes thanked the group for the collaboration. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone (AMD2022- 0001) Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced the public hearing for the permanent standards for multifamily only buildings in the BD2 zone as recommended by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) last week. He reviewed Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 4 of 6 the amended language from the ADB. He noted that if the recommendation tonight is eventually passed by the Council these standards would be moot. • Materials — The intent was to use preferred building materials such as stone, wood, metal, brick, and glass. The ADB wanted to allow alternative materials ifthey are contributing to a cohesive design theme for the building. • Private Amenh Space — The ADB suggested allowing balconies to encroach into an R-zoned property up to 6 feet rather than 5 feet to make the balconies ADA compatible. • Roof Treatment and Modulation — New verbiage provides a menu of options for developers to use. They have to use at least three of them. • Roof Top Deck — The ADB liked the roof top deck concept in addition to the private amenity space. Vice Chair Pence asked if the stairwell penthouse structure would be allowed on the roof deck area. Mr. Clugston replied that it would not be allowed, but an elevator penthouse would be allowed. Vice Chair Pence did not think that made sense and that it would make the building more expensive than needed. Board Member Campbell agreed that a stairwell penthouse should also be allowed. Mr. Clugston replied that could be looked at as they go through the process and look at definitions of height. Public Testimony: Michelle Dutch referred to building massing, step backs, and shadows. She suggested that a step back for the top floor could be an option for a rooftop amenity so it is not massing and towering over the pedestrian area. She stated that horizontal modulation is critical for interest in the building. She commented that the Subarea Highway 99 Plan has a critical design concern related to not allowing a flat unmodulated wall next to single family or less dense RM 1.5 zone, street, or alley. She also expressed concern about the lack of requirements for green space. Will Magnuson spoke in support of the Board's vote tonight on the BD2 zone. He also spoke in support of the 15-foot height requirement for first floor commercial because it allows for flexibility in uses by providing space for ducting and HVAC options. Regarding roof top decks, he thinks that the stairwell should be an option also and should be adjacent the elevator. He appreciates the roof variance design intent but noted he has seen some really interesting buildings with flat roofs and some really horrible buildings with pitched roofs. Board Discussion: Board Member Campbell asked about green space requirements. Mr. Clugston reviewed requirements for open space, noting that there is not a specific green space requirement in the downtown area. Residential areas have setbacks which are typically green areas. Where multifamily buildings are adjacent to R-zones, landscape buffer plantings would be required. Chair Crank encouraged consideration of pocket parks. She agreed that stairwells should be an option for roof top decks. Board Member Campbell suggested having some sort of green requirement to allow surfaces to allow water absorption. She referred to the Salmon Safe certification and how this could tie in. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Board Member Rosen asked if there is anything about this staff is concerned about. Mr. Clugston thought that this is a good effort at providing additional guidance for these particular projects. He acknowledged that if the designated street front line is redrawn, these design standards become moot. For now, they are a good addition. Board Member Kuehn suggested encouraging developers to consider incorporating green space wherever possible. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR CRANK, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, TO FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. Board Member Campbell stated that this is going in a good direction, but she would like to see inclusion of green space and green building requirements. MOTION PASSED. The public hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Staff reviewed the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rosen thanked everyone who participated tonight. He also appreciated the nature of the discussion. He especially thanked Student Representative Distelhorst for her participation. Vice Chair Pence suggested they need to be paying attention to the community conversations related to the visioning stage of the Comprehensive Plan process. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Crank thanked everyone for their participation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 6 of 6