Loading...
2023-02-15 Planning Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. Agenda s Edmonds Planning Board IHy� SPECIAL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 15, 2023, 7:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This special meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board is being held due to technical difficulties experienced during the Planning Board's February 8 regular meeting, including the lack of a recording of the meeting. The agenda includes all items from the February 8 regular meeting. Item 4 (Audience Comments) has been supplemented to include written public comments related to Item 8B that were submitted after the February 8 meeting packet was published but before this meeting. This is a hybrid meeting. The in -person portion of the meeting is at 7PM in Council Chambers. The Zoom link is available at https:Hedmondswa-gov.zoom.us/j/81526776291, Webinar ID: 815 2677 6291 The meeting can also be accessed by telephone at +1253 215 8782, using the Webinar ID above. 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. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Written Public Comments Related to February 8 Meeting ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Edmonds Planning Board Agenda February 15, 2023 Page 1 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT 13. GENERIC AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds Planning Board Agenda February 15, 2023 Page 2 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2023 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve attached minutes from December 14, 2022 joint meeting and Planning Board January 25th meeting. Narrative Draft minutes from both meetings attached. Attachments: PB221214 draft -Joint PB_ Tree Board PB230125 draft Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD & TREE BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting December 14, 2022 Chair Pence called the joint meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board and Tree Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement. Planning Board Members Present Roger Pence, Chair Judi Gladstone, Vice Chair Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Planning Board Members Absent Todd Cloutier (excused) Richard Kuehn (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Deb Forest, Urban Forest Planner Tree Board Members Present Janelle Cass, Chair Bill Phipps, Vice Chair Wendy Kliment Crane Stavig Chris Eck (virtual) MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9 AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Board Member Rosen requested switching the order of the Planning Board Handbook and the Tree Code Amendments for the convenience of the Tree Board members present. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS David Ehrlich stated he had concerns about the Tree Code as it applies to private property. He is interested in knowing what can be done about alder forests and fallen trees on large parcels of private property. Linda Murray stated she was just present to listen. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a Will Ma lg,� uson said he was interested knowing if the apartment buildings being proposed on Dayton are adhering to the BD2 ordinance that was recently passed. Linda Ferkin sg tad expressed concerns about how the Tree Code has impacted her family and their property because of tree retention requirements and excessive fee requirements. She stated this is an illegal seizure, and forced coercion is required before permits are issued permanently. It interferes with property rights, devalues property, and violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. She asserted the excessive fees violate the 5th Amendments' takings clause of the Constitution. She reviewed the extensive costs and delays associated with the requirements of the Tree Code. She urged the Planning Board and Tree Board to carefully consider their actions and the impact of the code on the constitutional rights of families and property owners. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments, ADM 2022-004 Tree Board Chair Janelle Cass introduced the Tree Board members and gave highlights of the Tree Board's work on the code. Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers gave the presentation regarding the Tree Code Amendments. The objectives of these amendments are to limit property owner tree removals (Phase 2) and consider minor changes to the current code. She also gave an update on the public engagement plan for this project. Planet Geo will be the consultant for guiding public engagement efforts using an equitable engagement framework. She highlighted the consolidated code list and discussed complexities associated with it. Currently there are 21 minor code amendments being proposed. Property Owners Tree Removals (major code amendments) considerations: • Allow a limited number of removals? • Certain wait period between removals? • Consider limits to landmark tree removals? • What triggers a permit or fees? • Should there be a minimum number of existing trees? • Replacements? Next steps: new minor code process; minor code amendment final roster; property owner tree removals Discussion: Chair Pence asked if the code gets into reasons for the removal. Ms. Powers replied that it does not. Chair Pence expressed concern about complicated restrictions that force a homeowner to hire a lawyer or an arborist or both to figure out what they can do. Ms. Powers explained that can be avoided by having a very prescriptive code. Chair Pence asked about the current standards. Ms. Powers generally reviewed these. She explained they will go into more depth when they are talking about property owner tree removals. Tonight, staff is only looking for a recommendation regarding the minor code amendments and approval of the process. Board Member Campbell spoke in support of the equitable engagement framework as they go through this process. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Chair Cass noted that there has actually been an increase in tree canopy cover in Edmonds. Ms. Powers noted that overall, there has been an increase, but certain areas have not seen an increase. Ms. Powers reviewed the proposed list of minor amendments: 1-4. Clarify Definitions 5. Which developments require tree plans? 6. Clarify development review process 7 Add "viable" 8. TPZ 9. Identify incentives 10. Consistent City/applicant code language 11. Clarify arborist reports c' 12. Double negatives 13. Conservation Subdivision Incentive c 14. Prioritize incentives/variations, "phased review" 15. Clarify replacement trees 16. Reformat replacement trees (chart) i 17. Consolidate replacement trees 18. Reformat fees in lieu 19. Reference Tree Fund o 20. Strike "substitute" reference m 21. Incorrect code reference Items to consider pulling from minor code amendment list: • Amendment 9 — Identify Incentives: Vice Chair Phipps spoke to his concerns about item 9 and emphasized the importance of tree replacement to account for the carbon loss of trees. Chair Pence asked if he wanted to apply this to homeowners in addition to developers. Vice Chair Phipps affirmed that he did. Chair Pence asked if it would require replacement on site or if they could pay into a fund to replant in other locations. Vice Chair Phipps acknowledged that replanting on site was not always possible although it would be ideal. Fees -in -lieu would address this by replanting the trees somewhere else. He was in support of a tree preserve or a tree farm for this purpose. Ms. Powers explained that the ways to clarify the incentives would be a minor code amendment, but to address the issues in other ways would bump it up to moderate or major. Board Member Campbell commented that the very fact that they are having a debate about this indicates it is not a minor amendment. • Amendment 12 — Double Negatives: Ms. Powers discussed the confusion contained in the code. Because it is not easy to wordsmith, this it would require some code restructuring and would not be a minor amendment. There was consensus to remove this from the list. • Amendment 13 — Conservation Subdivision Incentive/Minimum retention threshold: "Greater tree retention" needs to be clarified as a numerical threshold. • Amendment 15 - Clarify replacement trees: Streamline, use one system, equity • Amendment 16 - Reformat replacement trees (chart): Replanting options >24" DBH, replant first vs. fees in lieu • Amendment 17 - Consolidate replacement trees: Streamline, use one system, equity • Amendment 18 - Reformat fees in lieu: Streamline, use one system, replant first Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Vice Chair Gladstone commented that it seems there are a fair number of items that need to go through an equity analysis. Conducting that analysis will inform whether or not these are important. She wondered if the code results in unequal outcomes because of differences in people's resources. This is especially true with minor amendments 1, 3, and 18. Board Member Campbell noted that the minor code already requires a qualified tree professional. She wondered if changing the definition of what a qualified tree professional is would change the equity aspect. Vice Chair Gladstone did not know but expressed concern that they would end up with unequal results because of available resources. Ms. Powers pointed to the dark grey section in the list which contains items related to this that are outside the scope of this discussion. There have been discussions about using an equity lens internally to look at all codes and policies in an equitable, fair, and inclusive manner. Board Member Rosen agreed that this was important and agreed with Board Chair Gladstone that they need to solve the problem of who comes up with the process and the filter in the future. Ms. Powers pointed out that it is already listed as the last item in the dark grey section (no process to analyze and revise city codes for diversity, equity, and inclusion). Vice Chair Gladstone spoke in support of the proposed list but referred to the definition of "viable tree" and noted that "significant" is used in the definition which is confusing. Ms. Powers explained that "significant" is defined in the code. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING WHICH MINOR AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE MINOR AMENDMENT LIST AND THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS STAFF PROCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES FOR THE REMAINING MINOR AMENDMENTS. Vice Chair Phipps commented that this is a very confusing process. They have spent a lot of time talking about the process and not enough time talking about the substance. He stressed the need for moderate and major things getting dealt with at some point. He spoke in support of moving forward with the process so they can get to the substantive issues. Ms. Powers stated she would be coming back to the boards at some point in January to discuss major code amendments that have to do with property owner tree removal. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). Tree Board members left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The group recessed until 8:40 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Planning Board Handbook Senior Planner Clugston explained that the handbook would help with onboarding new members. He requested feedback on the draft handbook. Board Member Campbell recommended that specific staff names be omitted within the document (or only be limited to one "contact" section) and just generic titles used throughout the document. Board Member Rosen: • He thanked staff for working on this handbook. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a • He recommended deleting the reference to COVID on packet page 15. • On packet page 17, he clarified that the practice has been that the alternate voted any time a person was missing, not just when they needed a quorum. Mr. Clugston noted this is what is in the code, but they are free to change it if they want. • The terms on packet page 19 need to be updated. • He wondered if they should address the use of task forces or subgroups to advance work. • Is it worth pointing out that we do not have a council liaison and why? • As an advisory group, can the tools they use to convey information to the Council be more spelled out (motions, head nods, memos, etc.) • He recommended clarification about their scope of work and what to do if they have opinions outside of that scope. Mr. Clugston referred to language in Powers and Duties. Board Member Rosen thought he heard the City Attorney encouraging them to express opinions they have even if they fall outside of the scope. Vice Chair Gladstone recommended getting focus questions when they have discussion items so the discussion doesn't go all over the place. Board Member Campbell: • She recommended being specific about the duties and responsibilities of the Chair and the Vice Chair. • She also recommended clarification about the procedures for election of officers. • She recommended having a standing subcommittee that the Chair should be a part of to increase public engagement. • She expressed appreciation for this handbook. Vice Chair Gladstone requested clarity about staff s role in terms of agenda setting. Mr. Clugston explained that it is ultimately up to staff but they invite the Board's input. Chair Pence requested more frequent, brief, informal updates about ongoing planning projects so the Planning Board stays in the loop. Mr. Clugston thought this would improve in 2023 because they are hiring a new planning manager. Mr. Clugston asked the Board if there was an interest in starting the meetings at 6 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. There was interest in this, but the Board decided to wait until new members were on board to discuss changing it. It was noted that the meeting location also needs to be changed. Board Member Campbell indicated she had notes she could provide staff regarding suggested edits. She had suggestions regarding the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair. Chair Pence commented it did not need to be too detailed since it is all pretty straightforward. Vice Chair Gladstone said she was interested in seeing the detailed suggestions. Board Member Campbell stated she would forward those to Vice Chair Gladstone for review. The Board was very appreciative that the handbook was getting prepared. NEW BUSINESS None Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Extended Agenda The extended agenda was reviewed. There was significant discussion and strong opinions about not using regular meeting time for the OPMA training. It was suggested that the training could be done for all boards and commissions at the same time. Mr. Clugston indicated they could look into options. Vice Chair Gladstone had the following comments: • She noted that the Planning Board Powers and Duties, #3, says that the Board shall serve as an ongoing a Park Board and advise the Mayor and City Council on all matters relating to the acquisition and c' development of all city parks and recreation facilities. She thought this sounded pretty limited; it didn't sound like it included operations. Chair Pence commented that there has been discussion about breaking the Parks responsibility out of the Planning Board and having it be either a freestanding board or merging it in with the Tree Board. This would reduce some of the Planning Board's work since they are so busy. L • She asked for clarification about where the points of input are for the Highway 99 Community Renewal Program. Chair Pence explained this is the point of the initial briefing. • She recommended that they include on the agenda what it is they hope to get out of the meeting for each item. • She expressed concern that the multifamily design standard has fallen off their list. She would like to figure out where it can fit into the agenda. • Before they do the Tree Code update, she wants to be clear about what the goal is. She requested that the Tree Board review the moderate and major items and come to the Planning Board with a recommendation and why. She is uncomfortable diving into those topics without the knowledge and depth that the Tree Board has. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Pence gave an overview of his 3'/2 months as Planning Board Chair. He discussed the struggle of having unfilled seats on the Board and the problems that created with getting quorums for meetings. He reviewed the status of board member replacements and his unsuccessful attempts to meet with the Mayor. He hopes for the sake of the city and the Board that the Mayor decides to fill the vacancies. He then announced that he has very recently been informed that his term is up, and that he will not be reappointed. He still has an interest in the work and will be involved as much as possible. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rosen reported this is his 109t' meeting. He announced this would also be his last meeting as he received the same notification this week as Chair Pence that his term will not be extended. He has considered it an honor to serve on this board and to serve as chair for a year. He hopes the collaboration between the Board, staff, the community, and the Council can be even greater in the future because the potential is amazing. He reviewed highlights and stories about his time on the Board. He encouraged everyone to remember that they are only temporary stewards of the land, to take that seriously, and not to screw things up. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Vice Chair Gladstone commented on how impressed she had been with Planning Board when she joined in May of 2020. She noted that Board Members Pence and Rosen would be greatly missed. She expressed concern about their loss in terms of continuity, experience, and wisdom of the work that has been done. Their absence will be felt. Board Member Campbell noted she was the newest member of the Planning Board. She thanked Board Members Pence and Rosen for their work, their guidance, and for helping her get up to speed. She agreed that they are going to be missed dearly. She thanked them for their service to the City and to the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting January 25, 2023 CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gladstone called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. There was consensus to move introductions up in the agenda. Introductions were made of staff and board members. 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 Judi Gladstone, Acting Chair' Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Beth Tragus-Campbe112 Nick Maxwell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Todd Cloutier Richard Kuehn Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner David Levitan, Planning Manager READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. 1 Judy Gladstone was elected Chair towards the end of the meeting. Up to that point she is referred to as Acting Chair. 2 Beth Tragus-Campbell was elected Vice Chair towards the end of the meeting. Up to that point she is referred to as Board Member Campbell. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.b AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence, past chair of the Planning Board, welcomed and encouraged new board members. He stated he still cares passionately about the Board and that he is open to meeting with any board members who are interested. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Q4 Accomplishments The report by Director Feser was included in the packet. Comments and questions were invited. Board Member Campbell commented that she was glad to see that they started an asset inventory. This is important for efficiency in maintaining equipment. Acting Chair Gladstone was also glad to see the asset inventory. She asked if there will be an asset planning process once the inventory is done. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they would ask Director Feser. Acting Chair Gladstone also wondered if moving the cultural programs out of the Parks department has balanced their load. c a� as Board Member Campbell noted that the reinstallation of the viewing scopes at Brackett's Landing North at the marsh had been mentioned. Are there any systems being used to monitor or prevent additional vandalization? 2 0 The Board expressed appreciation to Director Feser for the good report. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment for Minor Code Changes in ECDC 20.80 (AMD2022- 0005) The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Senior Planner Clugston gave an overview of this topic regarding creating a new streamlined process for making minor development code amendments. The proposed process would involve staff creating a list of minor code amendments on a semi-annual basis to be presented to Council on their consent agenda. He highlighted the draft code in the packet. Board Member Maxwell asked about the Planning Board's involvement in the minor code amendment process. Mr. Clugston explained the minor code amendments would go right to Council. Major code amendments would come to the Planning Board as part of the process. Board Member Maxwell asked what they would do if something got amended that was later determined to be major. Mr. Clugston stated that was not the intent, but if they realized after the fact that something had been changed inadvertently, they could go back and change it if needed. Board Member Maxwell asked if staff could send this to the Board at the same time it is sent to Council so they could make comments if needed. Mr. Clugston thought that might be a possibility. Planning Manager Levitan explained that the intent of this is to avoid the need for a Planning Board official meeting or public hearing on minor code amendments. He emphasized that anything tied to actual development code and zoning code would still go through the Planning Board. Acting Chair Gladstone urged caution in how comments are made at Council meetings. She noted that if the Planning Board does not deliberate on something then comments made to Council could only be on behalf of the individual making the comments, not the Board. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.b Planning Manager Levitan noted that the Board could be included on the distribution list of those items. Board Member Campbell asked that the Board be included in the distribution list for anything related to planning. Public Comment: Roger Pence suggested not taking the Planning Board out of the loop entirely. He agreed that the Planning Board should have a chance to look at the list of proposed changes to make sure there are not red flags hidden in there. The public hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m. Discussion: Board Member Campbell referred to section 20.80.015, the phrasing for the minor development code map amendments, section A, and suggested changing the language from "little to no policy study" to "no policy study" because little is a subjective term. Acting Chair Gladstone concurred because it eliminates any ambiguity about what the intent is. 2 Board Member Mitchell asked if there any projects that are being held up because of this. Mr. Clugston replied c that there is nothing pending that would be impacted by this. Board Member Campbell generally spoke in support of the proposed amendments from a workload standpoint cc L- as long as the lists of proposed minor code amendments are provided to the Board when they are provided to the City Council. Board Member Golembiewski referred to 20.180.015(c) regarding the review process and asked if they want to define "periodically" in the code. She thought it made more sense to have the list come to the Planning Board as a review item (not a public hearing) before going to the City Council. There was discussion about options. Acting Chair Gladstone stated she is very comfortable with this not coming to the Planning Board and having some trust in the planning staff to do their job right and the Council to notice when something is not minor. Board Member spoke in support of this for the sake of streamlining the process and freeing staff and the Board up to do bigger and better things. Board Member Golembiewski said she was having a hard time with the idea that the Planning Board would be given notice but not have a chance to discuss the list before it goes to the Council. She wasn't comfortable with the only action available to them being to speak at the Council meeting rather than as a unified group. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN AMENDED PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.80 ECDC TO CREATE A MINOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS. THE TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE IN SECTION 20.80.015, MINOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AND MAP AMENDMENT, TO SAY, "IT IS A STREAMLINED PROCESS USED FOR PROPOSED CHANGES WHICH NEED NO POLICY STUDY." THIS PROCESS WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITY Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.b TO MAKE SMALL CODE CHANGES TO PROMOTE CLARITY, ELIMINATE REDUNDANCY, STREAMLINE PROCESSES, AND CORRECT INCONSISTENCIES. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Draft Handbook Discussion and Possible Finalization Mr. Clugston referred to the draft handbook in the Board's packet and solicited comments. Board Member Campbell recommended that they add a section under Officer Positions saying that if Chair position becomes vacant, the Vice Chair automatically becomes Chair. If the Vice Chair position becomes vacant, the new Vice Chair will be elected at the next regular board meeting. Also, under Officer Positions, she recommended adding that the Board may establish committees of three members or fewer as needed to conduct business as defined by the Board at the time of the committee establishment. Acting Chair Gladstone stated this reflects what they have done in the past which has worked well. She was in support of including this in the handbook. There was discussion about adding a general reference to state regulations regarding planning boards/commissions for clarity. Board Member Maxwell had the following comments/questions: • He asked about the rules of order they are functioning under. Mr. Clugston replied it is Robert's Rules, and that can be added in here. Board Member Maxwell also requested they identify which version of Robert's Rules they are using. He referred to packet page 23, section 7.A.a., regarding Outside Communication and asked if the contacts are Planning Manager Levitan and Senior Planner Clugston. Planning Manager Levitan stated that historically the Planning Manager has been the main contact and liaison for the Planning Board. This will be updated. There was a recommendation to have titles instead of names so it doesn't have to be updated each time there is a staffing change. He referred to upcoming training with the city attorney and requested some basic information about essential things they need to know in the meantime. Planning Manager Levitan referred to the bottom of page 20 in the packet and noted that OPMA is the main thing they need to be aware of. He discussed general guidelines to keep in mind. Acting Chair Gladstone had the following comments/questions: • She clarified that OPMA does not preclude board members from having conversations outside of meetings. She thought the language needs to be respectful of the non -rolling meetings but allowing for productive conversations. Board Member Mitchell concurred. • She suggested addressing absences in the code in order to deal with high numbers of absences that previously hampered the business of the Planning Board when they did not have a quorum. Planning Manager Levitan referred to the 70% threshold. There was some confusion about whether this included excused absences. Mr. Levitan commented that it would be difficult to create handbook language that conflicted with the city code, but they could clarify what the city code says about attendance and absences. Acting Chair Gladstone suggested asking the City Attorney about including a statement along the lines of, "If a Planning Board member finds they are having a hard time meeting the minimum meeting requirement, they might want to consider if they are able to make the time commitment that is Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.b needed for the Planning Board." Mr. Levitan thought that was reasonable. He pointed out that the way it is codified, the Chair has the final say as far as excusing absences. • She referred to the Meeting Notes section on packet page 22 and expressed concern about the word "transcribe" because verbatim transcription is not what they have now and not what she wants them to have going forward. She recommended language such as "meeting notes" instead of "transcription". • She also requested some clarity around the document storage section and asked what this applies to. Is it okay if she takes her personal notes on her laptop? Mr. Levitan indicated they could check with the city attorney. • She suggested having protocols for dealing with outside issues so they can feel comfortable being both a citizen of Edmonds and a Planning Board member. Other board members concurred. • She suggested adding language to the attendance section that says board members should notify staff as soon as they know they will not be able to attend a meeting. Board Member Martini asked about getting the agendas in a Word format for accessibility. Mr. Levitan said they could look into that. w as Acting Chair Gladstone requested that any other comments be sent to Mr. Clugston who can then distribute it 5 to the rest of the Board. She expressed appreciation to staff for the work on the handbook. c B. New Member Introduction and Orientation — This was done at the beginning of the meeting and throughout the meeting as questions came up. L NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers Board Member Campbell nominated Judy Gladstone to transition from Acting Chair to Chair. The motion was seconded by Board Member Golembiewski. There were no other nominations. JUDY GLADSTONE WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED CHAIR. Chair Gladstone nominated Beth Tragus-Campbell as Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Board Member Maxwell. There were no other nominations. BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED VICE CHAIR. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston gave an overview of the extended agenda. The Comprehensive Plan update will be a main work item over the next year along with various code items and other reports. Chair Gladstone recommended putting a retreat planning discussion on the next meeting agenda. She commented that the rest of the agenda may need to be modified so they aren't overbooked. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.b Vice Chair Campbell referred to the Comp Plan update and suggested having more actionable items for the Planning Board. They have received a lot of presentations but haven't had many items they can provide valuable feedback on. Planning Manager Levitan stated they can solicit some early feedback from the Planning Board. Chair Gladstone requested a Comp Plan update roadmap from staff at the next meeting so the Board can have an idea about how/when to provide input. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone said she was very happy with the full group and is looking forward to working with everybody. She appreciates the new members' participation today. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS • Student Representative Distelhorst echoed Chair Gladstone's comments and added that she is excited to see what will happen in the legislative session especially related to housing. a • Board Member Martini thanked everyone for the welcome. c • Board Member Maxwell concurred. • Vice Chair Campbell welcomed new Planning Board members and new Planning Manager Levitan. Thanks to Senior Planner Clugston for all the extra support in the interim. • Board Member Mitchell said he is excited to be on the Board and to work collaboratively with the other members, staff, and public. o • Board Member Golembiewski said she also is excited to be here and to see all that is on the agenda. She appreciates the help and patience from the existing members and staff. 2- ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 16 4.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2023 Written Public Comments Related to February 8 Meeting Staff Lead: David Levitan Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History The city received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and following the February 8 meeting, which are attached. Attachments: Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1 Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map Packet Pg. 17 4.A.a From: Stanley Piha To: Plannina Subject: Planning Board Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:15:15 AM Attachments: Stanley Piha Planning Board 2 8 23 JPG.PDF Dear Michelle Martin, Please find comments for the planning board in advance of the February 8, 2023 planning board meeting. Would you please confirm receipt? Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 21014th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanlev(@stanlevre.com www.stanleyre.com Packet Pg. 18 4.A.a Memorandum To: City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Stanley Piha Date: January 7, 2023 Re: Emergency Ordinance 4283 Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone Dear City of Edmonds Planning Board, Please accept this memorandum in opposition of implementing Ordinance No. 4283 which is being discussed at the January 8, 2023 Edmonds Planning Board meeting. 1. 1 am one of the owners of vacant land commonly known as 23625 84th Avenue West, Edmonds. 2. This parcel of land was contracted to be sold under a purchase and sale agreement to a builder who submitted an application for the project identified as the Edmonds Terrace to construct a multi -family building in accordance with the CG Zone of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. No deviations or variances to the code were requested. 3. In July 2022 the Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Board pending projects at the City of Edmonds. 4. The Planning Board meeting minutes of July 27, 2022 indicate one planning board member expressing "concern" about the height and scope of Edmonds Terrace project. 5. FALSE NARRATVIE - From the date of the July 27, 2022 planning board meeting to the October 4, 2022 City Council meeting, wherein Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted, misinformation was communicated by the public to the Edmonds Planning Department regarding the lapse to discuss step backs for properties in the Highway 99 Subarea that are across the street from RS zoned properties. This resulted in Planning Manager Kernan Lien presenting a false narrative to the City Council regarding this lapse. 6. VACATED ORDINANCE AND FAILED PROCEDURE - At the November 22, 2022 City Council Meeting, Planning Director Susan McLaughlin corrected the record to reflect that indeed the subject of step backs across the street from single family zoned property was presented to the City Council at public meetings in 2017 by Planning Director Hope Shane on more than one occasion and that questions and comments by Councilmembers at the time were asked and answered. Of note is that Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and Nelson at the time voted with all other councilmembers to unanimously adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as presented. The City Council vacated Emergency Ordinance 4278 on November 22, 2022. However, City Attorney "Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim ordinance. The council packet does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Staff was following council direction to draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council wanted to vote on this motion, staff will interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken on something that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on the consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance". Packet Pg. 19 4.A.a 7. BACK PEDDELING - During the two week period from November 22, 2022 to December 6, 2022, it appears Councilmembers were contacted by parties opposed to vacating Emergency Ordinance 4278. At the December 6, 2022 City Council Meeting, what was to be a rubber stamp approval to vacate, Council pulled the Ordinance from the agenda to once again discuss the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance to a future date. Council moved the follow up meeting to Saturday December 10, 2022. 8. SUBSTITUTE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -On December 10, 2022, Council with input from residents (see page 31 of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022) where Council President Olson reads language "provided by a resident", Council adopts Ordinance No. 4283 an Emergency Ordinance of the City of Edmonds Washington, Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone" 9. ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF UNCERTAINTY - The Interim Development regulations now require a two-step process to seek approval of a proposed project when the Highway 99 subarea plan adopted in 2017 required only administrative approval. This adds uncertainty to any party thinking of building on property in the Highway 99 subarea that is either adjacent to or across the street from single family zoned property. The Planning Board should recognize that what once was a streamlined approach to incentivize adding housing units to the Highway 99 subarea is now a penalty. It is highly unlikely that any builder will spend time and financial resources without a shred of reliability to plan a project in the Highway 99 subarea. 10. WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING CRISIS - The State of Washington and Snohomish County are experiencing a housing and homelessness crisis. Governor Jay Inslee has gone so far as to say "a lack of affordable housing drives our State's homelessness crisis". State Senator Marko Liis has gone further when expressing at the Snohomish County Alliance meeting held recently that "One obstacle, is the permitting process for new projects. He thinks it must be streamlined to encourage new development. "Once you've zoned it, you have to make sure that it also gets built. And that's what I think that we're not seeing yet in Edmonds; there is a vision, but we need the units now, on the ground." 11. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - Challenge Seattle and Boston Consulting Group issued its report in January 2023: Addressing Housing Affordability in Washington. Four takeaways from the report are: a. Housing affordability is at a crises level in Washington State. It disproportionately impacts people of color, burdens low and middle -income households, and directly contributes to homelessness, which is also at a crises level. b. The fundamental problem is we lack housing supply. This have been the case for decades, and with a growing population the problem only will worsen. c. Housing supply- at the right size, in the right place, and at the right price is the solution to address today's affordability crises and meet tomorrow's housing needs. Action should begin with zoning reform as the foundation to build upon. From there, a comprehensive portfolio of short -and long-term policy solutions is required to fully address the crises. d. We need to act now. By taking a comprehensive approach and working together, we can and must address the pain of unaffordability today and plan for the growth of tomorrow. We have no other choice — the prosperity and well-being of our state depends on it. 12. CURIOUS EVENTS - What could have possibly prompted the City of Edmonds City Council in 2022 to capitulate its governance to uphold the regulations established in 2017 by a unanimous vote when creating the Highway 99 subarea? Packet Pg. 20 4.A.a 13. BROOKINGS INSTITUTE - According to Jenny Schuetz, Ph.D, Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institute, the housing crises is a direct relation to State and local levels of government imposing a lot of rules on the construction process making it difficult to construct housing. Supply is inelastic and giving people voices in the community make it difficult if not impossible to create housing. In a podcast interview conducted by Ezra Klein of The New York Times, she was asked: EZRA KLEIN: I want to talk about — I've been trying to think about what part of the conversation to bring this in on. And I'm going to do it here and weave in and out of it. I think the argument you're making here is a pretty profound argument about small-D democratic politics posing as an argument about housing. And what I mean by that is this — it is almost cliche to say the government that is closest to the people governs best. It is cliche to say government should be responsive to the people who live there, to the constituents. It is cliche to say that the way a strong Democratic culture should work is that the people most affected by a decision should have the most power over it. And what you're saying is that that is failing at a very deep level, and it is failing worse in the parts where it is most deployed. So you have — in this respect, you have more small-d democratic cultures where the constituents have more power and access to their representatives in these richer neighborhoods. They have time. They have the knowledge base to navigate the system. They have connections. They can actually be heard. And what you're saying there is you're getting the worst outcomes. So how do you think about that? How do you think about the tension between some of what you're saying has happened here and what you might think of as classical theory of — and what you might think of as classical democratic theory? JENNY SCHUETZ: So it's either two ways to think about this. One is that what looks on the face of it like small-d democratic process,that people get to engage in their local government and make their voice heard, is not actually that democratic. It's not representative. And we know this, in part, from the work of political scientists who have looked at the characteristics of people who show up to a neighborhood meeting. So think of a neighborhood where there's a specific proposal on the table to build some new apartments. You have a neighborhood meeting and people show up and they say, yes, I like this, or, no, I don't. The people who show up to that neighborhood meeting for five or six hours on a Tuesday night tend to be older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall. So we know from observing this that this is not, in fact, representative and small-d democratic. There are some people who live in the community who have more free time, especially older retirees, who have more comfort with the political process and are highly invested because they own homes in the neighborhood. They will push back against this. Whereas a lot of people who are directly affected by that in the neighborhood, they have jobs, they have kids. They can't come to the meeting or they feel uncomfortable doing it. So it looks like small-d democracy isn't, and we have kidded ourselves into thinking it is. The other way to think about this is making decisions at a hyperlocal level, at the neighborhood level, or even at the city and town level doesn't take into account the spillover effects of where we build and Packet Pg. 21 4.A.a don't build housing. The people who live in the neighborhood are going to be affected by construction and potentially by displacement or changes to their property values. But the whole city is also going to be affected by whether housing gets built and where it gets built. The whole region is affected by whether or not there's housing for people at different income levels. So if a region doesn't build enough housing to accommodate people who are baristas, and firefighters, and child care workers, the region's economy doesn't work well. And then we have climate spillovers as well. So if the only people who were affected were the people who lived in that neighborhood, it would make more sense that they could have veto power. But there are a ton of people who are impacted by our development patterns who don't get a voice at all because they don't live there and don't get to show up and voice their opinions. 14. NON Democratic RESULTS - Unfortunately, this is what is now happening in Edmonds. A well thought out Highway 99 subarea plan established in only 2017 providing incentive to build housing has now been hijacked by an "older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the neighborhood overall" 15. STEPBACKS ARE NOT THE ISSUE - In reality, it is not about the step backs. Both Planning Director Hope and Planning Director McLaughlin have presented evidence that the separation between the single family zoned properties across the street from the CG zoned property is more than sufficient to limit impacts on the single family properties. Director McLaughlin provided a section showing the separation when she recommended that the emergency ordinance be vacated. Here you have two professional planners heading your City Planning Department coming to the same conclusion. 16. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - The location of the proposed Edmonds Terrace must be considered a transit oriented development. The land upon which the project would have been built extends from 236th Street SW to 2381h Street SW. This would place any future resident within a five minute walk to the SWIFT Blue Line which has both north and south bound stations at Highway 99 and S. 238th street. Additionally, as part of the Community Transit 2024 plan, a shuttle from The Kingston Edmonds ferry terminal will be established to connect passengers to the new Mountlake Terrace light rail station. And, one of the shuttle stops will be at the BRT station at S 238th and Highway 99. This will allow any future resident of an Edmonds Terrace project to have immediate access to both bus rapid transit and light rail. 17. ADB PROFESSIONALS - The most recent meeting of the Edmonds Architectural Design Board proved that the current emergency ordinance is problematic. Both a professional architect and builder confirmed the issues resulting from the emergency ordinance with constructability are insurmountable. This is a result of code being inserted by laypeople having no planning, design or building background. 18. CREATING A TRANSITION - The issue of creating a transition between CG zoned property and single family properties across the street has been expressed as a reason to limit what could be built at the Edmonds Terrace site. Once again the professional architect on the Edmonds Architectural Design Board had the foresight to solve this issue. It should be noted that multi -family properties already exist on 84th Avenue W between 236th Street SW and 238th Street SW. Given the proximity to the two BRT stations at S 238th and Highway 99 and now the future access to light rail, the presently zoned single family zoned properties are also defined as being transit oriented development sites. Changing the RS zoned properties on the west side of 841h Avenue West from single family to an RM 2.4 or RM 1.5 creates the desired transition and creates an opportunity for more housing in this immediate area. 19. The BD ZONE AND CG ZONES ARE NOT THE SAME — When the Highway 99 subarea plan was adopted, it was intended to promote development in the corridor. Allowing the processing of Packet Pg. 22 4.A.a applications by an Administrative Review process was the carrot to encourage builders to come and build in the Edmonds Highway 99 corridor. Downtown Edmonds and the BD2 zone does not have the available land to develop. It does not have a major State highway nor a major public transportation system to move people without the use of their personal vehicle. It does not have a major hospital or medical facilities. And it will not have immediate access to light rail as does the corridor. Establishing the restrictions and uncertainties described in the emergency ordinance creates a disincentive to build in the corridor. 20. ENCOURAGE HOUSING - The Planning Board must make a recommendation to the City Council on how the City of Edmonds will address the housing crises. Will Edmonds be a light among the cities and create opportunities for housing and make an effort to end homelessness, or will the City of Edmonds succumb to the privileged older, wealthier, whiter, small number of homeowners who live in the neighborhood who resist? 21. RECOMMEND VACATING THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Given the seriousness of the housing and homelessness crises, the answer should be clear, vacate the emergency ordinance, allow the Highway 99 sub area plan to stand as is with Administrative Review and encourage the building of housing in the one area of the City that has the available land to do so. Respectfully Submitted. Packet Pg. 23 4.A.b Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis Attachments: Hwy 99 Subarea Plan - 2017 - excerpts.pdf Hello, Attached is a 3 page handout that is part of my public comments at tonight's meeting. I am providing them via email for the convenience of board members who are participating in the meeting via zoom. I also have paper copies to hand to those attending in the Bracket room. regards, Theresa Hollis m 00 E (D 0 as c� m c a) E E 0 U v IL c m r Packet Pg. 24 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 4.A.b TABLE 6: EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVITY UNITS Existing 352.55 9669 27.4 Conditions Alternative 1 352.55 13,226 27.5 (No Action) 5,872 16.65 3,797 10.77 1,579 4.47 7,112 20.17 6,114 17.34 2,803 7.95 Alternative 2 (Preferred 352.55 15,999 45.4 9,189 26.1 6,810 19.3 4,904 13.9 Alternative) FIGURE 16: ALTERNATIVE 1(NO ACTION) - x2olr. 5! sw 212m st sW I T E �i.:. 220tn s sw �E L I j- I�, I � -• - -. . Is - - sw j __� I 228kr. St SW Lry rJl •. 230[1'5! sw , I Aliernalive 1: 232nd ] Development Types r .� �J + ` , 4�1 Mixed Use ORCa • l 411 Mixed the Residential 23 a,h Stt 5� �[.1 � .� 111 a 3 WryAp®nrr.ent Aw 2S8th 5t SW I J C•�• .... 240tn St sw r 1 I fA 2—lh5[sW FIGURE 17: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MIXED USE) - i -ME72otn st sv2 r lW% -A M . 22otn s! sw I �L I 99 22dth St SW rj .- -• or-i i:' ww k �, :; "�l• . u+sisw •`�' s xsotn st sw Preferred Alternative. - 1 I Development TypeB -- " 232nd StSW �7 . !••' r J 911 Mixee Vsa7orar i:°z.S 34 234tn 6! 5w 99 3 I . 511 Mudilea Residential $ :�'i ■ 3Stoty Apuwwnt �q 't 231R,n St SW r•... �. 947M St Sw rl-)% m 00 E: CD0 as c� m c a� E: E: 0 U 2 a c m r 47 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 25 IMPLEMENTATION 4.A.b CONSOLIDATE CG AND CG-2 INTO A SINGLE CG ZONE THE ISSUE TODAY: The zoning in the planning area is unnecessarily complex and confusing. Most of the area is either zoned CG or CG2. The difference between them is a minor height difference of 15 feet. CG has a height allowance of 60 feet while CG2 has a height allowance of 75 feet. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 into a single CG zone with height limit at 75 feet. This allows for a cost-effective 6 story mixed -use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. The construction type of 5 wood framed floors over a ground floor, concrete podium (also known as a "5- over-1 building") is efficient and cost effective, and is also within the height capacity of fire truck ladders. SIMPLIFY ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND ALIGN ZONING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE ISSUE TODAY: Many of the current zones in the HWY 99 study area are remnants from the zones that were in place when this area of Edmonds was annexed from the County. The patchwork of zones is outdated and, in some cases, not consistent with parcel boundaries, meaning that some lots have more than one zone. RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Instead of having 6 or more zones, it is recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone be applied to most of the study area. Additional recommendations below, as well as a change to other multifamily properties in the subarea when zoning map amendments are being considered, will ensure new buildings transition in scale into the surrounding single family neighborhoods. These changes will better align the zoning with the Comprehensive Plan map. 55 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 26 IMPLEME a LW 2201h St JI. 224[h sl '. r F 99 ' 230th St Sw� ! 232 nd 515Y4f Sw xaxna St svu� ! - --- '� - ( gal CURRENT ZONING CG2 - General Commercial 2 CG - General Commercial BN - Neighborhood Business ■ BC - Community Business RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft. RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft. RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft. ■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft. ■ MU - Medical Use P - Public Use Sim 220th St .�TL'1 _�I'=� 224th sl' z24tn St 2a41hsc5W i�IRWIN, ' 'r i __ RECOMMENDED ZONING CG - General Commercial ■ BN - Neighborhood Business ■ BC - Community Business RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft. RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft. RM-2.4- Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft. ■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft. ■ MU - Medical Use I P - Public Use N m i EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 27 4.A.c From: Theresa Hollis To: Levitan, David Subject: Re: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:07:23 PM Attachments: Theresa Hollis public comments for 2-8-23 planning board meeting.rtf Mr. Levitan, I ran over the time limit for public comments at the planning board meeting on Feb 8th. I have attached a document with my full comments. (I don't have Word, which is the board members preferred format, but this rtf file canned be opened by Word) Please forward it to the Planning Board. regards, Theresa Hollis On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 6:38 PM Levitan, David <David. Levitan(cr�.edmondswa.gov> wrote: Hi Theresa: I have forwarded the comments on to Planning Board members and printed out hard copies for those attending in person. David David Levitan I Planning Manager City of Edmonds Planning Division 425-771-0220, ext. 1223 david.levitan cgedmondswa.gov From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218&gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM To: Planning <nlanningQedmondswa.gov> Subject: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis Hello, c as E M Q Packet Pg. 28 4.A.c Attached is a 3 page handout that is part of my public comments at tonight's meeting. I am providing them via email for the convenience of board members who are participating in the meeting via zoom. I also have paper copies to hand to those attending in the Bracket room. regards, Theresa Hollis Q Packet Pg. 29 4.A.c The interim ordinance you are reviewing is a reversal of a decision the Council made in 2017. My comments today are about the historical building development and the planning assumptions that led to that decision. (handout the 3 pages from Hwy 99 Subarea plan document) - The authors of the subarea plan talked to developers about the types of projects they would build. That is documented on the map on page 47 of the plan: 3 story apartment buildings on the parcels that are on the boundary of the area and 6 story mixed use buildings on the parcels in the core of the area. - The council approved upzoning to a 75 foot building height, and made many changes to the building design and site design code. Those design changes were intended to mitigate the impact on the surrounding single family zones. Note recommendation 5.1 that " new buildings transition in scale into the surrounding single family neighborhoods." - The zoning changes in the international district and the gateway district were a double whammy. See the maps on page 56 of the plan. The building height increased 15 feet AND the multifamily zones that were a transition between CG and IRS were eliminated. - Neighbors commented in public hearings in 2017 at the Planning Board and at the City Council that building step backs were important mitigations when a CG project was across the street from a residential parcel. But their recommendations did not carry as much weight as the developers recommendations and they were not adopted. The Director of Development advised the council in the July 18, 2017 meeting packet that "the challenge to adding more setback/stepback requirements is to not add so many requirements that building is discouraged. That would negate the goal of having a revitalized Hwy 99 area." This is the context in which the Director gave that advice. Edmonds had a very low volume of development for a long time. There were an average of 58 housing units permitted per year across the w whole city for the prior 20 years (ref. buildable lands report). Today's development environment is very different. The June 21, 2022 development activity report prepared by the Planning department shows 888 housingunits in just the Hwy 99 area. If you conservative) assume it takes 4 ears from the ' 1 Y Y Y Y � date of the first application to building occupancy, the current level of development is 222 housing units U per year in just this one part of the city. I argue that the strong increase in the amount of development is N 0 due to multiple regional factors such as a period of low interest rates, large population growth, the = nearby light rail project nearing completion, and work from home policies that make Shoreline, U) L Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood attractive housing markets. This high level of permitting z activity tells us that a new design criteria on step backs will not prevent development in the Hwy 99 c area. E z - I used the zoning map and counted 55 IRS parcels in Edmnods that are across the street from CG r parcels. My counting is probably not perfect, but it does give you an order of magnitude number of the a residences that are impacted by the 'across the street' criteria in this interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 30 4.A.c - The owners of multifamily parcels on the boundary of the subarea received a huge windfall when the city upzoned those parcels to allow 75 foot buildings heights. One parcel in my neighborhood could hold 52 units under the old zoning type. Now it can hold 260 units. The pendulum needs to swing back towards what the neighbors are asking for, and that is a full set of mitigations to the bulk and scale of a building that is across the street from a single family residence. The current design guidelines were approved when the city expected 3 story apartment buildings to be built across the street from a single family zone. But now we know that assumption was not correct. - We need to codify all design criteria that are typical in our region that mitigate a 75 foot building that is across the street from a single family residence . In addition to the design guidelines in the code, the city's design review process includes using the urban design guidelines of the Comp Plan. But the language in that section is silent on the issue of the impact to surrounding neighborhoods and therefore prevents the city from using an important context in their decision making on projects in the CG zone. I request amending the interim ordinance language to capture verbiage from Hwy 99's goal C/Policy C2 in the Land Use section of the Comp Plan. This strategy of not developing new language - and using existing Comp Plan language - will hopefully result in an amendment that is well accepted by the Council and citizen boards who are vetting the interim ordinance. The relevant wording is the second of 2 sentences in policy C2 for the Hwy 99 Corridor from the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan: " Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties." (end of public comments) One board member's comment at the Feb 8, 2023 planning board meeting was that'the firestorm was due to a proess failure'. That's not correct from my perspective, and that is why I gave you page 47 from the subarea plan document. The assumption was that three story apartment buildings would be built around the boundaries of the subarea. That assumption was holding up through as late as Sept. 2021 when the owner of the parcel at 84/236th submitted a project for a 4 story senior living community. When that proposal was withdrawn and the 261 unit Terrace Place project was submitted in 2022, the neighbors contacted their Council members. The process was designed to have Council interaction with the public, since the planned area uses staff reviews of submitted projects and the public is not even notified that a project has been submitted. Further, the subarea plan is the largest development project Edmonds has done and a 5 year review milestone was stipulated when the plan was developed. With the interim ordinance, the Council is intending to make process improvements. From my perspective, the originally defined process worked; but the assumption on where tall buildings are built was not correct. c a� E z U submitted by Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident f° Q Packet Pg. 31 4.A.d From: Theresa Hollis To: Planning; Citizens Arch Design Board Cc: Clugston, Michael; Levitan. David Subject: comments on a 2 phase design review process Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:12:56 PM Attachments: plat man includina 234th.pdf To the Planning Board and the Architecture Design Board, Re: interim ordinance 4283 I am providing input for your consideration of why a two phase design review process is appropriate for tall projects in the CG zone. The design priorities are established in the first meeting, and that is when neighbors will provide their perspective. Here's some examples of possible neighbor concerns/priorities for different locations in the Hwy 99 CG zone: - a 6 story apartment building that is across the street from an RS zone on 236/84th needs to mitigate the bulk and mass. One neighbor will want the building roofline and siding materials/color to vary and to have a change in plane so that one long building appears to be multiple side -by -side buildings. Another neighbor will want part of the required amenity space to be at the corner and have public access and have power hookups for food trucks so that the Uptown Market can continue to be held on 236th street in the summer time. A third neighbor may want the building face to have residential characteristics at each ground floor apartment entry such as two steps up from the sidewalk to the entry, with a planter or small porch, such as was built at the north end of a senior affordable housing building at 12740 30th Ave NE, Seattle - a development on the large vacant parcels behind Burlington Coat Factory will abut a single family zone on the east side of the project. Neighbors will have opinions on driveway location and whether the project's outbound trips will dump onto 240th or 242nd. - a multi -family development bordering 77th PI West sits at a higher grade than the single family homes across the street on 77th Pl. From looking at a map it appears that the SF homeowners will have privacy issues when redevelopment occurs. But the apartment building was built 10 years before the SF homes were built, and the residents' HOA have built and maintained an attractive fence, shrubs, and tall trees on the property line. There might not be any neighbor concerns when redevelopment occurs on the CG parcels. A related topic to the design review process that allows public input is simply public notification. The current administrative review does not require any public notification. And when multiple projects are happening in just the Gateway district in a short period of time, infrastructure issues get compounded. There are few streets laid out in a grid on the east side of the Hwy 99 subarea and neighbors will have new requests for city infrastructure to manage lighting, traffic and pedestrian safety when they are notified of a new project. In these cases, the neighbors may be more concerned with site design than building design. And the 'ask' may be of the City Council in the CIP/CFP process and not the building developer. As you probably know, some streets in this area are less than 60 feet wide, and some homes have less than a 20 feet setback because it wasn't required when they were built. I have attached a plat map of the southern part of the Hwy 99 subarea so you can observe how non- uniform the buildings and right of ways are. An example is 234th street, east of Hwy 99. Packet Pg. 32 4.A.d More plat maps can be found here: https://www.snoco.org/vl/sas/asrmaps/AsrMap02- CheckTRS.asn?EnteredTRS=270431 &Otr—SE Each project will have unique constraints, and the neighbor stakeholders need to be heard. The Edmonds comprehensive plan states that development in the Hwy 99 corridor "is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods" (Land Use section, Hwy 99 Corridor Goal Q. The best way to execute on that goal is to listen to the neighbors early in the design review process, and then let the developer respond. Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 33 4.A.d QUARTER NE_ Centerline - - - Gov Lot Major Water Minor Water SECTION 31 Lot Block Subdiv ROW Other Lot ------- Vac ROW Other Subdiv Vac Lot T" 3-027Trt a2lpl� 3-031 3-026 I TOWNSHIP N.W.B.L. RANGE E.W.M. 27 4 Section - - City Limits r ■ Quarter Tax Acct 16th - Easement ALL MAPS, DATA, AND INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREIN (`DATA'), ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL CITATION TO, OR REPRESENTATION OF, THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CODE. AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES TO THE DATA, TOGETHER WITH OTHER APPLICABLE COUNTY CODE PROVISIONS, MAY APPLY WHICH ARE NOT DEPICTED HEREIN. SNOHOMISH COUNTY MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY CONCERNING THE CONTENT, ACCURACY, CURRENCY, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY OF THE DATA CONTAINED HEREIN AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL PERSONS ACCESSING OR OTHERWISE USING THIS DATA ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE THEREOF AND AGREE TO HOLD SNOHOMISH COUNTY HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY DAMAGES, LOSS, CLAIM OR LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF ANY ERROR, DEFECT OR OMISSION CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DATA. WASHINGTON STATE LAW, RCW 42.56.070(8) PROHIBITS STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM PROVIDING ACCESS TO LISTS OF INDIVIDUALS INTENDED FOR USE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. A = COMMERCIAL PURPOSE INCLUDES ANY BUSINESS ACTP T INTENDED TO GENERATE PROFITS. BY PROCEEDING AND ACCESSING THIS DATA, YOU AGREE AND REPRESENT THAT YOU WILL NOT USE ANY LISTS OF INDIVIDUALS, OR DATA FROM WHICH SUCH LISTS MAY BE COMPILED, FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Z 0 200 400 Z Feet 1 inch = 200 feet z A product of the Assessor's Office Mrrp produced on February 10, 2023 Snohomish County, Washington SE-30-27-04 03,,r, ,TV= 03 ^ 03 ^ j, ' 18 = 23 28 „r,, , , T 06 14 = 4-047 402 02E'TnT,T _ 00::„ ,T, -: T "rt CORNER=VISTA 04 =G = =F 04 " CONDO (1�1801) 04 1 2 = _` _` .... 01 = N 1 24 27 O M o'=' 15 16 17=� moo+ o_ 411 "25' L26 _ _ U) 2± 228-T-H S-T—SW------�---- N L-ULt5 U is 9 10 _ 11 12 02 A p 5 ry�� z �n J 2 3 �TT�T� RIDGEMO.OR (6609) 04 �' 6_ 04 o 0 = T2-003 T 13 a Q 2 ���- i Y U 04 0 0 0 :;.00 , = r - 229TH ST-SW - - 6 BM g } z 1 SP 261 (7-85) 14. 01 a 3 4 �r� CM Q o 06 `� 00 N _ co 2-029 3 I 26 25 a 20 19 N=N 4 ~ B 2-001 _ - _ 11 15 o 15 0 8 SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER FIVE ACRES TRACTS 27 21 p 1 R99 T U65 98______ _ =r3 24 1 54 r = > 2-005 1 23 22 18 17 16 Q 2 7,, 18 0=r`000errrr _F 28 i � WTR 999 =[ " 01 07 s IN o s _ 01 "F 05 _ 08 j Q 3 6 17[1-2_50t6 2-004 r W 29 30 _t 01 2-006 31 32 =F 7 W „4 ,03 = 02 r 01 J ao 5 Of a,R 1 1s _F2-007 t "'r +r,r, = 96 997 Qu =r L 98 _F - - - - - - - - - - -i - - - 230-T-H- ST-S-W - - - - - - - 1 .�. 10 19 1 15 i w 2 11 20 1 1 2 3 4 �; 1 = 14 13 03 -,'04 01 04 A .. , 2 14 i T�r, riT 3 p 12 21 7 k''� 6 5 2 12 )i _F, nT,T ,T n"` CY H 0 1 3 13 00 3 4Q 13 2233 — �Q 11 OS �. — — — 7-TA A A 06 > 12 W cb'� 10 n� G�,. c 12 04 .....+1 03 1 Q 01= 18/ 8 07 N 01 PFN 00 01'010 SP 9 J 18 1 27 8 9 12 ;,: 13 14 15 - 16 17 19 20 GG 02 U LAKE RIDGE (491.8x) 01 1 02 2 X 3 4 HOLLY RIDGE (7994) z 4 3 1. ," " r„', 1 10 16,XX17T 12- 11 10 = 18 171a LLA PLN20130029 2 „1µ_ 9 8 =15 1 ZA 930714=9 SP 13 18 14 7 A -- B C D E 17 `, 14oMM' BREVE 03 01 1 _ HOLLY RIDGE"COTTAGE 'p � � , ,13 5 =4 3 = HOMESeoNDa(9331")-' 15 16 18 6 �? M C 10 CONDO -t TR 100 G / " " = 12 -F - — 5 „ W =02 F - 2 11 ` 24 r 09 i' 10 �� 21 :T ; 20 _G _ z„ ,T�TT� 310 �n 4 g (10412 ) 2-043 1 ' 84THAVENUE 13 6 gQ +,+� 2 3 j BQ, 02 05 WEST CONDO op3` 2 07 `� 7' (10858) �P2 O > = 04 �;� 6 m / Y 1 .„,T�r„, 5,' 01 . -- -L - - __ - — 06 r -F 05 0 2F3 06 ~1- 4 Nzr -c cfl -F N`04 - 05 Z _ , , ,T„r„ 3, Q 07 _I N t �r„ �t �r x _ - =F 08 r' 2 0 0 0 0 =r 06 ao 01 _r F TR 999 04 cV t N N N-r— 07 1 TR 997 / 1 - - - -------23-4-T-H--ST- S 4 = 3 = 2 = 1 04 = 03 r 10 11 05;08 = _ _F _r _ = 06 CD:-:08 08 1 SP PLN20�080041 11 12 _ 1 04 ao o "T 12 0 0 06 09 0 0 2 = 03 / 01 01 -F .. :a -- 2 N N 2: 2 N = / o� '� 02 F 04 _cT , 3 4 3 2 1 05 13 .. _:-c 011 07 can 07 10 can 29 _ O8 -F i1 r 6 3 3 27 04 /; 07 _F 5 :-2-052:r2-071:c2-053 ,235TH PL,SW, _ /" _Ih c 6 "' •ir"�rr'� r�rl•Y tir +SP S-2004-134 + - 017 02 Q 2-086 2-085 2-084 OB 14 = = /' 06 + 05 =r Q 3,� A _ = 03 018 02 RUTi �_= MARE 2.049 I Ln ( CONDO LLA PLN2018-0027 $ TRAILER LANE=r MOBILE PARK =c -,, = 01902 0°= - 7784 — 9600-122 011 o 02 DELS 2ND i 4 3_ 2 1 DD (4.191) 02 T3T T 2-' _ 1,,,,,, 01 1 01 - 01 FRUITLAND ACRES TO LAKE BALLINGER 00 g 8 7 6 5 10 1A 1 U\ 01 / A O 8 = 1 � 01 04 O 0')- 7 ILL B`* ' 4 7 = T- 2 LA Q !� MIRADA 3 03 H CN�CONDO) 2 SP S-23- 6 3 O (6030)01 6 K9 K]G Kbh K/G Kdh KUG KlUG K11h K'ILG �T„r,Y.-Y'% J438 3-084 4-048 4-044 00 LUSCHEN'S ADD011 2 3 4 30 29 NO 4 (5014) --31 32 — --�-_ (5767) --- 1 17 tL� x F 04 / �n 02 .. �nT T 2 = 16 3 - 15 13 06 4 14 01- 1 Q 2 1 5 13 m 01 F- O0 2 6 12 amr` m 05 11 02 7 01 1 10 d SP S-39-77 8 . . ' ' i oc 9 w r —, #� - , --� E CC 27 c + 2 TT s \ 11 v 02 .-. rt 00 00 05 01 \ a SP #S-29-7505 Q 03 04 �� L + A 07 g H 15 16 Icta Z 02 4 Z �r„ ,TN 2Te 03 �, a 01,Trt T,THr14 O 01 ` .,T04,T it 4200412105223 03 T_r 3 04 SP S-92-262 ' ; 3 ..05 TT c �* 232ND ST CONDO 0 7s1�-:761'09 ��so� 108 m 02 _ 03 c E 10339,) -n j 0 C W 23�ND-ST-- W --� (n SP S-3-83 c o 08 _ Q 02..01--- -L L _' Y (n �IA,�,�,?, ' 1 00 12 = 07 _r 08 09 :EO 03 00 L =F 2 ' SP ;S-9F8 U 4 ` 3 U 3 z 16 } 15 10 14 C104 r 03 N Q 4 ,r 3 2 1 Q; 4- 5T - _ 4 20 . 02 18 „ -J 02' 01'.�T, 18 18 3 =E 19 a= 1 = 2 2 „ / SP S-04-22 W i _F 5 6LU 01 C9 y'�'t'1 C� 04 01 i P233RD PL—SW 'Z 2 { 1 05 J_L,T�nT, i T,T, J 17 SP S-22.85 02 t "03' 1 0 0 8 = 7 Q r Q-- F r m m =k 02 x I Q ------------ -` ` 02 _r 13,T,T, 03 04 04 06 02 T 04 ri -15:Z; -11 _[ 03 05 _ 01 03 SE-31-27-04 Packet Pg. 34 K9 K]G Kbh K/G Kdh KUG KlUG K11h K'ILG �T„r,Y.-Y'% J438 3-084 4-048 4-044 00 LUSCHEN'S ADD011 2 3 4 30 29 NO 4 (5014) --31 32 — --�-_ (5767) --- 1 17 tL� x F 04 / �n 02 .. �nT T 2 = 16 3 - 15 13 06 4 14 01- 1 Q 2 1 5 13 m 01 F- O0 2 6 12 amr` m 05 11 02 7 01 1 10 d SP S-39-77 8 . . ' ' i oc 9 w r —, #� - , --� E CC 27 c + 2 TT s \ 11 v 02 .-. rt 00 00 05 01 \ a SP #S-29-7505 Q 03 04 �� L + A 07 g H 15 16 Icta Z 02 4 Z �r„ ,TN 2Te 03 �, a 01,Trt T,THr14 O 01 ` .,T04,T it 4200412105223 03 T_r 3 04 SP S-92-262 ' ; 3 ..05 TT c �* 232ND ST CONDO 0 7s1�-:761'09 ��so� 108 m 02 _ 03 c E 10339,) -n j 0 C W 23�ND-ST-- W --� (n SP S-3-83 c o 08 _ Q 02..01--- -L L _' Y (n �IA,�,�,?, ' 1 00 12 = 07 _r 08 09 :EO 03 00 L =F 2 ' SP ;S-9F8 U 4 ` 3 U 3 z 16 } 15 10 14 C104 r 03 N Q 4 ,r 3 2 1 Q; 4- 5T - _ 4 20 . 02 18 „ -J 02' 01'.�T, 18 18 3 =E 19 a= 1 = 2 2 „ / SP S-04-22 W i _F 5 6LU 01 C9 y'�'t'1 C� 04 01 i P233RD PL—SW 'Z 2 { 1 05 J_L,T�nT, i T,T, J 17 SP S-22.85 02 t "03' 1 0 0 8 = 7 Q r Q-- F r m m =k 02 x I Q ------------ -` ` 02 _r 13,T,T, 03 04 04 06 02 T 04 ri -15:Z; -11 _[ 03 05 _ 01 03 SE-31-27-04 Packet Pg. 34 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2023 Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update Staff Lead: David Levitan Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History The City of Edmonds is required to complete a stand -mandated "periodic update" to its Comprehensive Plan - the city's primary document for guiding growth and development over the next twenty years - by December 31, 2024. As the first step in the update known as "Everyone's Edmonds", the city launched a community -guided visioning process in Summer 2022 that focused on six key topic areas and generated nearly 7,900 public comments. The Planning Board was last briefed on the process at their September 28, 2022 meeting, the minutes for which are attached. The City Council was subsequently briefed on the process at their October 25 meeting, the presentation for which includes a more detailed analysis of public input and which is also attached. In Fall 2022, city staff worked with a consultant team to review, categorize, and distill the thousands of public comments into a draft vision statement, which was unveiled at Edmonds Porchfest on November 5, 2022 and is included below: "Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. " As noted in the October 25 Council presentation, the next step is to solicit community feedback on the vision statement. The vision statement was discussed during the Council's recent retreat on January 27, and a citywide mailing will be distributed in the coming weeks that includes a QR code and hyperlink to a community survey asking for feedback on the draft vision statement. As part of the Planning Board's February 22 retreat, staff is proposing a more detailed discussion on the transition to the Comprehensive Plan Update and a "Comp Plan 101" for new members, including growth targets/assumptions, scenario development, and community engagement, including the formation of advisory committees made up of "Community Champions" and members of city boards/commissions. Staff Recommendation Planning Board members are asked to review the draft vision statement, provide initial feedback, and ask any questions about next steps in the process, in advance of the broader Comprehensive Plan Update discussion proposed for February 22. Packet Pg. 35 7.A Narrative <Type or insert text here> Attachments: September 28 PB Visioning Meeting Minutes October 25 City Council Presentation Everyone's Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update Packet Pg. 36 7.A.a UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Manager Lien gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Comprehensive Plan Branding: PRR was the consultant selected to help with the branding and came up with the "Everyone's Edmonds" branding. They also developed some templates and mini surveys. They provided some translation services and looked through past outreach materials. Six -week Themed Visioning Outreach: The work with PRR led into a community -guided visioning process which was a six -week themed outreach on key topics. These key topics included Identity, Quality of Life, Economic Growth, Environment, Culture, and Livability and Land Use. The approach involved tabling at local events, coffee chats in various neighborhood centers, some walk and talks, a panel discussion, and a community survey. One of the most successful parts of the outreach was the yard signs. These greatly increased the number of comments on the survey. The overall outreach goal was to solicit 3,500 comments from the community and over 8,500 comments were received. Over 600 comments were received from events and nearly 7,900 were received from the community survey. Visioning Next Steps: The next step will be to organize the comments by theme and evaluate the results. A draft vision statement and community values will be developed based on the outreach results. There will be a presentation to the Planning Board and Council followed by a public reveal of the draft on November 5. Feedback will be collected on the draft visioning and it will again be presented to the Planning Board and to the Council for final adoption. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 37 7.A.a Comprehensive Plan Update Workplan Overview: Over the next couple months there will be a lot of work behind the scenes getting ready for Comprehensive Plan Update. The Core Project Team will be a multi- disciplinary team of key staff involved with review and development of various elements. There will also be a Community Champions Advisory Committee which is one of the suggestions that came out of the Equitable Engagement Framework as a way to get some of the underrepresented communities involved in the process. They are also looking at establishing a Boards & Commissions Advisory Committee which would include representatives from all the city boards and commissions who would participate in development of the Comprehensive Plan and report back to the various boards and commissions. There will still be detailed briefs back to the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, and other boards, but the Boards & Commissions Advisory Committee would be one way to keep boards and commissions involved throughout the process. There will be more consultants involved as needed for various tasks related to development of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lien reviewed the project timeline. Adoption is due at the end of 2024. Visioning will be wrapping up this year, and scoping will begin this winter. Neighborhood scenario development and concurrency reviews will be happening this winter. 2023 will be spent developing the draft documents to have them ready for early 2024. Comments and Questions: Chair Pence referred to the comments received and asked how many unique individuals that represented. Senior Planner Brad Shipley replied they did not always measure individual persons. He clarified that they received 8,500 comments; this did not represent 8,500 individuals. There were close to 600 responses to the full survey which only allowed one individual per survey. The mini surveys had around 100 responses each week, but some people may have answered multiple surveys so it is hard to know how many people this represents. Board Member Rosen commented there is value in knowing the number of responses even though they don't know the exact number of people who responded. He cautioned against leading people to believe there were 8,500 participants. He then questioned the order of the project timeline which seems to show neighborhood scenario development before the Comprehensive Plan development. Mr. Shipley explained that the citywide visioning is what they are doing first. This will be overarching and broad and should guide the rest of the work on the Comprehensive Plan. Getting into the neighborhood level planning is just talking to neighborhoods about what they would like to see in the future. Director McLaughlin agreed with comments to be clear about characterizing the number of comments. She spoke to the value of neighborhood planning but stressed the importance of linking back to a citywide conversation about where we are accommodating growth. Board Member Cheung referred to the number of comments and suggested adding an estimated number of individuals to clarify that the number of responses is different than the number of individuals. Chair Pence referred to the City's website for Comprehensive Plan Updates and noted that under Initial Steps there are two sections — one on waterfront issues and one on gap analysis regarding equity and climate. He noted there is no information under the second item and asked for an update. Mr. Lien explained that ECONorthwest had been hired to review the current Comprehensive Plan for equity issues in policies and implementation. They identified a number of policies to be looked at in more detail. As part of that work, they also looked at public engagement. There was some overlap with this and the work that was done on the Equitable Engagement Framework. He indicated he would get those up on the website or at least distribute them to the Planning Board. Chair Pence asked how there will be a community conversation after November 5 when they unveil the draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 38 7.A.a visioning statement. Director McLaughlin explained they are looking at ways that can help to validate whether they got the community vision right. They will substantiate the vision with documentation and data that will be robust from PRR. It will be a defensible and transparent process. Chair Pence said he hopes that once the draft visioning statement is revealed there is a chance for some good, robust civic conversation. Director McLaughlin pointed out that the community vision won't require a public hearing process but she hopes the Planning Board will provide feedback, especially through the survey. Chair Pence said he thinks the process ought to allow for residents to hear responses from each other. Board Member Rosen said he liked the idea of creating a group of representatives from all the boards and commissions. This is a great way to get feedback. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 39 7.A.b mom '70,077 1 .,Ago unS WN Voices . Vision .Plan Comprehensive Plan Visioning Summary Susan McLaughlin AICP, LEED AP Development Services Director Brad Shipley, Senior Planner City Council Meeting October 18, 2022 �Do S EDM�N,,, Overview ` 1 Visioning Process Viz; What We Heard Next Steps 7.A.b City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 41 7.A.b Packet Pg. 42 0" �V EDMS _."„ Intent Reach populations we don't often hear from in the public process Strategy: inclusive branding survey and marketing in multiple languages o meet people where they are fr have a neighborhood presence fr test new outreach strategies willingness to make mistakes and learn —not let imperfection be the enemy of good intent Goal Solicit 3,500 community comments from the One comment equals: each response to a survey question each comment recorded at outreach event Over 8,500 comments were collected 7.A.b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 43 7.A.b 00 jrld Do Sp eD iTOTOT,"W0,570 Coffee Chats THEMED NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATIONS Weekly articles HELP PUT WEEKLY THEMES INTO CONTEXT Table at local events MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE -- --------------------- - D qND M0 ED EDMO or i ED. ...... .... h�hh M Yard signs RAISE AWARENESS w Multi-lingual branding PROCESS OF BUILDING TRUST Panel discussion IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS ON KEY TOPICS FROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS Walk & Talks EXPLORE KEY TOPICS IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS Online surveys ALLOW INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION 011E�;77-7: --------------------- all IL!v ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 11 Packet Pg. 447 �Do S EDM�N,.,, iTOTOTI"W0,570 S Urvev i Provided in Korean, simple Chinese, and 2o24To, v Lt�l,�4 Spanish' Fr Two to four questions each l.rZ�Eamana Fr Qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative (multiple-choice) questions Q��l)�.�7�tif��L�tQ17�tEdrnonds � ■ Qualitative comments limited to 140 characters to encourage succinct responses ■ Intention was to allow individual expression while reducing chance for misinterpretation and to process in a timely manner our �� Fr Option to take full survey provided mn (gti; ERYONE'S ✓� Visipn del Plan IntegraL 2024 Cultura iAyudenos a saber coma es In diversidad de Edmonds, 1. cSiente que su etniayculturatie nen representacion en Edmonds? LQud etnia(s) y cultura(s) le gustarfa ver mejor representada en Edmonds? (140 caracteres) 2. LQue puede hacer la cludad para reconocer y celebrar mejor la diversidad cultural? (140 caracteres) MM 7.A.b PSPAfQL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 45 L cQ G O U C E U) _ .y d Cn d d v C 7 O U U L0 N d O 0 E Q 0. " �v p1l Do Spell) iTOTOTI"W0,570 Events Comments cataloged the same as survey Ir Comment logs created for each event Ir Tracked the number of people engaged and what we heard ED0 Participant Tally EVENT; Fjk�r4 K 04 (y-a DATE. V/Z7 STA F �N-T!® G`1lCfl'ELE i ✓2°�" PAGE: of COMMENT SUMMARY LOG THEME ---�QF —4--f 7 g� �Lzo <� s _ - --4� -� �ar2 doFj YC-CkS — 7.A.b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 46 7.A.b m c aD t a� L cQ G O U Qi E M v! O .y C O R r C d N d L CL O U U LO N L W O u O E u m r a Packet Pg. 47 � I ���� LL LL , S EDM' What We Heard voic L Percent of Total Survey Responses, by Neighborhood Meadow Q o U Downtown Westgate m E Other Talbot Park (D Seaview r N c Perrinville o Five Corners A Common "other" responses. Pine Ridge r- Perrinville Maplewood Seaview' 0 Highway 99 Emerald Hills c ,n ��.. Maplewood Esperance '� Uptown Downtown Pine Ridge a. — v Lake Ballinger 3 =° Yost Park o Firdale � Five Corners U Meadowdale specific intersections L) Sherwood Forest LO `14 `m Talbot Park � 1/o Town of Woodway Esperance 0 I do not live in Edmonds 1% Westgate r Town of Woodway 0.3% c E Sherwood Forest t Maplewood 0.0% Highway99 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Firdale Lake Ballir�er w Q City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 48 0" �V EDMS _."„ Am n : 1 r• 502 41088 9% 6% -3% 503 5,975 13% 11% -2% 504.02 5,569 12% 6% -5% 504.03 3,000 6% 3% -3% 504.04 4,124 9% 6% -3% 505.01 3,083 7% 20% 14% 505.02 3,963 8% 23% 15% 507 61375 14% 11% -2% 508 6,939 15% 7% -7% 509 3,871 8% 5% -3% 7.A.b L Q Meadow 0 U 502 Talbot Park N Pe inville o .N 503 r- 0 Seaview - 504, Maplewood L Downto 504.03 Pi Ridge a 3 505.01 Five Corners L) 504.02 L) LO N Town of 0 Woodw Esperance 0 O 5t 508 505.02 a) Sherwood Forest E t 507 ighway 509Firdalp w Lake Balli er Q City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 49 MDo �S 0 ED�N„ Less than 1 Mi[:r:1Its Residency in Years, Number of Responses 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 26-35 36-50 More than Idonot live 50 in Edmonds 7.A.b --————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 50 MDo �S 0 ED�N„ :1 R►I►L:A i [:r:1 r• Residency in Years, Number of Responses 1-10 years 10-25 years 25-35 years 35-50 years More than 50 years I do not live in Edmonds 7.A.b — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 51 7.A.b Do S :1 R►A►LM i [Z' 1 Its Week 1: Identity Q1 What do you love about Edmonds? Small-town feel Access to waterfront and nature Walkability Locally -owned businesses Thriving arts and culture scene Sentiment was universal not particular to a specific neighborhood. 'v Response ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 52 :11IR►ATIMi[z'1Its Week 1: Identity Q2 How would you like to see your values reflected in Edmonds? Environmental stewardship Protect natural areas Commitment to being inclusive and celebrating our diversity Improve infrastructure for walking and biking Disparate comments regarding growth: Oppose high -density Recognition of need for more housing options 'v Response Y .. 7.A.b Credit: Janine Harles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 53 L Q 0 U c R E U) 0 .y 0 Cn 0 r_ 0 U U L0 N 0 0 E M a �jrld Do S ell) Week 2: Quality of Life Q1 :1RTATIMi[Z'lIts What do you like about living in Edmonds? Waterfront access Small town feel Restaurants and shopping Attractions & Entertainment Public transportation and walkability Other Access to multicultural resources School district Convenient commute Medical care and services for Seniors Cost of living I= Cost of housing 7.A.b ey Responses L cQ G 0 U c R E U) 0 .y Common "other" responses: :y Arts and culture Proximity to natural resource a Parks and trails r;. Walkability U Cleanliness LO CN Community events Infrastructure and communil U services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - 170- - - - 707 - - - - MC7 - - - 4M----T,Off----6T0-------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 54 0 E r a �jrld Do S ell) Week 2: Quality of Life Q2 :1RTATIN IIIIi[z'1r• Is there anything you don't like about Edmonds? Being too car -centric Lack of sidewalks Need for better public transportation Speeding drivers Imbalance of parking Government Inequitable distribution of funds Lack of transparency and accountability Concern only the loudest voices are heard Mixed response to land capacity increased density is not desired by some others say there is not enough housing 'v Response 7.A.b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 55 0. " �V p1l Do Spell) Week I Economic Growth Q1 :1 R►A►L:IIIII i [Z' l Its What kind of businesses (goods and service) do you travel outside the city for? Larger retailers in Lynnwood or U- District Mentions ofAlderwood Mall, Central Market, Costco, Fred Meyer Sentiment that big -box and large retailers are not needed in Edmonds it's ok to travel to some things Am Rim 0I0l 091W 7.A.b L Q E 0 U c R E U) _ .y 0 Cn 0 r_ 0 U U ' Ln N L d 0 U O L V Q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 56 7.A.b voices visionp EDMONWhat plan We - Heard Responses Week I Economic Growth -- a 02 0 Do you work in Edmonds? U) 0 .y 0 Yes 28% No ° U 72% LO N L ci Qi E ci Q -------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 57 �Do S EDM�N,,, Week I Economic Growth Q3 :1RTATIMi[Z'1Its 'v Response If you don't work in Edmonds, what kind of work do you leave the city for? Top mentions: Retired 350o Education, training, library 8% :! Healthcare 8% Tech 8% No 72% Yes 28% 7.A.b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 58 L cQ E 0 U c R E U) 0 .y 0 Cn 0 r- 0 U U LO N L 0 0 E a " �V EDMS _."„ Week 4: Environment Q1 :1 R►A►LM i [z' 1 Its 'v Response Which of these four proposed priorities of the Edmonds Climate Action Plan should the City put the most resources toward? (ranked choice, listed in order of preference) AVE. SCORE 7.A.b 2.2 Environment (i.e., increasing tree coverage and adapting to sea -level change) 2.4 Buildings and energy (i.e., technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from building energy use 2.5 Transportation (i.e., investing in bus routes, promoting walking, and adding bike lanes) 2.9 Lifestyles and consumption (i.e., reducing waste and increasing recycling) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 59 L cQ E 0 U c R E U) _ .y 0 r c a� Cn 0 r_ 0 U U LO N 0 0 r E M a 0" �V Do SpEDM�N„ Week 4: Environment Q2 :1RTATIMi[z'1Its 'v Response What are you most concerned about when it comes to the environmental future of Edmonds? 0 Water protection sea -level rise protection of streams pollution Green Space retaining or replacing tree canopy notable mention of "right tree, right place" for preservation of 7.A.b views Y Land capacity ` p Y , ,► o density is harmful, citing associated tree canopy loss and increased traffic E Credit: Janine Harles t others say density is a solution, citing walkable communities and sustainable buildings asanoutcome _____________________________________________ a City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 60 0" �V EDMS _."„ Week 5: Culture Q1 7.A.b :1RTATIN IIIIIi[Z'1r• 'v Response Do you feel like your ethnicity and culture are represented in Edmonds? What ethnicity(s) and culture(s) would you like to see better represented in Edmonds? Commonly skipped question Large majority who answered self -identified as "white" and said "yes" For "needs more" responses, most common answers are "all non -white cultures" and indigenous/Native American Many found the question divisive ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 61 �jrld Do S ell) Week 5: Culture 02 7.A.b :1RTATIMi[Z'1Its 'v Response What can the City do to better celebrate diverse cultures? Partner with ethnic and cultural minority communities honor holidays that aren't white dominate culture honor cultural presence through events and public art Increase representation in hiring and elected and appointed positions Installing streetscape design that acknowledges culture, heritage, and language ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 62 " �V EDMS _ Week 6: Livability and Land Use Q1 :1RTATIMi[Z'llIts What types of housing could you see fitting into your neighborhood? Select all that apply. Single family homes the most selected category. o Interest in ADUs and DADUs, multi -generational homes, townhomes, and duplexes. Comments in "other" include thoughts on building appropriateness for specific neighborhoods, concerns of environmental impact, regulation of AirBNB, and street capacity. 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 a Ah 251 221 204 171 151 135 123 ° P°Ge o ore, �o��a react e� 0 M 7.A.b L cQ E 0 437 v c c a� E U) c 226 221 y 194 > 122 c 0 0 < U U LO N m 0 O a ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 63 � EDM�NS „ Week 6: Livability and Land Use Q2 r RrALrAI:a : Mrw 1 r• What type of businesses, services, community features and public spaces would you like to see in your neighborhood? Select all that apply. Popular selections include: Walking and biking trails Small restaurants, coffee shops, bars, and outdoor dining options Parks Greener streets "Other" included: statements that downtown already has these features, public safety, infrastructure to improve walkability/cycling, traffic calming/enforcement (lots of complaints about speeding) �1T� !lam 0I6l BMAh W 450 404 400 378 343 349 350 313 300 289 276 264 251 250 213 200 165 165 150 128 138 100 72 84 50 23 0 te e�5 �y e�5 y\ et5 any �°e .�'°�O �•�y kee e`'y Ica\ any rec \`off ret mat`°c Qte �y� o°a oec \\per �a� a�o°� a��r aoo� pac �aoo `���0 'N\ ewe o te,�a� etCZ 7.A.b ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 64 �jrld Do S ell) 7.A.b Week 6: Livability and Land Use Q3 :1RTATIMi[Z'1Its 'v Response What else could improve your neighborhood? Walkability maintain/repair existing sidewalks, lighting, crosswalks for people with mobility issues Road maintenance and safety traffic calming Improve cyclists' safety More public space green space space for families with young children Keep small-town atmosphere ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 65 7.A.b Packet Pg. 66 C 7.A.b -VISI Next Steps L cQ G 0 U c R 1 Continue to analyze results U) 0 2 2 Draft vision statement ! 3 Reveal vision statement (Porchfest Nov. 5th) 0 U Validate through surve and communit advisor committee LO y y y N 0 L 0 0 ci 5 Briefings at Plannin Board and Cit Councilg YE w _______________________________________________________________________________ Q City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 67 �Do S EDM�N,.,, 2022 Initial Core Team Meetings Ah 2023 Am's■■aYAM k nario Development + Concurrency Draft Plan Documents Establish Boards Establish Community & Commissions Champions Advisory Advisory Group Group Continuous public engagement! 7.A.b 2024 Final Plan Documents Adoption iii to Final Plan City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 68 7.A.b Packet Pg. 69 7.A.b Thank you! EdmondsWA.gov/EveryonesEdmonds everyonesedmonds@edmondswa.gov 425-775-0220 Vi ,on . plon 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2023 Planning Board Retreat Preparation Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History Each year, the Planning Board uses one of their first quarter meetings to hold their annual retreat. At last year's retreat (March 9, 2022), members received Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) training from the city attorney and discussed the work plans for the Parks and Planning and Development Departments. OPMA training is required within 90 days of appointment for all new board and commission members, and must be renewed every four years for existing members (and may be taken more often by those already in compliance, if desired). Former Planning Board Chair Roger Pence submitted a recommendation that the board consider a presentation from Joe Tovar. Mr. Tovar is a former planning director at the cities of Shoreline and Kirkland, Growth Management Hearings Board member, and an Edmonds resident who was instrumental in the development of the Growth Management Act and is currently working for the Department of Commerce on housing policy. Staff Recommendation Discuss the Planning Board retreat, which is tentatively schedule February 22. Board members are asked to weigh on whether they would like OPMA training as part of the retreat (or if new members should take it on their own), and the potential for a presentation from Mr. Tovar. Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 71 8.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2023 Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History Council adopted emergency interim ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. That ordinance added an Architectural Design Board (ADB) design review process (to replace the previous administrative design review process) for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone, in addition to a design standard that requires building step backs (pushing back the face of the building above an established height) in certain situations. The code change would require a two-phase design review process by the ADB, similar to that in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet (buildings less than 35 feet tall would continue to be reviewed by staff as the process has been since 2007). At the same time, when a proposed building in the CG zone is across the street from a single family zone, the CG building would have to apply a step back on that side on the project unless the ADB finds that the step back is not needed. Prior to Ord. 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance that contained required step back language (Ord. 4278). That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the step back concept for buildings across the street from single family zones was included in Ord. 4283. This topic was introduced to the ADB on January 26. They will review the issue again on February 23 and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Interim Ordinance 4283 is in effect until June 10, 2023, and Council must adopt any permanent language prior to that date. Staff Recommendation Discuss the new step back language. Consider the need for the requirement, whether it addresses the need, and how it can be implemented. Consider alternative solutions and whether the two-phase design review process would be the appropriate process. This topic will come back to the Board for a public hearing likely in March or April. Narrative Because Ordinance 4283 is interim, final regulations need to be adopted by Council by June 10, 2023, after review by other boards. Because design -related language is involved, the ADB should review the interim language and make a recommendation to the Planning Board on final language. Packet Pg. 72 8.6 The interim language alters the building step back requirements in the general site development standards in ECDC 16.60.020.D. Existing step back language in that subsection applies when a single family (IRS) parcel is adjacent to a General Commercial (CG) parcel. In that case, a new building on the CG parcel must step back from the required zoning setback as the height of the building increases. The interim language would provide a similar building step back across the street from a single family (IRS) zone. The intent is the new step back would reduce the bulk of the new building and provide additional transition from the CG zone to the IRS zone. However, the proposed language indicates that both step backs are requirements unless the ADB finds them not to be necessary. That provides the ADB with some discretion but as it is worded the ADB could waive both the 'across the street' step back as well as the 'adjacent' step back. Attachments: Ordinance 4283 emergency interim Council Minutes 12.10.2022 Packet Pg. 73 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ORDINANCE NO.4283 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance 4278; and WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and Packet Pg. 74 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278), step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 75 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13 and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010 (as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020 instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 76 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: DocuSigned by: Nl,L,1�4 MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: DocuSigned by: 7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022 PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4283 al Packet Pg. 77 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 101h day of December, 2022. DocuSigned by: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 78 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ATTACHMENT A 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None Y/10'2 U/15'' 75" None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. 2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. Packet Pg. 79 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. IF4 i Q C ro m Y N .- v a a a a� inN 0.N <N -,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r, Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Packet Pg. 80 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. IO W,&a nay (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Pg. 81 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single- family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. Packet Pg. 82 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has Packet Pg. 83 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ATTACHMENT A failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart: Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process &Eaa nal}ryyvy 7 RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffw qwo o} AnRrI I COd Cid1u A� DKWW DOW ! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys. I � E � k— — — — — — — ----------_ hood D"ee 4JA41PPV-W [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020 regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the Packet Pg. 84 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ATTACHMENT A process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. Packet Pg. 85 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. Packet Pg. 86 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 8.B.a ATTACHMENT A f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: Packet Pg. 87 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. Packet Pg. 88 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. Packet Pg. 89 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 8.B.a 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. Packet Pg. 90 8.B.b Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 91 8.B.b Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 - Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 - Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 - Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 Proposed Code Revisions - 16.60.030 o 16.60.030 Site development standards ■ Design buildings exeeeding75 feet in height as identified CDC eixeeeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type 1 deeision. Rega oess of-I.Ah-At -dir-ed, all pr-qjeets proposed in the GG zone must meet the design ;., .h-is se tio_, Proposed Code Revision - 20.12.010 o 20.12.010 Applicability ■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A decision. ■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 92 8.B.b Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 93 8.B.b Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 94 8.B.b step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods... Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 95 8.B.b Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind." Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type 111-A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 96 8.B.b Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND." Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 97 8.B.b Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 98 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/1S/2023 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review attached Extended Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 2.8.2023 Extended Agenda - final Packet Pg. 99 �y oV EQAf a l $90 February 2023 PLAHM CoOOARD Extended Agenda - Final February 8, 2023 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Feb 22 1. Retreat [tentative - Tree Code 101, 2023 P&D and Parks work plans, OPMA training] March 2023 Mar 8 1. Development Activity Report 2. Public Hearing - CG permanent ADB/step back code 3. Tree Code Update — Public Engagement Strategy (review) 4. Handbook (finalize) 5. Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update (tentative) Mar 22 1. Tree Code Update — Potential New Residential Regulations (code analysis and discussion) 2. Comprehensive Plan Update (tentative) Mar 28 1. Planning Board update to City Council April 2023 April 12 1. Tree Code Update — Potential New Residential Regulations (code analysis and discussion) April 26 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report 2. Wireless Code Update (presentation and discussion -tentative) a Packet Pg. 100 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change May zuz3 May 10 1. Tree Code Update — Moderate/Major changes to improve existing ECDC 23.10 (code analysis and discussion) 2. Recap of 2023 Washington State Legislative Session: Planning Related Context 3. Comprehensive Plan Update (tentative) May 24 1. Tree Code Update — Moderate/Major changes to improve existing ECDC 23.10 (code analysis and discussion) 2. Wireless Code Public Hearing (tentative) June 2023 June 14 1. Public Hearing - Tree Code (Residential and Moderate/Major) June 27 1. Planning Board update to City Council June 28 1. TDB luly ZOZ3 July 12 July 26 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report 1. TBD August 2023 Aug 9 1. TBD August 23 NO MEETING —SUMMER BREAK a 2 Packet Pg. 101 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change For 1. Tree code update Consideration 2 Comprehensive Plan work in 2023 3. Critical Aquifer Recharge code update 4. Wireless code update 5. CIP/CFP 6. MF Design Standards Future Consideration 1. Housing Policy Implementation 2. Neighborhood Center Plans (5 Corners) 3. ADA Transition Plan (Parks) 4. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies b. Parking standards 5. UFMP — goal/gap analysis/update Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Updates — Typically first meeting after previous quarter (1/11/23, 4/12, 7/12, 10/11) 3. Joint meeting with City Council 4. Planning and Development Department Activity Report S. Annual Retreat (Q1) 6. OPMA Training 7. Breaks — no meetings on 2nd meeting date in August and December c m Q m c m x w c c m a� Q a� c a� r x w M N O N O N r c m E M a 3 Packet Pg. 102