2023-03-22 Planning Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
s71. ,Hv� REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 22, 2023, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
This is a hybrid meeting that can be attended in -person or online via Zoom. The physical
meeting location is in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N.
Zoom Meeting Link: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194
Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194, Passcode:007978. Telephone Access: (253) 215-8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 22 Draft Minutes
B. March 8 Draft Minutes
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARING)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 7351 : POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 12, 2023: Public Hearing on Design Review Process and Step
Back Standards in the CG zone (AMD2022-0008)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Planning Board Handbook
NEW BUSINESS
A. March 28 Planning Board Update to City Council
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Events and Code Amendments on Extended Agenda
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 22, 2023
Page 1
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 22, 2023
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
February 22 Draft Minutes
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning & Development
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from February 22 retreat.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from the February 22 Planning Board retreat are attached.
Attachments:
PB230222 Retreat Draft Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Retreat
February 22, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid Edmonds Planning Board Retreat to order at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Maxwell read the Land Acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn'
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)2
Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier
Beth Tragus-Campbell
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Planning and Development Director
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Other:
Joe Tovar, FAICP
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT TRAINING
An Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) discussion was facilitated by City Attorney Jeff Taraday. He stressed
that all board members are required to complete the state OPMA training which is available online. For this
discussion, board members requested an overview of the OPMA and how it relates to digital communication.
General topics covered included what constitutes a meeting or official business, public records, the Public
Records Act, communications with constituents, ex parte communications, the Appearance of Fairness doctrine,
serial communication, and communications with other boards and commissions. Mr. Taraday offered to follow
up if there are more questions in the future.
'Board Member Kuehn joined at 7:00 after the OPMA discussion.
2 Student Representative Distelhorst joined at 7:00 after the OPMA discussion.
Planning Board Retreat Minutes
February 22, 2022 Pagel of 4
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
PRESENTATION BY JOE TOVAR, FAICP
A. Planning 101: The Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Planning
Joe Tovar, FAICP, PolicySpecialist, gave an overview of the Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive
Plan, the 2024 Periodic Update, development regulations, Shoreline Management Act, permits, budgets, land
use map, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). He discussed elements of the Comprehensive Plan and new
requirements for the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He answered questions about the timing of
incorporating new state regulations into the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, displacement
issues, growth scenarios, key areas to focus on (housing, climate change, racial disparate impacts), and SEPA
review/scoping.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2023 WORK PLAN
A. Planning and Development Department 2023 Work Plan, Roles, and Responsibilities
Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin gave a high-level review of Planning and Development
key projects for 2023:
• Reimagining Neighborhoods & Streets — Goal: to optimize existing right of way in order to create social
hubs, expand connectivity, and improve environmental outcomes.
o Develop new street typologies.
o Develop a green street investment network.
o Develop new public space typologies.
o Create a public space activation strategies toolkit.
■ Chair Gladstone asked about Planning Board involvement. Director McLaughlin
explained they would be involved with the update of the street map.
■ Board Member Golembiewski asked about updates to the sidewalk code. Director
McLaughlin explained it would standardize sidewalks on each street based on street
typology.
Board Member Martini asked if they have thought about accessibility. Director
McLaughlin explained this is one of the main objectives. Dimensional standards will
change along with requirements for a landscape planter strip. She encouraged those with
personal knowledge of accessibility issues to participate in the Reimagining Steering
Committee.
Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan — Goal: draft actions to foster positive development.
■ Chair Gladstone asked if the Planning Board would be involved in this. Director
McLaughlin explained that if and when they take this to the City Council for adoption,
it would start at the Planning Board.
Climate Action Plan — Goal: identify bold yet achievable actions that position the City to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2050.
Comprehensive Plan Update 2022-2024 — Goal: develop 20-year vision to shape sustainable growth
strategy in collaboration with community and to meet statutory requirements.
o Evaluate PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council) and countywide planning policies for potential
consistency issues.
o Continue a robust and inclusive outreach process, in accordance with the Equitable Engagement
Process.
Planning Board Retreat Minutes
February 22, 2022 Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
o
Scope 2024 plan update based on gap analysis and 2044 planning targets.
o
Develop plan alternatives for evaluation in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
o
Incorporate SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) into the Comprehensive
Plan EIS.
■ Chair Gladstone asked if they are planning on updating or adding any subarea plans.
Planning Manager Levitan explained subarea plans are not required to be done as part
of the periodic update. They can be adopted following the Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Urban
Forestry
o
Develop Permit Review
o
Homeowner tree removals and code enforcement
o
Tree Code Amendments
o
Citywide Urban Forestry Work Plan
o
Street Tree Plan
• Code Modernization
o
Minor Code Amendment Process
o
Major Code Amendments
o
o
Reformatting/Graphics/New Web Features
N
■ Board Member Mitchell asked about using a form -based approach. Director
McLaughlin replied that it has not come up in the time she has been with the City.
■ Board Member Golembiewski asked if code modernization and the code rewriting that
0
happens in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan are two different things. Director
McLaughlin explained they are the same thing. There was discussion about the fact that
the code amendment process is an iterative process.
'c
Green Building Incentive Program — Goal: to implement a CAP (Climate Action Plan) goal that will
help drive market change and foster low carbon developments.
■ Board Member Maxwell asked if the Planning Board would be reviewing the Green
Building Incentive Program. Director McLaughlin replied that they would. It would also
go to the Architectural Design Board because a lot of it is related to design
specifications. Additionally, there would need to be code amendments to effectuate the
incentives that will be offered.
There was discussion about what the Planning Board's work plan would be for the year and how they can most
effectively help staff. Planning Manager Levitan indicated staff is working on work plans for the
Comprehensive Plan Update and the code modernization. He noted that staff can incorporate Planning Board
touch points. The Board can expect that the Comprehensive Plan will likely be at at least one Planning Board
meeting a month. Board Member Mitchell asked if there are ways the Board can be involved outside of
meetings. Director McLaughlin thought an appropriate place would be as part of the Community Champions
Steering Committee once that gets going. Chair Gladstone asked about a work plan for the year or at least the
next few quarters. Planning Manager Levitan replied they are still working on that.
AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Planning Board Retreat Minutes
February 22, 2022 Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
a+
Q
Planning Board Retreat Minutes
February 22, 2022 Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 7
2.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
March 8 Draft Minutes
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from the March 8 meeting.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from the March 8 Planning Board meeting are attached.
Attachments:
PB230308 Draft Minutes
Packet Pg. 8
2.B.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
March 8, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the March 8, 2023 regular meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom at 7:01 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Golembiewski.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner (online)
Susan McLaughlin, Planning and Development Director
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15 SPECIAL MEETING AS
AMENDED TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Gladstone recommended moving the extended agenda discussion to Unfinished Business. There was
consensus to reorder the agenda as suggested.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Pence commented on the Draft Vision Statement which was published four months ago and has since
been on hiatus. He noted that the link on the back of the Mayor's newsletter takes you to a questionnaire with
N
c
L
0
00
M
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 9
2.B.a
one yes/no question to respond if you like the vision statement or not. He does not believe this is an adequate
test of public opinion. He hopes a serious effort to connect with the public will occur. He noted that the Vision
Statement and the Climate Action Plan are both elements of the Revised Comprehensive Plan and need to come
through the Planning Board for approval per the Planning Board Charter.
Finis Tupper, 43-year resident of Edmonds, commented he came to speak at the Planning Board in February
and has sent several entails to staff with questions and has not gotten responses from anyone. He wondered if
anyone has received those. He hopes he will get an answer to his question rather than taking the issue of the
February 8 meeting to court as he has done in the past. He is very interested in the Growth Management Act
and the Comprehensive Plan. He claimed the Board met in private and won't disclose what they discussed. He
threatened to take the City and the individual board members to court if he doesn't get an answer to his questions
that he sent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ;n
a�
A. Review and Approval of Planning Board Handbook
Chair Gladstone said she had provided some suggested revisions in a document to the group prior the meeting. o
She invited comments on those or on other topics related to the handbook. Board Member Maxwell asked if CO
there is language in the handbook about the Board's authority to make site -specific rezones. Board Member 2
Golembiewski noted that it just references the code. Chair Gladstone suggested adding language aroundto
communications related to a quasi-judicial subject matter. Board Member Golembiewski suggested adding y
language about what quasi-judicial and ex parte communications mean.
Planning Manager Levitan reviewed changes/comments suggested by Chair Gladstone:
• An expectation for hybrid meetings that board members' cameras are on.
• A question asking if agendas for special meetings are required to be posted in newspapers. Planning
Manager Levitan explained there is no requirement for this. It only has to be posted online and in three
locations at City Hall. He noted that a special meeting can be held with 24 hours' notice but there would
be no way to get notice into a paper in that time. That is a general boards and commissions provision.
• Clarification about the deadline for agenda submission and who has the final say about what is on the
agenda. Chair Gladstone indicated she and staff could iron this out.
• A recommendation to strike "consensus". There was consensus to make this change.
• Clarification about quorum requirements. Planning Manager Levitan will add language regarding this.
• A request to let the Planning Board know what the public records retention schedule is. Do personal
notes need to be uploaded to the shared drive? Planning Manager Levitan replied they do not, but the
shared drive is available to share files as opposed to emailing.
• Should language be in here about how to acknowledge or not acknowledge if an absence is excused?
Planning Manager Levitan replied it was up to the Board how this should be handled. Chair Gladstone
suggested clarity that board members must attend 70% of meetings in a calendar year and not have three
consecutive unexcused absences or that member can be removed.
B. 2023 Extended Agenda Discussion
Chair Gladstone said she would like a discussion about whether the comprehensive list of topics for the year is
complete. Planning Manager Levitan explained that right now the extended agenda covers more of the proposed
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.B.a
code updates. There are several major code amendments that are part of the code modernization project which
will be coming to the Planning Board. He noted that minor code amendments do not require Planning Board
review. He asked for feedback on how to best involve the Planning Board versus a steering committee versus a
subcommittee of the Planning Board members for specific topics.
On March 22 there will be a public hearing to consider the ADB (Architectural Design Board) recommendation
and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the design review process and step back
requirements in the CG zone. The ADB's recommendation is to maintain the interim ordinance. There was
some discussion about how the public hearing and recommendation process works. Chair Gladstone asked if
anyone from the ADB would be present at the next meeting to present their recommendation. Planning Manager
Levitan did not think so but said they could reach out to the ADB to see if they would provide a written
recommendation with the rationale for their decision.
Board Member Golembiewski recommended some way of highlighting code amendment items on the extended
agenda. It's not always apparent which items are code amendments. Planning Manager Levitan indicated that
staff could identify those for the Planning Board.
Planning Manager Levitan asked the Planning Board about their comfort level with being involved with the
o
various parts of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Board Member Maxwell stated he was fine seeing something
00
regarding the Comprehensive Plan every month once they get going with the policy development as had been
2-
previously discussed. He was in favor of receiving preliminary technical analyses via email as opposed to having
in -person presentations as long as there was opportunity to provide feedback in meetings. Other board members
y
concurred.
Board Member Mitchell asked how priorities on the extended agenda might change depending on what happens
in Olympia. Planning Manager Levitan replied that they haven't done a whole lot of analysis on the housing
side which could turn out to be beneficial. As staff does the EIS scoping alternatives, they may add an alternative
that is a version of House Bill 1110 or something like that with greater housing choice within all neighborhoods.
Staff will try to provide enough flexibility to accommodate some of the potential required changes.
Vice Chair Campbell said she would like to get a subcommittee started to work on some public engagement for
each of the upcoming public hearings on things like code amendments. She volunteered to lead and asked for a
couple other people interested in helping to make sure they have as much engagement as possible. She would
also like to talk to whoever is responsible for doing social media and publications for the City. Planning Manager
Levitan replied that would be fine as long as there are not more than three board members. Board Member
Maxwell volunteered to help on the subcommittee.
Planning Manager Levitan continued with 2023 projects. Minor amendments are currently being discussed for
the existing tree ordinance regulating tree removal/protection/replacement related to development activities.
Additionally, there will be a new ordinance developed related to regulating tree removal/protection/replacement
on private property not associated with development. Community engagement for tree code amendments is
kicking off now. Chair Gladstone asked about the Tree Board's involvement in this process. Urban Forest
Planner Deb Powers explained that a consultant would be utilized to facilitate a meeting with the Tree Board to
get their input, but they won't necessarily write a recommendation to the Planning Board versus the City
Council. Chair Gladstone didn't think it mattered who it was written to; she was interested in hearing their
thoughts even if one person came to report. Planning Manager Levitan replied they could continue to discuss
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 11
2.B.a
that. Board Member Golembiewski noted that the consultant would compile the Tree Board's thoughts which
would be useful for the Planning Board. Ms. Powers commented that the consultant would be facilitating a
community conversation, a survey, and four stakeholder groups. One of those stakeholder groups will be Tree
Board, but the findings from all those groups will be available for the Planning Board. Vice Chair Campbell
requested that the Tree Board's input be separated out or highlighted in the reports. Ms. Powers indicated they
could do that.
Another item coming to the Planning Board will be a citizen -initiated code amendment to modify permissible
uses within the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. An introduction of that topic to the Planning Board will be
done in April with a public hearing in May. This is a code amendment, not a zoning change. It would impact
the whole zone. Board Member Golembiewski wondered if it would make sense to discuss the Five Corners
Neighborhood Center Plan around that same time since there are very few BN zones remaining in Edmonds,
and this is one of them. Planning Manager Levitan noted that part of the recommendation from the Housing
Commission related to these kinds of areas that are directly adjacent to the BN. There were discussions about
permissible uses within them to create a more vibrant commercial core and the potential for having middle
housing adjacent to those to provide a bit more density to support the commercial uses. He stated that this is a
S
topic they could introduce as part of that.
M
L
The Housing Commission also recommended Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) code amendments. These
00
would implement the Housing Commission's recommendations and reflect recent state legislation and best
2-
practices for detached and attached ADUs. There will be an introduction to this topic in May or June and a to
2
public hearing in July or August. th
Additional code amendments coming to the Planning Board (July 2023-March 2024) include the critical aquifer
recharge area, wireless code (small cell, others), multifamily design standards, street/sidewalk standards, and
right-of-way permits.
Chair Gladstone asked about the code modernization. Planning Manager Levitan replied that besides these
substantive changes to the individual sections there will be a general code modernization component of that as
well. Chair Gladstone noted that another thing Council had expressed an interest in seeing was related to other
housing policies. Planning Manager Levitan replied that housing will be filled in as they get going with the
Comprehensive Plan. Also, any code updates that come out of bills that are passed will have specific dates for
codes to be adopted. Generally, there is flexibility so cities can get through their comprehensive plan updates.
Vice Chair Campbell recommended a discussion about Civic Park Rules to see how those are going. Chair
Gladstone said there had been some concerns raised about the noise ordinance related to generators. Planning
Manager Levitan explained that would be addressed as part of the code modernization project. He noted there
have been a couple requests to exempt generators from the noise ordinance either when power is out or if
periodic testing is being done.
Finally, the Comprehensive Plan Update is required to be complete by December 31, 2024. The existing
Comprehensive Plan has a purpose and scope, background information, and nine elements (chapters). There
will be updates to the goals and policies and additional plans adopted by reference (Highway 99 subarea plan,
Community Cultural Plan, PROS Plan, Streetscape and Street Tree Plan). The City will issue a Determination
of Significance later this month and solicit public comments on the scope of analysis. This requires a 30-day
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.B.a
public comment period and a public meeting. The City will also be integrating scoping/public comments for
Highway 99 Subarea SEIS.
Board Member Mitchell asked about a gap analysis that was done. Planning Manager Levitan replied there was
a climate and equity gap analysis that was done over the summer to determine if there are gaps that should be
factored in as they do the Comprehensive Plan Update. He offered to send out a copy of this to the Board.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Board Feedback on Draft Vision Statement
Chair Gladstone solicited ideas for how to provide feedback on the Draft Vision Statement. Director
McLaughlin clarified that the Community Vision Statement is not an adoption. It is a grassroots effort that
basically helps to frame the direction of the Comprehensive Plan as they move into more substantive policy
work. It was result of six weeks of tabling, talking, surveying, presentations, comment collection. To wordsmith
that statement would be to change it. Staff feels very strongly that this should continue to be a community vision.
Staff is looking forward to getting content in front of the Planning Board as soon as possible because they realize
that the waiting is hard. She cautioned against tweaking a community vision statement. Staff firmly believes it
o
is representative of the words that were spoken to them.
CO
0
L
Chair Gladstone said it wasn't about wordsmithing, but about the nature of the statement and how it provides a
vision for the City or not. One of the things she heard repeatedly when she served on the Housing Commission
y
was a question about what the vision was and what they were planning for. The vision is really important for
W
shaping what the policy is. Director McLaughlin agreed that this is very high level. As they continue with the
E
work plan there will be value statements that they all craft together as it relates to the topics. Vice Chair
Campbell commented that their interpretation was that it was presented to the Planning Board with an invitation
o
to provide comments. Director McLaughlin apologized for the misunderstanding and reiterated staffs intention
CO
to keep the vision statement pure. She believes that the vision statement should always be seen in conjunction
c
with the graphic that goes along with it because it shows the journey. She noted that the question linked to the
N
QR code asking if people liked the vision statement or not was intentionally very short. If they go back out to
a
ask people to tweak the vision statement. they would be negating the 8,500 comments they already received
and the very analytical process that was done to get to these words. If they get a majority of noes from the
feedback it means they need to go back and try again. Vice Chair Campbell noted that the impression people
have is that the City is asking for feedback. Director McLaughlin strongly stated that they are not. Vice Chair
Q
Campbell referred to the QR code and said she interprets that as the City asking what she thinks. Director
McLaughlin said they are interpreting that as validation, not feedback.
Student Representative Distelhorst expressed confidence in staff's ability to take the vision statement and use it
to help form the Comprehensive Plan. She also thinks that 20 years is a long time. In 20 years, this vision
statement won't even matter anymore. What really matters is the policies and the work that result with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Golembiewski commented that the fact that this has shown up twice on the agenda as a "draft"
vision statement is confusing and makes it appear it is up for editing. Director McLaughlin apologized for the
confusion. She explained that it is a draft because of the promise they made to Council that they were still going
to validate it. Technically, until it is validated by the community (yes/no survey) it is still a draft.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 13
2.B.a
Board Member Kuehn suggested that changing the name from a vision statement to a value statement could
alleviate some of the frustration and confusion. Director McLaughlin suggested that the challenge the Board is
having is seeing it in isolation instead of in relation to a work plan.
Board Member Martini recommended giving each other grace and recognizing and valuing each other's hard
work.
Board Member Golembiewski recommended that the Planning Board withhold any input they might have until
the survey results are in and they determine if their input is needed. There was consensus by the Planning Board
to have this be their position.
B. 2023 Climate Action Plan (CAP)
N
Director McLaughlin reviewed background on this document, the CAP development process, stakeholder
feedback from 2021 survey and open houses. The greatest concerns were related to increased wildfires, loss of S
wildlife, poor air quality, well-being of future generations, personal costs or resources, and climate refugees.
There was the greatest support for energy efficiency in buildings, improving transit systems, reducing materials o
consumption and waste, and focusing on the biggest impact of GHG and high influence of change. Key sections CO
of the CAP include a Call to Action, Equity, GHG Emissions, Buildings & Energy, Transportation, 2-
Environment, and Lifestyles & Consumption.
Some key actions the City can take:
• Adopt regulations to require new multi -family and commercial buildings to be 100% electric by 2023.
• Support changes to the State building code to allow Edmonds to mandate that new single-family
residences be 100% electric.
• Require EV charging infrastructure with new development.
• Support transit -oriented housing choices development in neighborhood commercial centers.
• Create a green building incentive program to foster low carbon developments.
• Develop an action plan to adapt to sea level rise in Edmonds.
Call to Action - The most effective actions that individuals and businesses in Edmonds can take are to
• Replace fossil -fuel burning heating systems, hot water heaters and cooking equipment powered with
efficient electric appliances.
• Replace fossil -fuel burning vehicles with electric vehicles.
• Reduce vehicle trips by using transit, telecommuting, biking, or walking.
• Conserve energy wherever possible, especially energy from fossil fuels.
Director McLaughlin reviewed what the City has done to reduce GHG emission and equity considerations.
Residential and commercial buildings total 50% of all Edmonds' GHG emissions. This highlights the
importance of incentivizing the green building program. The two biggest sectors for GHG emissions remain
buildings and transportation. Electric consumption in buildings declined 7% since 2000. Natural gas
consumption increased by 25%. Transportation emissions increased by 27% since 2000. Key takeaways —
Edmonds has not kept to its goals since the 2011 CAP.
Key Takeaways for Residential:
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 14
2.B.a
• Residential buildings emit roughly twice the quantity of GHG's that commercial and industrial
buildings in Edmonds emit.
• GHG reduction strategies that focus on homes using carbon -based fuels, and especially heating and hot
water, will have the greatest effect.
• Multifamily homes can use as little as 30% of the energy of a single-family residence.
• Promoting smaller units in a transit -rich context will have multi -faceted GHG reduction benefits.
Key Takeaways for Transportation:
• 80% of the GHG emissions from the transportation sector are from the passenger vehicle.
• Approximately 71 % of workers in Edmonds commuted in private vehicles in 2017.
• Over half of the 71 % of Edmonds SOV commuters had commutes longer than 20 minutes.
• Reducing GHG emissions can also be done by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Director McLaughlin reviewed how the metrics are tracked over time. Staff is confident if the City puts these a
actions into play, they will meet their target 2035 target. c
Chair Gladstone commended the work behind this CAP. It provides good context for many things that will be L
coming the Planning Board's way. Board Member Maxwell agreed that there is quite a bit of overlap between
00
the CAP and the Planning Board's work. He noted that if the Planning Board wanted to make a recommendation
on what to include in the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council, staff would need to delay the presentation to M
the City Council. Director McLaughlin noted that a lot of the actions pertaining to land use and transportation,
which are largely the Planning Board's purview, are already duplicative with Comprehensive Plan policies that
have been on the books for decades. She stressed that this is not a policy document; it is an action -oriented
document. She noted that one of the "actions" could be not taking action.
Vice Chair Campbell noted that it is helpful when the specific Comprehensive Plan metrics are included in the
presentations from staff. She would love to see any presentations or recommendations from staff reference back
to this document. Director McLaughlin thought that was a great idea.
Board Member Golembiewski asked how the switch to being completely electric will work if the state electric
source is not completely renewable. Director McLaughlin replied that every agency has set targets to be 100%
renewable or 100% offset.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
C. Project Status: Tree Code Updates AMD2022-0004
Chair Gladstone solicited tree code comments for staff. There were no additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone thanked staff and board members for being here so late.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board members generally thanked staff for the meeting and the packet materials.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 15
2.B.a
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m
a+
Q
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2023 Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 16
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 12, 2023: Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB)
recommendation on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design
review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial
(CG) zone. The permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City
Council in Interim Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The City Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. Per RCW
36.70A.390, interim ordinances may remain in effect for up to six months. As such, a permanent
ordinance needs to be adopted by Council before June 10, 2023, in order to maintain any of the
provisions of the interim ordinance. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Board to take
public testimony and consider the recommendation provided by the Architectural Design Board (ADB)
on a permanent ordinance, before forwarding on their recommendation to City Council.
Interim Ordinance 4283 added an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General
Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The
interim ordinance amends the development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in
August 2017 via Ordinance 4078. Ordinance 4078 established a step back requirement for buildings that
are adjacent to RS (single-family) zones. Interim Ordinance 4283 added the same step back requirement
when a proposed building in the CG zone is located across the street from an RS zone, "unless deemed
not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board."
The interim code language also requires a two-phase design review process by the ADB, like 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 continue to be reviewed administratively by staff.
Prior to Ordinance 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (4278) in October 2022 that
contained required step back language. That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the concept
to require step backs for buildings across the street from RS zones was carried forward as part of
Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process.
The Planning Board held a work session on the topic on February 15, 2023 (approved minutes in
Attachment 6). Planning Board members had a variety of thoughts and opinions related to both the
design review process and the step back requirements. Some members expressed support for a
permanent ordinance requiring a two-phase public hearing before the ADB while others inquired about
the possibility for a Type II review process that would provide opportunities for public notice and
Packet Pg. 17
6.A
comments while not requiring a quasi-judicial review by the ADB. Members also discussed the pros and
cons of requiring a step back for buildings across the street from an RS zone.
The ADB discussed interim ordinance 4283 at their January 26, 2023 meeting (approved minutes in
Attachment 4) and began deliberations on recommended language for a permanent ordinance at their
regular meeting on February 23 (draft minutes in Attachment 5 and link to meeting video also provided),
with the discussion continued at a special meeting on March 8 (draft minutes not yet available but
hyperlink to meeting video provided).
Regarding the design review process in the CG zone, the Board unanimously approved a motion on
February 23 recommending:
1) a two-phase public hearing process and decision by the ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater
than 35 feet in height when across from or adjacent to RS zone properties, and
2) a Type II staff review process for all other projects in the CG zone with buildings greater than 35
feet in height, which would provide an opportunity for public comment on those projects (such
as properties along Highway 99) without a public hearing.
All projects less than 35 feet in height in the CG zone would continue to be reviewed administratively by
staff using the Type I process (no public notice).
The ADB also discussed options for building step backs, with a focus on buildings across the street from
an RS zone. There was general agreement in support of the Board having discretion about when to apply
building step backs in the CG zone, which has been the case since the adoption of Ordinance 4078 in
2017. There was less consensus about what the appropriate step back should be and whether that
should be applied uniformly when projects are across the street from an RS zone, with the applicant
required to demonstrate why the step back should not be required.
Staff noted that factoring in the width of the right-of-way and required building setbacks might be
appropriate when considering whether a step back should be required for buildings across the street
from an RS zone. At a special meeting on March 8, the Board reviewed several generalized sketches
created by staff to better visualize the interaction of building heights, step backs, and right-of-way
widths and discussed the option of altering the step back language from the interim ordinance,
eliminating it entirely, or keeping it.
Ultimately, at the March 8th meeting, the ADB approved a motion on a 4-3 vote to retain the step back
language from the interim ordinance in the permanent ordinance, which requires a step back when RS-
zoned properties are located across the street from the CG zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the
ADB. The minority opinion was to remove the automatic step back requirement for properties across
the street (unless waived by the ADB at the Phase I public hearing) and instead rely on the ADB's existing
discretion to require design changes when deemed necessary, including step backs.
The three code changes recommended by the ADB have been included in the draft permanent
ordinance (Attachment 3), which also includes additional minor refinements proposed by staff to
provide clarity and consistency with existing code language (see Narrative section below).
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony on the draft permanent code language forwarded by the ADB, as supplemented
by staff (Attachment 3). The Board should then discuss the proposed design review processes and
building step back language and offer any desired changes. If additional time for discussion is needed,
the topic could be added to the Planning Board's April 12 agenda. Otherwise, the Board needs to make a
recommendation on permanent language so it can be forwarded to Council for their consideration and
action prior to the June 10, 2023 expiration of interim ordinance 4283.
Packet Pg. 18
6.A
Narrative
Several related pieces of code are recommended for update in the draft permanent language to clarify
the existing design review process codes or the proposed changes, which are shown in
stM(gig"/underline text in Attachment 3:
1) The design review process cross-reference in ECDC 16.60.020.D updated from ECDC 16.60.030
to ECDC 20.12.010.
2) The illustration in ECDC 16.60.020.D is proposed to be updated prior to final adoption by Council
to reflect the step back language that is eventually approved.
3) When all CG design reviews were done by staff, the Site Design and Layout design exception
process in ECDC 16.60.030.C.3 was decided by the Hearing Examiner. If the ADB will be
reviewing future projects in the Highway 99 area, staff is proposing that they review any design
exceptions too.
4) Type II -A design review process added to table in ECDC 20.01.003.A for buildings greater than
35' that are not adjacent to or across the street from RS zone.
5) Staff is proposing to eliminate the process language in ECDC 20.12.080, since it was added to the
table in ECDC 20.01.003.13 several years ago.
6) Staff is proposing to remove the process schematic in ECDC 20.12.005.D, which is confusing.
7) Staff is proposing to to amend the process applicability language in ECDC 20.12.010 to include
Type II -A and III -A processes and design exceptions in ECDC 16.60.030.C.3.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Interim Ordinance 4283
Attachment 2 - Council Minutes 12.10.2022
Attachment 3 - Draft Permanent CG Design Review and Step Back Language (AMD2022-0008)
Attachment 4 - January 26, 2023 ADB approved minutes
Attachment 5 - February 23, 2023 ADB draft minutes
Attachment 7 - Notice of Planning Board Public Hearing
March 8, 2023 ADB meeting video
Attachment 6 - February 15, 2023 PB Approved Minutes
February 22, 2023 ADB Meeting Video
Packet Pg. 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 20
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 21
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 22
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 23
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 24
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 25
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 26
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 27
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 28
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 29
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 30
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 31
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 32
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
6.A.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. 33
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 34
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 35
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
6.A.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. 36
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 37
6.A.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 identified in ECDC
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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 38
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 29
Packet Pg. 39
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 30
Packet Pg. 40
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 31
Packet Pg. 41
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 32
Packet Pg. 42
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 33
Packet Pg. 43
6.A.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 34
Packet Pg. 44
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
Chapter 16.60
CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
Sections:
16.60.000
CG zone.
16.60.005
Purposes.
16.60.010
Uses.
16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses.
16.60.020 Site development standards - General.
16.60.030 Site development standards - Design.
16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
I 16.60.000 CG zone.
A. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
1. "Amenity space" means outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an
amenity or benefit to people.
2. "Auto sales use" means facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including
buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display
and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use.
3. "Frontage" means the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street.
4. "Primary frontage" (or "primary street frontage") means the frontage for a property that
is adjacent to only one street or, for a property that is adjacent to more than one street,
the frontage that is adjacent to the street that is considered primary over any other
streets to which the property is adjacent.
5. "Step -back" means the upper portion of a building that is required to be set (or
stepped) further back than the minimum setback otherwise required by
ECDC 16.60.020(A).
C. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the general
commercial district. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1,
2007].
Packet Pg. 45
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
I 16.60.005 Purposes.
The CG zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient
use of land;
B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists;
C. Encourage attractive mixed -use development, affordable housing, and a variety of
commercial uses; and
D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between
different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh
1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 16.60.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically
prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsections (B) and (D) of this
section;
2. Halfway houses;
3. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth
in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the
licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use.
2. Indoor storage facilities that either comprise less than 40 percent of a permitted
primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory
building or buildings comprising less than 40 percent of the total leasable building space
used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s).
3. Outdoor storage areas that are integral to a permitted primary use, such as storage or
display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or
Packet Pg. 46
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
garden/nursery sales; provided, that such outdoor uses are screened from adjacent
residential zoning districts.
C. Prohibited Uses.
1. Mobile home parks.
2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to
a permitted use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted
to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use.
D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord.
3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses.
All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the
development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards
established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or
products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes,
seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or educational purpose; (4) printed materials or
visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker
room or other similar facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise
activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health -related
purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-1 3, R, and NC-17 by the Motion
Picture Association of America.
A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where
specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met:
1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the
following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the
city limits:
a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC;
b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC,
2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the
following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city
limits:
Packet Pg. 47
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
a. A public park;
b. A public library;
c. A nursery school or preschool;
d. A public or private primary or secondary school;
e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for
religious worship;
f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public
playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and
families for recreational or entertainment purposes;
g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone;
h. A museum; and
i. A public hospital or hospital district.
3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern
within or outside the city limits.
B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line
from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or
nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of
this section to the nearest physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented
business.
C. Variance from Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation
requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following
criteria are met:
1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation
between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms
of visibility and access;
2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the
community development code;
3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and
surrounding land uses;
Packet Pg. 48
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and
5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary
effects of the proposed sexually oriented business.
D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The
separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it
has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. [Ord. 4078 § 1
(Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 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
Area
Width
Street Setback
Setback
Height
Floor Area
CG
None
None
57102
0715"
75'3
None
Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this
subsection.
Z 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
Packet Pg. 49
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
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.
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.
Packet Pg. 50
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
v
a c
m @
u •c
dl 41 qr N
n t.1 t1 t V
L—d
r, q
T
4 N
-,L Ya mn, f 5--t4r* 16'-2"41
Nofe_ Numenrdl Rdnges for the Pedeslridrtlone dnd the Activity zone dre
lypic& but -do nof ronrmfover when requirements of this rhdpter.
(Illustration: Pedestrian area)
D. Building step -back wWhen adjacent to or directly across the street from IRS 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 -an adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone.
That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall-b-e step back no less than 20 feet
from the required setback to an adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone.
These reauirements aDgly unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design
review by the Architectural Design Board according to ECDC 20.12.010.
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.
Packet Pg. 51
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
I 7 4
1 1
1c 3 a
2 M
a
7E�
1 dt
Is d—k—
Itrlr�duaprtrulGr
(Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones)
(Illustration to be updated to reflect permanent step back language)
[Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 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.
Packet Pg. 52
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with
Chapter 20.13 ECDC.
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
Packet Pg. 53
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque.
B. Parking, Access, and Bicycle Storage Standards.
1. Parking Requirements. Vehicle parking shall be provided as follows:
a. Nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and
b. Residential uses, an average of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square
feet, an average of 1.25 parking spaces per unit that is between 700 and 1,100
square feet, and otherwise 1.75 spaces per unit.
c. In addition, guest parking for residential uses at a minimum ratio of one guest
space for every 20 required parking spaces.
d. For mixed -use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared
between residential and commercial uses provided the director finds that the
proposal is supported by a parking study and/or nationally recognized parking
standards and that the site plan assures access for all shared parking uses.
e. Parking meeting the nonresidential parking requirements shall be open to the
public throughout business operating hours.
2. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial space in a mixed -use development with a
shared parking plan is exempt from off-street parking requirements.
3. The development services director may approve a different ratio for the vehicle parking
required by the standards of subsection (B)(1) of this section when an applicant submits
parking data illustrating that the standards do not accurately apply to a specific
development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio shall include, at a
minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, and the anticipated peak and
average parking loads of all uses. The director may approve a parking ratio that is based
on the specific type of development and its primary users in relationship to:
a. An analysis conducted using nationally recognized standards or methodology,
such as is contained in the Urban Land Institute's most recent version of the
publication "Shared Parking" or the latest version of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers publication "Parking Generation"; or
b. A site -specific parking study that includes data and analysis for one or more of the
following:
i. One -quarter -mile proximity to a bus rapid transit station and methodology
that takes into account transit -oriented development;
Packet Pg. 54
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
ii. Use of transportation demand management policies, including but not limited
to free or subsidized transit passes for residents and workers;
iii. On -site car -share and bike -share facilities;
iv. Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle
parking needs as the general population; or
v. Other methods that reduce the need for vehicle parking.
4. All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building,
except as otherwise allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from the sidewalk by a
wall or plantings between two to four feet in height. Outdoor parking areas shall comprise
40 percent or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street
for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements
of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses.
5. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards
relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking standards relating to
bicycle parking facilities.
7. Driveways Accessing Highway 99. All driveway connections to Highway 99 must meet
the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation,
including minimum requirements for distance between driveway access connections,
which may be up to 250 feet to help promote traffic safety and minimize pedestrian -
vehicle conflicts.
8. Paths within Parking Lots.
a. Pedestrian paths in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that
meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or
colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands.
b. Pedestrian paths shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots.
These shall be designed to provide access to on -site buildings as well as to
pedestrian walkways that border the development.
c. Pedestrian paths shall be a minimum of six feet in width and shall be separated
from the parking area either horizontally or vertically (e.g., with curbs). Where paths
cross vehicular lanes, raised traffic tables should be considered if feasible.
Packet Pg. 55
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum
of every 100 feet.
9. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground Floor.
a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the ground
floor of the building, the following standards may be applied regardless of any ECDC
standards that otherwise conflict:
i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet.
ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent.
iii. A mixture of full and reduced width parking stalls may be provided without
demonstrating the stalls could also be provided at full width dimensions.
10. Drive -Through Facilities. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks,
cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following:
a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades
of the building that face a street.
b. No more than one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed
as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street.
11. Pedestrian and Transit Access.
a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to
adjacent developments if feasible.
b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing
pedestrian routes where applicable. Potential future connections shall also be
identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without
walking in the parking or access areas.
c. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel,
pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are
required.
d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other.
C. Site Design and Layout. Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the
building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the
form of either a pedestrian -oriented design area or an alternative walkable design area, as
Packet Pg. 56
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
described in subsections (C)(1) and (2) of this section; provided, that an exceptions process,
pursuant to subsection (C)(3) of this section, may be allowed under the provisions of this
section. Additional site design and layout standards in this section must also be met.
1. Pedestrian -Oriented Design Area. Unless otherwise permitted under subsection (C)(2)
or (3) of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a
pedestrian -oriented design area.
a. Primary Frontage. At least 50 percent of a building's facade facing the primary
public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary
street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept.
The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the
same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3,000 square feet and
has met the requirement. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the
requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by
that constraint. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the
development services director shall determine the primary street frontage
considering the following:
i. The street classification of the adjacent streets;
ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area;
iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; or
iv. Unique characteristics of the lot or street.
b. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage.
Vehicle parking, other than where permitted for vehicle sales use, shall not be
located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the
primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating
areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
0
F�3
CE�d6�''L���.�3-'�'��X�+l+�.]7�p,ry3��
I
2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option. An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented
design area requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section may be allowed by the
development services director only for sites that the director has found to have unique
and significant constraints related to pedestrian access and for which a phased design
plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the
Packet Pg. 57
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
development services department. While they currently may be largely auto -oriented,
walkable design areas have a high potential for walking, bicycling and transit service. If a
development is allowed to use this standard, it shall be subject to the requirements of this
subsection.
a. Building Placement. For any new building permitted on a property after August 1,
2017, a minimum of 50 percent of the building's facade facing the primary street
shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line or within 65 feet where a
five-foot landscaping area is provided between the parking lot and the sidewalk.
When site constraints preclude strict compliance with this requirement, the building
line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint.
b. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development
services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the
following:
i. The street classification of the adjacent streets;
ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area;
iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located;
iv. The location of any alley or parking areas; or
v. Unique characteristics of the lot or street.
c. No more than one double -sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front
of a building on its primary frontage.
d. A pedestrian entrance must be located on the primary frontage.
Sau nq %.de lao ng
p i—y street shall 6e
PBdeetridn er1r.— to *d Alhi, SD feel of
the 1wt moemy ilne
��rrf 11111AMfar1'
-'�� ■rrrrr rrrrrrrrR�
•��'�. T�ix i�w�f �• y 4�
Primary street +mmaee
e. Required amenity spaces, under subsection (C)(4) of this section, shall be located
to connect the building to the street as much as practicable; provided, that amenity
space may also be located between buildings where the space will be used in
common.
Packet Pg. 58
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Design. An exception to the exact
requirements of subsection (C)(1) or (2) of this section may be allowed by the hear'^s
Architectural Design Board under a Type III -A decision process to provide for
design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses when
the following criteria are met:
a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange and has unique
pedestrian access constraints or is primarily used for motor vehicle sales;
b. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the
primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening;
c. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is
highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage;
d. At least 25 percent of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the
building to the street in a manner that encourages pedestrian use and include
seating, landscaping, and artwork;
e. Where a site has multiple buildings (excluding accessory utility buildings), 50
percent or more of the required amenity space shall be located between buildings to
allow for shared use;
f. No more than 50 percent of vehicle parking, other than that associated with a
permitted vehicle sales facility use, may be located within 20 feet of the front
property line;
g. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space
4. Amenity Space. Amenity space is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors
with places for a variety of outdoor activities.
a. An area equivalent to at least five percent of the building footprint shall be
provided as amenity space. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site
without the concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet,
amenity space must be provided to equal at least five percent of the additional
parking area.
b. The amenity space shall be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented
features, such as, but not limited to, seating, paths, gazebos, dining tables,
pedestrian -scale lighting, and artwork. A minimum of 10 percent of the required
amenity space shall be comprised of plantings, which may include tree canopy areas
and other shade or screening features. Native vegetation is encouraged.
Packet Pg. 59
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
c. The majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more of
the following forms:
i. Recreation areas: an open space available for recreation. The area may be
spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall
consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or
recreational use. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not
comprise more than 15 percent of the total area.
ii. Plazas: an open space available for community gathering and commercial
activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by either building facades,
with strong connections to interior uses, or close proximity to the public
sidewalk, especially at the intersection of streets. Its surface shall be primarily
hardscape; provided, that trees, shade canopies, and other landscaping, as well
as water features and artwork, may add visual or environmental features to the
space.
iii. Squares or courtyards: an open space available for unstructured recreation
or community gathering purposes. A square is spatially defined by building
facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its surface shall be primarily
hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping. Water features and
artwork are optional.
iv. Exception. A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity
space; provided, that it:
(A) Is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage;
(B) Is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for
growing edible produce; and
(C) Includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies
5. Lighting. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent
parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut
off' fixtures.
a. Parking lots shall have lighting poles that are a maximum of 25 feet in height.
Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have pedestrian -scaled
lighting focused on the travel path. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet,
although lighting bollards are preferred.
b. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered
lighting may be sufficient.
Packet Pg. 60
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
c. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the
building/canopy.
D. Building Design Standards.
1. General. To provide variety and interest in appearance, the following design elements
should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least four of the elements
will be used to vary the design of the site:
a. Building massing and unit layout;
b. Placement of structures and setbacks;
c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities;
d. Composition and character of open space, plant materials and street trees;
e. Variety in architectural elements, facade articulation, and/or building materials;
f. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials.
2. Building Design and Massing.
a. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top," which may be achieved
through differences in massing elements and/or architectural details.
b. 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 facade
articulation and modulation, setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and
other design details.
c. Primary Frontage. On the primary frontage, to provide visual connection between
activities inside and outside the building, 50 percent of the building facade between
two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, shall be
comprised of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not
be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from this standard
may be approved when the facade will not be visible from the public street due to
the placement of other buildings on the site; provided, that the requirements of
subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section shall apply.
Packet Pg. 61
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
b ,
■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all
wirrr�ows $nd glass door$, but
not mirrored
finishes;
i. On the primary frontage, no vehicle parking shall be located within the first 20
feet of the first level of a building facing the street except where such parking is
underground.
d. All Other Building Frontages. All street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public
street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of
a dead-end street, shall comply with the standard below.
i. Thirty percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height shall
be made of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may
not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Windows shall not be
mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40 percent in order to meet this
requirement.
e. Wall Treatment. Building facades not subject to all requirements of subsection
(D)(2)(c) or (d) of this section are intended to not display blank, unattractive walls to
the public or to other building tenants. To accomplish this, walls greater than 30 feet
in length shall have architectural treatment that incorporates at least four of the
following elements into the design of the facade:
i. Masonry (except for flat concrete block).
ii. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall.
iii. Belt courses of a different texture and color.
iv. Projecting cornice.
v. Projecting metal or wood canopy.
vi. Decorative tilework.
vii. Trellis containing planting.
Packet Pg. 62
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
viii. Medallions.
ix. Artwork or wall graphics.
x. Vertical differentiation.
A Decorative lighting fixtures.
xii. Glazing.
xiii. An architectural element not listed above that is approved by the director to
meet the intent of this subsection. [Ord. 4277 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4251 § 2
(Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord.
3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building,
except the following:
1. Public utilities,-
2. Off street parking and loading areas;
3. Drive-in business;
4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B);
5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the
market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building;
7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC;
8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of
Chapter 4.12 ECC.
B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets. Unless a public market is identified on a business license
as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall
be considered a temporary use. As a temporary activity, any signs or structures used in
accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a
business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the
Packet Pg. 63
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
required available parking for the other business use below the standards established in this
chapter.
C. Ongoing Uses.
1. Audio equipment at drive -through facilities shall not be audible off site.
2. Development subject to the standards of this chapter shall continue to meet the
standards of this chapter except as specifically permitted otherwise. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh
1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635
§ 1, 2007].
I 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework.
A. Permit Types.
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE II-B
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV
TYPE V
Zoning
Accessory
Contingent
Outdoor dining
Essential
Site specific
compliance
dwelling unit
critical area
public
rezone
letter
review
facilities
Lot line
Formal
Shoreline
Technological
Development
Zoning text
adjustment
interpretation
substantial
impracticality
agreements
amendment;
of the text of
development
waiver for
area -wide
the ECDC by the
permit, where
amateur radio
zoning map
director
public hearing
antennas
amendments
not required
per
ECDC 24.80.100
Critical area
SEPA
Critical area
Comprehensive
determinations
determinations
variance
plan
amendments
Shoreline
Preliminary
Contingent
Conditional
Annexations
exemptions
short plat
critical area
use
review if public
permits
hearing
(where
requested
public
hearing by
hearing
examiner
is required)
Minor
Land
Shoreline
Variances
Development
amendments to
clearing/grading
substantial
regulations
planned
development
permit, where
Packet Pg. 64
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE II-B
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV
TYPE V
residential
public hearing
development
is required per
ECDC 24.80.100
Minor
Revisions to
Shoreline
preliminary plat
shoreline
conditional use
amendment
management
permits
Staff design
Administrative
Shoreline
review, including
variances
variance
signs
Final short plat
Land use
Design review
permit
(where public
extension
hearing by
requests
architectural
design board is
required)
Sales
Guest house
Preliminary
office/model
formal plat
(ECDC 17.70.005)
Final formal
Innocent
Preliminary
plats
purchaser
planned
determination
residential
development
Final planned
Staff design
residential
review (ECDC
20.12.010.B.2)
development
B. Decision Table.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I
LEGISLATIVE
- IV)
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE II-B
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV
TYPE V
Recommendation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planning board
Planning board
by:
Final decision by:
Director
Director
Director
Hearing
Hearing
City council
City council
examiner/ADB
examiner
Notice of
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
application:
Open record
No
Only if
(1) If
Yes, before
Yes,
Yes, before
Yes, before
public hearing or
appealed,
director
hearing
before
planning board
planning board
open record
open
decision
examiner or
hearing
which makes
which makes
3
Packet Pg. 65
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I
LEGISLATIVE
- IV)
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE II-B
TYPE III -A
TYPE III -El
TYPE IV
TYPE V
appeal of a final
record
is
board to
examiner
recommendation
recommendation
decision:
hearing
appealed,
render final
or board
to council
to council or
before
open
decision
to render
council could
hearing
record
final
hold its own
examiner
hearing
decision
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
(2) If
converted
to Type
III -A
process
Closed record
No
No
No
No
Yes,
Yes, before the
review:
before
council
the
council
Judicial appeal:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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 Appeal
20.12.090 Lapse of approval.
I 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
3
Packet Pg. 66
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
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 staffs
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 36.70B.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 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 staffs 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 staffs ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed.
Packet Pg. 67
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
Design Review for Major Projects
Proposed New Review Process
A! IFIUU%yS PN*o t% Pftw2 �l
Cow"01" ILti4Cd� W
GNpny7 I I oeslel
1��.' .—— — — — — IL rep
patlw�rl �F ;
-----------------
i o-nr l
Wwa
[Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
I 20.12.010 Applicability.
A. Downtown Business (BD) zones. 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 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.
B. General Commercial (CG) zone. In the General Commercial zone, design review occurs
depending on the site- and project -specific situation.
Packet Pg. 68
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
1. If an application contains a building greater than 35 feet in height and the project site is
adjacent to or across the street from the IRS zone, the Architectural Design Board reviews
the project and issues the design decision as a Type III -A decision.
2. If an application contains a building greater than 35 feet in height and the project site is
not adjacent to or across the street from the RS zone, staff reviews the project and issues
the design decision as a Type 11-A decision.
3. If an application contains no buildings greater than 35 feet in height, staff reviews the
project and issues the design decision as a Type I decision.
4. For any application that proposes to use the site design and layout exception in ECDC
16.60.030.C.3, the Architectural Design Board reviews the project and issues the design
decision as a Type III -A decision.
[Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
1 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
Packet Pg. 69
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
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. 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:
Packet Pg. 70
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
6.A.c
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.
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.
Packet Pg. 71
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
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
staffs 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:
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, 2007].
I 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.
Packet Pg. 72
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
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].
I 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.
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, 2007].
Packet Pg. 73
6.A.c
DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3
I 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].
I 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.
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, 2007].
Packet Pg. 74
6.A.d
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the
Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Joe Herr (on Zoom)
Maurine Jeude (on Zoom)
Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom)
Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom)
Board Members Absent
Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused)
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused)
Corbitt Loch (Excused)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Other
Councilmember Dave Teitzel
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He
referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved
the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration
up there on 84th which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come
forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the
traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for
the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering
tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless
the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type
of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large
structures and single-family homes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes
' Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January 26, 2023
Pagel of 5
Packet Pg. 75
6.A.d
The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet.
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional
code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance
4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes
— one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and
the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance
4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by
ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input.
Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the
proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB.
Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive
to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods.
Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where
there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone
isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a
need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across
the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks.
He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than
saying just "across the street' he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered.
Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for
everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back
was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are
tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr.
Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99.
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For
her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a
property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the
developer know what they are thinking.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely
is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project
there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building.
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want
in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code,
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January26, 2023
Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 76
6.A.d
but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with
these developments.
Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to
provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale.
At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with
Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes
up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher.
Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't
need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take
precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable
housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes.
Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the
existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received
for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review
increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space
between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will
provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space,
underground power lines, and other infrastructure.
Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might
happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99
corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against
single family homes.
Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect.
It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up
barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are
requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make
sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred.
Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building
height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a I0-foot setback. He agreed
that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds
that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are
hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need
for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the
background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also
seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate
zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for
multifamily projects.
Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning
standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January 26, 2023
Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 77
6.A.d
acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family
neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without
the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties
in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate.
The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if
the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs
in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would
be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is
appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial
issues with the BD zone downtown.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should
be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them
at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building
with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more
floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units.
Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street,
and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred.
Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member
Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue.
Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the
two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is
important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much
weight as they give those in the downtown area.
Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in
certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more
discretion.
Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and
rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings.
Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the
developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design
guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some
properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door
to the same type of zoning.
Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the
street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion
but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss
noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot
are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January26, 2023
Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 78
6.A.d
as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations
where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might
require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged
they would have to justify their decisions.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a
similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating
in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning
completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS-1 zone would no longer exist, and the single-
family homes along 84th could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change
the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re -
look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of
those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions.
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Review ADB Handbook
Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if
there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no
suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it
would be very helpful.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board.
Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the
Board for their good work.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January26, 2023
Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 79
6.A.e
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5ffi Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online)
Joe Herr (online)
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
Steve Schmitz
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director
Other:
Councilmember Dave Teitzel
The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on
84t' and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done
to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the
applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed
concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the
same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has
been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single -
Architectural Design Board Meeting t;
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Pagel of 9
Packet Pg. 80
6.A.e
family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate
response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative
process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can
argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took
this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements
for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan.
Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be
completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments
made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density
is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some
of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state
laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being
concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based
on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess
of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low-
income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She
spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the
Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a
Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance
but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community.
Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the
buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area
where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live
in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live
in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design
housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind
them.
Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design
build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for
a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to
understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to
provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in
the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three
and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the
Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been
alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should
be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the
past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the
growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented
immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and
taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be
adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 81
6.A.e
to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses
in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve
the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals.
Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236th and 84th West which has
been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale
Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in
accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were
requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of
misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property
owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring
step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned
properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were
not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented
irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones
were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency
ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to
development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was
adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by
administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning
department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated
that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the
Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council
and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in
the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit -
oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and
will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation
and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need
of transit -oriented development attributes.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning
between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She
summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the
developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland,
Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that
Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating
the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to
use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone.
Written Comments:
Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to
ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting:
• Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum
• Theresa Hollis — 2 emails
• Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 82
6.A.e
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process
for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated
with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was
robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She
asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the
proposed step back be based on architectural justifications.
She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone
was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this
zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit
corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to
step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional
Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part
of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that
given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so
great that it would mitigate the massing.
She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow
did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight
needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff
recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design
projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from
Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice,
removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless
the ADB does not determine them necessary.
Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does
the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked
for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use.
Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied
that they are; it is project specific.
Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283:
• Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced
the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007.
• Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed
unnecessary by the ADB.
• Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond
that date.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 83
6.A.e
Considerations on the design review process:
• Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year.
o Projects maybe controversial.
• Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities?
o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities?
• If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing?
o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply
... during subsequent design review".
o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must
occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing.
o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones.
Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back
across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed.
How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification
about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors
for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already
available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation,
modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language.
The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council.
Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like.
Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an
avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked
for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects?
Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused.
Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry
about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She
likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion
would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work.
Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus
on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a
precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements.
Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of
Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real.
She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that
is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance.
Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including
the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion
and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step
backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in
the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 5 of 9
Packet Pg. 84
6.A.e
ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit
margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to
review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community.
She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback
and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't
review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some
stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning
Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves
decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner.
Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking
about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would
be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step
backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has
changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017.
Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding
is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were
converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use
changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor.
She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the
street.
Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step
backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize
efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager
Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and
objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they
can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the
development community while still considering community concerns.
Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing
it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s
early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the
ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a
public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process.
Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She
thinks it should be a two-step process.
Issue 1: Design Review Process
• Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via
two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone
• Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS
zone
Architectural Design Board Meeting t;
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Packet Pg. 85
6.A.e
Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public
hearing
Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across
the street from RS zone
Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well
debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference.
He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design
review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum
development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map
issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross
sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more
involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one-
sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also
okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision.
Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have
the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and
asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the
ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the
buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation
would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She
thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with
the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and
objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity.
Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also
noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She
stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review
process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows
for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as
step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and
staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that
defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their
money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look
at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already
regulated at their discretion.
Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for
all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of
developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she
thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance.
Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review
for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 86
6.A.e
in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum
distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2).
Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs
across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision.
Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot
building heights.
Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best
benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options.
Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE
TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR
ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL
OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR
ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street
• Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by
ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing)
• Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum
distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required
• Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code
Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination
about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was
the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision.
There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings.
Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information,
and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels
they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1.
Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim
ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community
members' comments about concerns around step backs.
Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is.
Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2.
Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing
when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner,
or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1.
Architectural Design Board Meeting t;
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 87
6.A.e
There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints
they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more
information.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE,
TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK
SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting t;
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
February 23, 2023
Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 88
6.A.f
�� OF EbMo�
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
/17 i ggo
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on permanent amendments to
Chapter 16.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
regarding a new Architectural Design Board (ADB) review process for certain
projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building
step back requirements in certain situations. The permanent standards are
intended to replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in
Ordinance 4283.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0008
COMMENTS ON
PROPOSAL DUE: March 22, 2023
Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is
closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at
www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public
Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be
mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the
application file number for all inquiries.
PUBLIC HEARING: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on March 23, 2023,
at 7 p.m. The physical location is at Edmonds City Hall, 1215th Avenue N, 3rd
Floor, Brackett Room.
Or join the Zoom meeting at:
https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom. us/I/87322872194?pwd=W FdxTWJ IQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09
Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468
Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194
Password: 007978
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment 6
6.A.h
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Special Hybrid Meeting
February 15, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the special hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. in
Council Chambers noting that this was a repeat of the February 8, 2023 meeting.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Mitchell read the land acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Todd Cloutier
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Richard Kuehn
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2022 JOINT MEETING WITH THE
TREE BOARD AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER,
MAXWELL, AND GOLEMBIEWSKI ABSTAINING.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25, 2023 MEETING WITH THE
AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE IN HER EMAIL. MOTION PASSED
WITH BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Gladstone recommended moving New Business Item B regarding the Design Review Process to just after
Audience Comments.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 1 of 6
Packet Pg. 90
6.A.h
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. Written Public Comments related to February 8 Meeting
Planning Manager Levitan noted that the City had received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and
following the February 8 meeting, which are attached to the agenda packet.
• 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
Additional Public Comments:
David Cohanim, Synergy Construction, Inc. stated he was representing developers of the project at 2365 84t'
Avenue West. They have been working with the City of Edmonds on this project for quite a while. Plans were
submitted for design review that met all relevant criteria under the municipal code. Now the project has been
stopped by the actions of the City Council. They are unable to move forward, and there has been substantial
financial impact due to this. The Emergency Ordinance that was enacted by the City Council calls for
substantive changes to the nature of the proposed structure that were not present in the zoning code at the time
they submitted for review. This project has been called out repeatedly by city staff as the impetus for these
moves. He expressed concern that Judi Gladstone is a neighboring resident of the project under discussion and
has spoken out about her position regarding the project and the zoning issues associated with it. Since the
Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Council on which Ms. Gladstone serves as Chair, he
expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He recommended that Chair Gladstone recuse herself from any
matters pertaining in any way to the project under discussion as well as zoning and related legislation associated
with the project, particularly with regard to CG zoning.
Stanley Piha spoke regarding transit -oriented development which he believes should be as significant a focus
of the Planning Board as it is at the current state legislative session. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, an
act related to promoting transit -oriented development, a station hub means all parcels that are fully or partially
within a quarter -mile radius of a major transit station. Further defined in the senate bill, a major transit stop
means a site that has been funded for development or a site on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on
high -occupancy vehicle lanes. Mr. Piha stated that governance creating transit -oriented development activities
should be a priority of the Planning Board. Community Transit recently announced the proposed shuttle service
from the Edmonds Kingston ferry terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station with
stops along the way. As a result, the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 2386' and Highway 99 will be one of the
most transit -concentrated hubs in the city of Edmonds. It is the only intersection that will have both north and
south Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the highway. This creates an opportunity to create a transit -
oriented development radius as defined by the senate bill allowing the most accessible access to public
transportation. He noted that multifamily properties already exist across the street from single-family zoned
properties on 80 Avenue between 236ffi and 238th. He spoke in support of a suggestion at a recent Architectural
Design Review Board meeting to create a transition between the CG zone and the single-family zone by
changing the single-family zones along 84t' to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. He stated that the quarter -mile radius from
238ffi and Highway 99 should be viewed by the Planning Board as a transit -oriented development opportunity.
Promoting density here will provide a means of addressing the housing crisis and promoting easy access to all
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 91
6.A.h
forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. He thinks all properties within this radius
should be excepted from the conditions outlined in the Emergency Ordinance to allow needed housing to be
built.
Finis Tupper (online), Edmonds resident, expressed concern about where Edmonds is headed and the way that
the current government is operating. He expressed frustration that he was unable to attend the February 8
meeting because of technical difficulties. He is concerned about open and transparent government and stated
there are consequences for violating the Open and Public Meetings Act.
Glenn Douglas (online), Gateway community, stated he is getting ready to put together another citizens' petition
regarding persistent speeding on 80 Avenue West. He thinks adding a 261-unit apartment building at 236t' and
84t' will only exacerbate this. He thanked anyone on the Board who helped get the new stop signs put in at that
intersection, but it is not enough. He is frustrated that the southbound radar feedback sign has not been
reinstalled, and the northbound radar feedback sign has not been activated. He suggested relocating both radar
feedback signs to more effective locations. He commented that asphalt speed bumps have been recommended
by neighbors. He would appreciate some feedback or some kind of response.
Deborah Arthur said she also tried to get on for the last Planning Board meeting and had technical difficulties.
She requested clarification about the area along 84d' they are talking about developing. She expressed concern
about speeding traffic along the side streets in this area and pedestrian safety issues she has witnessed.
NEW BUSINESS
B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Chair Gladstone stated that she has been involved as a private citizen on this issue. It is her intent to continue to
serve impartially and take in information as she would on any other issue coming before the Planning Board.
Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that was presented on February 8. He
explained that due to a lack of recording and other technical difficulties, that meeting was being repeated. He
reviewed some of the history and provisions of Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283. It requires a two-phase
public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height; requires
an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the
ADB, and is valid for six months from adoption (June 10, 2023) with a permanent ordinance required beyond
that date. He reviewed considerations regarding the design review process. Right now, they are seeing about
one new project per year. He asked for feedback on whether the ADB should have additional quasi-judicial
decision -making responsibilities. If so, is the two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting
hearing? He discussed existing and interim step back requirements including factors to be considered regarding
across -the -street step backs. He reviewed design tools and requested feedback on additional design tools to be
considered. He requested feedback and stated this would go back to the ADB on February 23 for additional
code refinement and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a
public hearing, and make a recommendation to Council. The Council must adopt permanent standards by June
10, 2023. He summarized some of the previous discussion.
Board Member Mitchell asked how the Supplemental EIS plays into this. Planning Manager Levitan explained
that was added as part of the Council budget package as part of the 2023 project to analyze some of the
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 92
6.A.h
development assumptions within the Planned Action EIS related to trip generation and the ability to handle
stormwater. He pointed out that the Planned Action EIS went through all the required processes and was subject
to public comment and potential appeals which did not happen. Staff is working on ways to integrate this
analysis with the needed environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update as a whole.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if the projects in the CG zone are not required to go through the ADB, are
there any other opportunities for public comment in the permit process to get feedback on the design or the
proposed development? Planning Manager Levitan thought there would be an opportunity for a Type 2 public
process even though it would be reviewed administratively. Board Member Golembiewski stated that the
process of going through the ADB seems counterintuitive to the subarea plan which was designed to streamline
development in this area. She thinks public input is important, and she is comfortable as long as the public has
the opportunity to provide comment for staff to review. She spoke to the importance of believing that staff will
be working in the best interest of the community.
Vice Chair Campbell spoke to challenges with public comment opportunities as has been heard tonight. If they
are not going through the ADB process, what else can the City do to make sure people's comments are heard?
Planning Manager Levitan stated that a Type 2 process would require public notification be sent to neighbors
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project property. If someone comments on that they become a party of
record and would be notified of any notice of decision and would have the opportunity to appeal the project if
they wished to. Vice Chair Campbell asked about the possibility of expanding the notification radius to reach
out to a greater number of people. Planning Manager Levitan thought it could be discussed.
Chair Gladstone asked about the vision of the Planned Action EIS. Planning Manager Levitan replied that a
Planned Action was done recognizing the role of high -capacity transit coming down Highway 99 and that the
area has the potential to meet a lot of the City's identified housing needs, especially multifamily residential.
There was a public process in establishing the subarea plan as well as doing the environmental review through
the State Environmental Policy Act. The general intent of the Planned Action was to evaluate transportation and
stonnwater impacts in that area so it would streamline development. Chair Gladstone requested more
information about the history of the CG area and the EIS so they can get a better accounting of this. She also
suggested that a joint meeting with the ADB might be helpful to get their perspective before making a
recommendation.
Chair Gladstone asked about differences in street widths in the CG zone. Planning Manager Levitan thought
street widths vary in that area from about 40 to 80 feet; however, this would apply only to CG-zoned properties
that are directly across from RS zones so it would be very limited.
Vice Chair Campbell said she would like to see additional information and more detail about the equity piece
related to whether step backs would be required. She is concerned about the language in the proposed ordinance
that says that step backs would be required unless the ADB determined that they weren't needed. If that
condition is left in there, it is important to set out clearly what those requirements are. She can see the benefits
to having the flexibility in there but expressed concern about potential inequities between developers.
Chair Gladstone asked about the reason for the shift in the emergency ordinance to add review by the ADB
regarding step back requirements. Planning Manager Levitan thought the emergency ordinance reanalyzed the
ability for the ADB to have discretion about whether step backs are needed and implemented the two-phase
design review process.
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 93
6.A.h
Board Member Mitchell asked if there is still an ability by the developer to prove to the ADB that step backs
aren't needed. Mr. Levitan explained that the applicant can state why they don't think they are needed when
they present their design. He offered to bring back more information about this. Board Member Mitchell agreed
with Vice Chair Campbell's concerns about consistency. He noted that in his experience step backs are the first
thing to go.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about the possibility that a developer would propose no step backs on
either adjacent properties or across the street the way the code is written. Mr. Levitan explained that in the
interim ordinance the discretion for the ADB applies to both adjacent and across the street. The language could
be changed if desired. There was some discussion about how the code language development process happens
with the Planning Board.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Manager Levitan explained that at the last meeting he had reviewed the visioning process and
the vision statement: "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. " The next step in
the process will be to do a citywide mailing with a QR code and other opportunities for people to log on
to a survey to provide their feedback. He had also asked for general feedback from Planning Board
members on the vision statement. The general consensus was that this isn't necessarily a vision
statement, but it is just stating what we are. There was a general thought that a vision statement should
be more aspirational and forward looking.
Board Member Maxwell commented as long as they have the time it would be great to have an
additional mail out survey. He stressed that there should be opportunities for people who aren't
comfortable with technology, don't have access to smart phones, or have other accessibility issues to be
able to respond as well. Board Member Martini agreed that they really need to remember accessibility
for the disabled and aging community. She wonders how much feedback they would get from them if
they had to go online versus having a survey mailed to them or an opportunity to call a phone number.
Planning Manager Levitan thanked them for the feedback.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 94
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
Approval of Planning Board Handbook
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
ECC Section 10.40.020(D)(6) requires the Planning Board to "adopt rules of procedure and rules
governing election and duties of officers of the board". In response, staff prepared a Planning Board
handbook that addresses these requirements and seeks to provide additional background and context
related to the role and duties of the Planning Board, as well as assist with the onboarding of new
members.
The draft handbook was introduced at the Planning Board's December 14, 2022 meeting and discussed
again at their January 25, 2023 and March 8, 2023 meeting. Planning Board members provided several
comments at those meetings, and staff worked with the Chair Gladstone to incorporate those into an
updated draft, which is attached and shows changes since the March 8 meeting as track changes
(stFi- gh/underline).
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the updated Planning Board handbook, either as presented or with additional
changes.
Narrative
Changes made to the handbook since it was last reviewed by the Planning Board on March 8 include:
1) Clarification on staff members' roles and responsibilities (bottom of page 2).
2) Additional information on (and definitions) of quasi-judicial matters and ex-parte communications
(bottom of page 3)
3) Updates to deadlines for adding meeting agenda topics (bottom of page 4).
4) Clarification on what constitutes a quorum, including when there are vacancies on the board (bottom
of page 6).
5) Additional details on document storage and record retention requirements/responsibilities (top of
page 7).
6) Update to Appendix 1 (ECC Chapter 10.40) to reflect updated meeting location (Brackett Room) and
Packet Pg. 95
7.A
other minor changes to Section 10.40.020(D)(4) that were adopted in early 2023 via Ordinance 4290
(bottom of page 10).
7) Addition of the Washington State Archives Retention Schedule related to Land Use as Appendix D (to
be added).
Attachments:
Planning Board Handbook - 3.22.23 Draft
Packet Pg. 96
DRAFT Planning Board Handbook
I11—��O
This handbook is intended to provide an overview of the Planning Board and its processes and
to gather useful references in one place. It is not exhaustive but touches on many of the
aspects of the Board's organization and work. Rules of procedure and rules governing the
election and duties of officers are included.
Two important documents are referenced in the handbook and are available on the City's
website - the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds City Code and Community
Development Code (ECDC).
Welcome from the Planning and Development Director
Hello! The City of Edmonds boards and commissions play an important role in serving our
community. Each provides advice and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council
regarding programs, activities, and issues unique to their mission and purpose. Edmonds
Planning and Development Department oversees the Architectural Design, Planning and Tree
Boards in addition to the Historical Preservation Commission. I am generally responsible for
handling board budgets, staffing, and any legal or policy issues that may arise.
Thank you for your volunteer service to the City of Edmonds.
Susan McLaughlin, Director
Planning Board History
The Planning Board was created by Edmonds City Council in 1980 (Ordinance 2170). The
Board combined the activities of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Parking
Commission, the City Planning Commission and Shorelines Management Citizens Advisory
Committee. The Board has an official webpage which summarizes a variety of information
about Board activities.
Planning Board Powers and Duties
All City boards and commissions have powers and duties codified in Title 10 of the Edmonds
City Code (ECC), with the Planning Board covered by ECC Chapter 10.40. Chapter 10.40 must be
consistent with Chapter 35.63 RCW (Planning Commissions), which, among other things,
identifies the powers of planning commissions; details the manner of appointments; and
details organization, meetings, and rules. Per RCW 35.63.040, the Planning Board is
required to hold at least one regular meeting in at least nine of the 12 months in a
calendar year.
The Planning Board's powers and duties are spelled out in Section 10.40.020(C) and are listed
below.
C. Powers and Duties. The planning board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the
mayor and the city council in the following matters:
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 97
7.A.a
1. The board shall advise on all amendments to the comprehensive plan. This
includes reviewing all elements of the plan on a periodic basis and reporting to
the mayor and city council on the need for changes in the plan. It also includes
holding public hearings and making recommendations to the mayor and city
council on proposed changes to the plan, to the text of the development
regulations, and also to the zoning map in the case of rezones, as provided in
ECDC Title 20. Review of and recommendations for the plan may be prepared as
a whole or in successive parts.
2. The board shall advise the mayor and city council on all parking matters that
involve an amendment or other modification to any city ordinance or code
section within the jurisdiction of the board.
3. The board shall serve as an ongoing park board and advise the mayor and city
council on all matters relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks
and recreation facilities.
4. The board shall do research and investigation on specific projects assigned to it
by the mayor and city council. The board will analyze data collected, arrange for
public participation, and organize its findings. The board will then present its
findings to the mayor and city council detailing a summary of pertinent data,
public contribution, alternatives available, and may, if appropriate, recommend a
course of action, giving reasons for such recommendation.
5. The board shall have such other powers and duties as contained in
Chapter 35A.63 RCW, as may be amended from time to time, that are not
otherwise specifically delegated to the hearing examiner or other specific staff or
agency of the city.
Chapter 10.40 is included in its entirety as Appendix 1.
Orientation
The appointment process is outlined in ECC Section 10.40.020(A). Upon confirmation by the
City Council, a city email address is assigned to board members for their use. All Board -related
correspondence and meeting agendas from the city will be sent to that email. Board members
should not use their personal email for City or Board business, which is subject to public
disclosure and, when applicable, the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).
Staff Roles & Responsibilities
The Planning Manager is the staff liaison to the Planning Board and should be the main point of
contact for board matters and has subject matter expertise related to Board business. They
provide guidance in developing the Board's extended agendas, coordinate with the Board Chair
on individual meeting agenda items, provide information and respond to questions on agenda
items during the meeting, and fa£ record Board meetings.
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 98
7.A.a
The Senior Administrative Assistant to the Planning Division is primarily responsible for
distributing meeting agendas and posting minutes once they are approved.
The Executive Assistant to the Mayor manages personnel on City boards and commissions,
advertises for vacancies, and maintains the Planning Board position list. If your personal
information changes during your tenure or should you need to resign your position during your
term for any reason, please contact the Mayor's Executive Assistant.
Current Contact Information (as of March 2023): members will be informed of anv Chan
Planning Manager: David Levitan, dlevitan@edmondswa.gov
Senior Admin Asst: Michelle Martin, michelle.martin@edmondswa.gov
Mayor's Exec Asst: Carolyn LaFave, carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov
Planning Director: Susan McLaughlin, susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov
The Planning and Development Department is located on the second floor of City Hall (121 5tn
Ave. N) and can be reached at 425-771-0220.
Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) training
The Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), found in RCW 42.30.020, and
ECC Chapter 10.02 strive for greater government transparency by requiring all
board/commission business be conducted in open public meetings. All new board
members are required to take OPMA training within 90 days of appointment and to retake
the training every four years. The City Attorney typically provides an abbreviated training
at a regular board meeting or the board retreat early in the year, but board members are
also encouraged to take the more thorough Attorney General's Office OPMA training as
well. Board members should provide Planning staff with a copy of their training certificate
so that it can be forwarded to the City Clerk.
OPMA and communicating via email. social media. phone. etc.
Violations of OPMA laws can result in penalties, as well as a breakdown in confidence in
government. The city and individuals (staff or board members) can be held liable for OPMA
violations. For that reason, board and commission members are advised to conduct
business in regular or special meetings and retreats, and err on the side of caution in
emails and other communication between members outside of meetings on topics that
may come before them, as even seemingly innocuous conversations or email discussions
can unknowingly become "rolling quorums" or "serial meetings" in violation of OPMA
rules. City emails are archived and indexed and subject public disclosure laws.
When the Planning Board considers a quasi-judicial matter — defined in ECDC 20.01.001(B)
as "decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific
application" - members should report any ex-parte communications on the topic when
discussing at Board meetings, consistent with the guidance in ECDC 20.06.070. Ex-parte
communications are conversations with interested parties related to the matter. Per ECDC
Table 20.01.003(A), rezones (zoning map amendments) and development agreements are
the only Type IV quasi-judicial matters reviewed by the Board.
Urgent information that is to be conveyed to all board members prior to the next meeting
should be sent to staff for distribution via "BCC" with 'no reply' expressly stated at the top
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 99
7.A.a
of informational emails. This handout from the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC)
helps explain electronic communications under OPMA rules.
Meetings
"Regular meetings" are conducted in a hybrid meeting format the second and fourth
Wednesdays of the month at 7 PM. Meetings are scheduled for two hours but may run under
or over time, depending on the agenda.
The in -person meeting location is in the Brackett Room on the third floor of Edmonds City Hall,
which is located at 121 5t" Avenue N, unless otherwise noted.
Planning Board members and the public may also attend remotely via the Zoom online
platform. Board members are encouraged to attend in person when possible but may fully
participate remotely. Board members join as a "panelist" which allows for members to speak
and interact during the entire meeting, and are expected to have their camera on, if possible.
Members of the public join as an "attendee," which allows them to watch and listen to the
meeting and be promoted by staff during public comment periods of the meeting, either
general public comments or specific to a public hearing item, to provide oral testimony. Please
allow sufficient time to join the webinar and notify staff if you are having technical difficulties.
"Special meetings" are any meetings that take place outside the regularly scheduled date, time
and/or place. Public notice is required at least 24 hours in advance. The special meeting agenda
must be posted online and physically at 3 locations: in City Hall, at the Edmonds Public Library
and in the entrance to the Public Safety Building, outside Council Chambers. Once a special
meeting agenda is posted, the board cannot consider any subject or issue that is not listed on
the agenda per OPMA rules. Members may remove items but not add new items. Special
meetings are typically called for emergencies or to focus on a specific topic or topics.
"Joint meetings" involving the Planning Board occur periodically. The Board may join another
group's meeting as with City Council, or may host another board or commission to discuss
certain topics of common interest such as Tree Board, Economic Development Commission,
Architectural Design Board, etc..
The Board "retreat" occurs during the first quarter of each year. The Board's work plan for the
year is typically established at the retreat.
Meeting Agendas
The purpose of an agenda is to organize Board business, set and achieve goals, plan events, and
work on projects efficiently. Meeting agendas are a coordinated effort:
• Members contact Chair/Vice Chair with clearly stated agenda topics. Chair may ask
member(s) how much time the topic may need and who will be leading the discussion.
The Chair may suggest to members certain topics be placed on a subsequent meeting
agenda.
• The Chair and staff discuss the upcoming meeting agenda to further clarify and prioritize
topics. A final list of meeting ag a -topics is due to staff by 5pm on the €ridgy Tuesday
in the week prior to the upcoming meeting.
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 100
7.A.a
• Although agendas can be posted up to 24 hours before the meeting, out of courtesy to
members, staff posts upcoming meeting agendas the Friday prior to the next meeting.
That allows members sufficient time to review the upcoming meeting agenda, read the
previous meeting minutes and complete any action items prior to the next meeting.
• Agendas (including special meeting agendas) must be posted at least 24 hours before
the meeting, or the meeting cannot be held. Posting the meeting agenda constitutes
public noticing.
Extended Agenda
The Planning Board maintains an extended agenda, which is a forward -looking schedule
containing several months of meeting dates and proposed topics. Ever evolving, this
agenda is intended for longer term meeting schedules and maintaining a list of quarterly
and annual agenda items as well as topics of Board concern for future work.
Meeting Attendance
Your attendance at Planning Board meetings is important! If something arises that
prevents you from attending a regular meeting, please notify the Planning Manager and
the Planning Board Chair (or Vice Chair, as needed) as early as possible. Excused absences
are at the discretion of the Chair and must be noted during the roll call. Per ECC Section
1.05.010, members of all boards/commissions must attend at least 70% of the regular
meetings in any one calendar year and cannot miss more than 3 consecutive meetings,
unless the absences are excused. Any board member that does not meet attendance
requirements may be removed from that position by the mayor, per ECDC 1.05.020 and
1.05.030 (Appendix 2). Should a board member experience continued difficulties in
meeting the minimum meeting requirements, they are encouraged to consider whether
they are able to make the time commitment needed to serve on the Planning Board.
Meeting Notes
Planning Board meetings are recorded by audio and video and professionally summarized as
draft meeting minutes to provide sufficient detail on board discussions and actions. Draft
minutes are included in the meeting packet of a future meeting, which is most often the next
meeting, for approval by the board. Board members should review the draft minutes and
discuss any changes to them that are needed. Once approved or approved as corrected,
meeting minutes are posted on the Planning Board meeting webpage.
Board Administration, Membership, Officers, and Quorum
By code, the Planning Board consists of seven members plus one alternate. The Board may also
have a non -voting student representative. All Board members must be Edmonds residents
and ideally be from different areas of the city. No planning experience is required. The goal
is to have board members with varied occupational and professional experience.
Officer Positions
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 101
7.A.a
Officers are typically selected the last meeting of the year or the first meeting of a new
year. If volunteering for an officer position, please carefully consider your personal
schedule, your comfort level with electronic communication and availability outside of
meetings for tasks such as coordinating meeting agendas. While it is not essential to have
an in-depth knowledge of planning topics, the Chair should be familiar with rules of order
to facilitate meetings. When nominating someone, consider the same.
The Chair runs board meetings and is the primary liaison with staff, including agenda
planning. The Vice Chair operates in the same capacity when the Chair is not available.
ECC Section 10.40.020(D)(6) notes that the board shall adopt rules governing election and
duties of officers of the board. The Chair/Vice Chair positions have typically rotated each
year, with the Vice Chair often moving to Chair (if interested) when the previous Chair's
year is up. Board members should nominate and vote on candidates for both the Chair and
Vice Chair positions.
Should the Chair position become vacant, the Vice Chair shall become the Chair for the
duration of the term, until the following year's election. Should the Vice Chair become
vacant, the position shall be elected at the next regular board meeting at which a quorum
is present.
As needed, the board may establish committees of three members or fewer to conduct
business defined by the Board that occurs outside of regular meetings, such as a more
detailed analysis of specific planning topics that would then be reported back to the entire
board during a public meeting. Creation of such committees may be proposed by any
board member and shall be appointed by the Chair, with board members able to volunteer
or nominate others to serve.
Quorum
All board members share an equal right and obligation to participate in Planning Board
decisions. This handout from Jurassic Parliament is helpful in making a shift from discussing
affairs in a conversational manner to conducting board business in a democratic manner.
Board business is conducted by vote by a minimum number of members (quorum). Per
ECDC 10.40.020, four Planning Board members constitute a quorum for transaction of
business when all positions have been appointed, aid —with at least three members awe
needed to take action on any particular item before the Board. That is, if four members are
present but two moo -abstain from voting on an item, no action could be taken on that
item. If the number of members should be reduced to six or less for any reason, including a
member's removal for failure to maintain attendance, three members shall constitute a
quorum (per ECDC 1.05.010).
The Alternate position abstains from voting when all seven regular members are present.
In the event a regular member is absent or disqualified for any reason, the alternate has all
the powers of a regular member, including the right to vote on board decisions. The
alternate is subject to the same attendance requirements as regular board members. If a
regular position on the board becomes vacant, the alternate becomes a regular member
and fills that vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. The student member does
not vote on Board decisions.
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 102
7.A.a
Budget
The Council provides money annually for professional services used by staff to support the
Planning Board including the professional to prepare minutes, printing, noticing, and the like.
Document Stora
+The City's Information Services (IS) Department has set up accounts for boards and
commissions in the City's File Transfer Protocol server, WingFTP, for document and photo
storage related to board business. Due to public records laws, Board members should not use
personal or other external file storage. The staff liaison can provide the FTP server password
and account login information. Board members can log on to WingFTP to upload new
documents to share with the Board, and can also download documents from the server to
make changes, then upload the edited documents. If eiertaip deesume-.Ats S"^„'d- be-,rehived let
the--,;tcaff,lm-;40Se.p kPA-;N se they eap —he-eyed- to the -C+ty /D g Shareddrive. Staff will
periodically review the materials on the FTP server for compliance with Local Government
Records Retention Schedules established by the Washington State Archives (see Appendix D for
Land Use retention schedule).
Member Conduct
Except where there are conflicts with ECDC Chapter 10.40 and this handbook, Robert's
Rules of Order shall be applied and followed, as summarized on the MRSC website and
detailed in this 2017 MRSC report. At meetings, please respect fellow board members'
time by holding new topics that are not on the agenda until the following meeting agenda
and limiting personal commentary. Board members should insist on courtesy and respect
and refrain from personal remarks, insulting language, attacks, interruptions, sidebar
conversations, and disrespectful body language. The Chair or any member should be
comfortable in identifying conduct that they believe is inappropriate or unprofessional and
requesting that it stop immediately.
Outside of meetings, all communication with City staff should be through the contacts
referenced previously.
As residents of Edmonds, board members are free to participate in a variety of projects,
activities, and discussions that impact the city outside of their official role, so long as they
do so in an individual capacity and not as a representative of the Planning Board. Members
should be especially cautious on topics that are likely to come before the Board in its
advisory role to City Council, and are encouraged to proactively disclose any actions or
discussions that may be raised in association with Washington State's Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine (Chapter 42.36 RCW).
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 103
7.A.a
Appendices
1. Planning Board code (ECC 10.40)
2. Public Meeting attendance (ECC 1.05)
3. City email password/sign-in procedure
-3-.4. State of Washington Records Retention Schedule — Land Use Planning
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pa
Packet Pg. 104
7.A.a
Appendix 1. Planning Board enabling language (Chapter 10.40 of the Edmonds City Code)
10.40.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of a planning board pursuant to
Chapter 35A.63 RCW, and provide for its membership, organization, operation, and
expenses. The planning board shall generally serve in an advisory capacity to the city in
regional and local planning and specifically assist in the development of the
comprehensive plan and development regulations and their successive review and
amendment from time to time. The board shall have the additional duties specifically set
forth in this chapter and such ad hoc duties as the city council may from time to time
assign to it. [Ord. 4222 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 234Z 1983; Ord. 2170 § 2, 1980].
10.40.020 Planning board.
A. Appointment. There is created the planning board, consisting of seven members. Each
member shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council.
1. Members of the board must be residents of the city of Edmonds.
2. Although the city of Edmonds is not divided into political or geographical wards, it is
the intent of this section that said board membership shall maintain a reasonable
balance of geographical distribution throughout the city of Edmonds.
3. It is the intent of this section to maintain a diversified representation of occupations
and experience on the planning board. To this end each appointee shall be considered
for board membership according to his/her field of experience, among other factors.
4. An alternative member shall be appointed to serve in the event any regular member is
absent or disqualified for any reason. In the event a regular member is absent or
disqualified for any reason, the alternate shall have all the powers of a regular member,
including the right to vote on board decisions. The alternate shall be subject to the some
attendance requirements as regular board members. In the event that a regular position
on the board shall be declared vacant, the alternate shall be deemed to fill such vacancy
for the remainder of the unexpired term.
B. Term. In order to provide for continuity of membership, members shall be assigned a
position number. Except as provided below, two positions shall expire each year. The
term of each position shall be four years; provided, that the current term for each
position shall expire, and a new term shall begin, at the end of the years shown,
respectively, below; and further provided, that the current term for Position 1 will be a
short term ending at the end of 202Z to be followed by a four-year term:
Position One
- 2022
Position Five
- 2024
Position Two
- 2022
Position Six
- 2024
Position
- 2023
Position
- 2021
Three
Seven
Position
- 2023
Alternate
- 2021
Four
Draft Planning Board Handbook— March 22 Version Pa<
Packet Pg. 105
7.A.a
C. Powers and Duties. The planning board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the
mayor and the city council in the following matters:
1. The board shall advise on all amendments to the comprehensive plan. This includes
reviewing all elements of the plan on a periodic basis and reporting to the mayor and
city council on the need for changes in the plan. It also includes holding public hearings
and making recommendations to the mayor and city council on proposed changes to the
plan, to the text of the development regulations, and also to the zoning map in the case
of rezones, as provided in ECDC Title 20. Review of and recommendations for the plan
may be prepared as a whole or in successive parts.
2. The board shall advise the mayor and city council on all parking matters that involve
an amendment or other modification to any city ordinance or code section within the
jurisdiction of the board.
3. The board shall serve as an ongoing park board and advise the mayor and city council
on all matters relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks and
recreation facilities.
4. The board shall do research and investigation on specific projects assigned to it by the
mayor and city council. The board will analyze data collected, arrange for public
participation, and organize its findings. The board will then present its findings to the
mayor and city council detailing a summary of pertinent data, public contribution,
alternatives available, and may, if appropriate, recommend a course of action, giving
reasons for such recommendation.
5. The board shall have such other powers and duties as contained in
Chapter 35A.63 RCW, as may be amended from time to time, that are not otherwise
specifically delegated to the hearing examiner or other specific staff or agency of the
city.
D. Operation.
1. The city planning division shall provide regular staff services to the planning board
Other city departments shall provide staff services as requested by the planning board.
2. The city council shall establish an annual budget for planning board operations for
services in addition to regular staff services. Should the planning board and planning
staff determine that a particular project requires services in addition to those normally
provided by the city staff, then an estimate of needs detailing the type of assistance and
funding required shall be presented to the city council for approval before that project is
undertaken.
3. Four members of the board shall be the minimum number necessary to constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business; provided, that the vote of not less than three
members shall be necessary to take action on any particular item before it.
4. Regular meetings of the board are held the second and fourth Wednesday of each
month at 7:00 p.m. as hybrid meetings that are accessible both virtually and in -person
and where the in -person component is conducted in the Brackett Room, Edmonds City
Hall, 121 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. The H nr,d stir11 held r „1G - ngeeti
-c c��--G.P.a-Jv-c'rr-mrcarrc56crp cn—m orrmG� �crn:. CG11mrorraTlT[I
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pag
Packet Pg. 106
7.A.a
5. The city council shall meet periodically with the planning board at a city council
meeting in order to review and update planning board agendas. The intent of this
section is to stimulate continuing communication between mayor, city council and the
planning board in an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the city of
Edmonds. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the manner in which items are
placed on a planning board agenda nor the topics that may be considered by the
planning board.
6. The board shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing election and duties of
officers of the board; provided, however, said rules shall pertain only to the internal
procedures of the members and said rules and procedures may be questioned only by
members of the board and do not give standing to question said procedures to
nonmembers or other parties. (Ord. 4290 § 1 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4222 § 1 (Att. A), 2021;
Ord. 3421 § 1, 2002, Ord. 3094 § 1, 1996, Ord. 2659, 1988; Ord. 2656 § 4, 1988, Ord.
2433, 1984; Ord. 234Z 1983, Ord. 2196 § 1, 1981; Ord. 2170 § 3, 1980].
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Page
Packet Pg. 107
7.A.a
Appendix 2: Public Meeting Attendance (Chapter 1.05 of the Edmonds City Code)
1.05.010 Attendance required — Remote participation allowed.
A. In addition to being subject to removal for other particularized grounds as set forth in
applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code and violations of the city of Edmonds
Code of Ethics for Board and Commission Members, members of all city boards,
commissions and committees (hereinafter "members"), except as set forth herein, shall
be removed from office, and the position deemed vacant as set forth in ECC 1.05.020(C)
if such member attends less than 70 percent of the regular meetings in any one calendar
year, and/or is not in attendance at three or more consecutive regular meetings.
Members may participate in board and commission meetings remotely (by telephone,
video conference, etc.) and such participation shall be considered attendance for the
purposes of this subsection; provided, that any such participation must allow for all other
members of the board or commission and any public in attendance to hear the member
on the remote device; and provided further, that any member participating remotely
must commence participation at the beginning of the meeting and must declare an
intention to participate until the end of the meeting. Remote participation is not a right.
Reasonable efforts should be made to facilitate remote participation within the limits of
the city's personnel and fiscal resources, but technical disruption may still occur. After
resuming a remote connection after any technical disruption of said connection, the
chair shall determine, subject to appeal, whether a remote member may participate in
any action on a matter that may have been discussed during the disconnection, based on
the duration of the disconnection, nature of the discussion, etc.
B. The chairperson of the particular board, commission or committee may excuse,
subject to appeal, any member from attendance at any particular meeting or meetings
for reasons that are (1) work related, (2) due to illness or death in the family, (3)
extended vacations in excess of two weeks in length, or (4) technical disruption;
provided, however, each such excused absence shall be so noted by the chairperson at
the meeting from which the member is being excused and such fact shall be recorded in
the minutes along with the reason given for the excused absence by the member.
Excused absences shall not be counted for purposes of removal from office, but only if so
noted in the minutes as set forth herein. In the absence of the chairperson, the member
acting in the chairperson's behalf, such as vice -chairperson or pro tem, shall make the
determination, subject to appeal, of whether the absence is excused, and announce the
some for recording in the minutes of the meeting from which the member is excused.
(Ord. 4266 § 1, 2022; Ord. 4098 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2556, 1986; Ord. 2033 § 2, 1978; Ord.
2156 § 1, 19801.
1.05.020 Attendance records.
A. The city clerk shall keep a record of attendance of all board, commission and
committee meetings. Upon any member failing to attend three or more consecutive
regular meetings without the chairperson's excuse being noted in the minutes, the city
clerk shall certify said member's name in writing to the mayor and shall notify in writing
the members, the chairperson, and the appropriate city department head.
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pag
Packet Pg. 108
7.A.a
B. On or before January 15th of each calendar year, commencing in 1980, the city clerk
shall compile a list of members, if any, who have attended less than 70 percent of the
regular meetings in the past calendar year without the chairperson's excuses being
noted in the minutes, and shall certify this list to the mayor. The city clerk shall also
notify in writing the members, the applicable chairperson and the appropriate city
department head.
C. The member shall be automatically removed from office and the position deemed
vacant as of the date of the city clerk's written notification as set forth in subsections (A)
and (8) of this section. [Ord. 2033 § 3, 1978; Ord. 2156 § 2, 1980].
1.05.030 New nominees appointment/ confirmations.
Upon receipt from the city clerk of the names of members failing to maintain attendance
as provided herein, the mayor shall, within 90 days thereof, submit new nominations to
the city council for confirmation. The city council shall confirm or reject the nominations
within 30 days after the mayor submits the nominations to the council for consideration.
A member removed for failing to maintain attendance as provided by this chapter may
not be renominated or reappointed to a position on that or other city of Edmonds'
board, committee or commission for at least one year after removal. [Ord. 2033 § 4,
1978].
1.05.040 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to members of the following boards,
commissions and committees:
A. Edmonds city council; and
B. Edmonds civil service commission. [Ord. 2033 § 5, 19781.
1.05.050 Quorum requirements.
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Edmonds City Code, if the number of
members of any city board, commission or committee having seven positions and subject
to this chapter should be reduced to six or less for any reason, including a member's
removal for failure to maintain attendance, three members shall constitute a quorum.
B. Members participating in a board or commission meeting remotely, as provided for in
ECC 1.05.010, shall be counted towards the number of members required to constitute a
quorum by the regulations pertaining to each board or commission, provided in ECC Title
10. (Ord. 4098 § 2, 2018; Ord. 2033 § 6, 19781.
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Pag
Packet Pg. 109
7.A.a
Appendix 3: Instructions for accessing City Email:
Please click here to access outlook. office3 65. com
You will then be directed to the below paged where you may enter your email
(Firstname.Lastnamegedmondswa. gov)
If need to reset your password click into "Can't access your account?" to reset.
Outlook
Microsoft
Sign in
to continue to Outlook
mail, phone, or Skype
No account? Create one!
Can9 access your —Ourt?
Click into Work or school account
Outlook
Ell Microsoft
Which type of account do you
need help with?
rK7 Work or school account
Created by your IT department
RPtIsonal account
crested by you
Then answer the following questions provided in the next screen which should look like this.
Microsoft
Get back into your account
Who are you?
to rctover your xcounl, begin in [M1e p1- , audI. Mlaw.
Emul nr Vznrame:`
Fr—pl. azei�<untoso-ormiirpspry coar of vser�rpnWsotom
Eller the tMractezz In Me pitlure or the words In the aud'w.'
® Gncel
2
0
0
fC
L
0
m
C
ITS
0
0
a
a
Draft Planning Board Handbook — March 22 Version Page,
Packet Pg. 110
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
March 28 Planning Board Update to City Council
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
Edmonds City Code (ECC) Section 10.40.020(D)(5) states that the "city council shall meet periodically
with the planning board at a city council meeting in order to review and update planning board agendas.
Planning Board members met with the City Council twice in 2022, most recently on November 1, 2022,
where it introduced its members, identified its role in various planning efforts, and discussed upcoming
meeting agendas. Both the Powerpoint and video from the November 1 meeting are included as
attachments.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board members are asked to provide feedback on topics they would like to discuss with the
City Council on March 28, which will presented by Chair Gladstone. Other board members are welcome
to attend the meeting as well.
Attachments:
November 1, 2022 Planning Board Presentation to City Council
November 1, 2022 Powerpoint Presentation
Packet Pg. 111
AW edmonds planning board
1910
Joint Meeting with Edmonds City Council
11.1.22
1936
Today
Who we are
POSITION # NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Student Rep.
Mike Rosen
Roger Pence, Chair
Matt Cheung
Richard Kuehn
Judi Gladstone, Vice Chair
Beth Trag us -Cam pbel I
Todd Cloutier
Alternate (vacant)
Lily Distelhorst,
TERM
2022
2022
2023
2023
2024
2024
2025
2025
2
Packet Pg. 113
What we do
Edmonds Planning Code Chapter 10.40 Planning Board
Our basic responsibilities
Study the issues, listen to public comments, hold p
hearings, and make recommendations to the mayo
and city council on:
any
changes
to
the Comprehensive Plan.
any
changes
to
text of the development cc
any
changes
to
the
zoning map.
Packet Pg. 114
What we do
Other responsibilities
Serve as an ongoing Parks Board:
advise on parks planning projects.
✓ advise on acquisition and development of pai
land and facilities.
Undertake special projects assigned by the mayor
city council, and such ad hoc duties that city count
may assign.
2
Packet Pg. 115
0
What we have been doing
Since our last joint meeting 4.26.22
Planning Board agenda items have included:
-Briefing on Waterfront Issues Study-
-Briefing on Comprehensive Plan Update-
-Briefing on Salmon Safe Certification-
-Public Hearing on Edmonds Way rezone-
-Briefing on Wireless Code Updating-
-Briefing on BD2 Designated Street Fronts-
-Two quarterly update briefings, Parks and Recreation Dept.-
-Public Hearing on Wireless Code amendments-
-Briefing on Phase II Tree Code amendments-
-Development Services Activity Report-
-Briefing on Equitable Engagement Framework-
-Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for MF buildings in BD2 zc
-Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission-
-Briefing on Tree Code Amendments-
-Briefing on Climate Action Plan update-
-Briefing on Comprehensive Plan Update-
-Public Hearing on BD Designated Street Fronts-
-Presentation of Proposed CFP & CIP for 2023-2028-
Packet Pg. 116
What we plan on doing
2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
-Vision Statement-
-Community Sustainability-
-Land Use-
-Housing-
-Economic Development-
-Community Culture and Urban Design-
-Utilities-
-Capital activities-
-Transportation-
-Parks, Recreation, and Open Space-
2
Packet Pg. 117
What we plan on doing
DEVELOPMENT CODE MODERNIZATION
-Designated Street Fronts-
-Wireless facilities-
-CG Stepbacks-
-Minor Code Amendment Process-
-Tree Code updates-
-Five Corners BN zoning update-
-Subdivision code updates-
-Sustainable development code review and updat
-Low-impact / stormwater code updates-
2
Packet Pg. 118
What we plan on doing
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM OUR EXTENDED AGENDA
-Climate Action plan update and public outreac
-Housing policies and implementation-
-Quarterly updates from Parks and Recreation
-Semi-annual Joint Meetings with City Council
-Periodic Development Activity Reports-
-Further Highway 99 implementation -
Packet Pg. 119
8.A.b
U
0
m
0
Q.
L
M�
W
a
co
N
t
V
L
C�
G
0
d
N
L
a
c
0
0.
L
d
3
0
a
N
N
O
N
T
L
E
d
0
Z
r_
d
E
t
:i
a
Packet Pg. 120
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2023
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Events and Code Amendments on Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
With the city embarking on the 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan as well as undertaking
several code amendments, the Planning Board will be very busy over the next several months and
beyond. The extended agenda (attached) includes several events and open houses on Comprehensive
Plan topics which are geared towards gathering public feedback and which staff envisioned the Planning
Board hosting and helping to facilitate, so that you can hear directly from the community. Staff would
like to discuss the potential schedule with board members for these monthly events, which will likely
require at least a few additional meetings in order to stay on track for all of the proposed code
amendments. The preliminary schedule for events include:
1) Late April - SEPA Scoping Meeting for Comprehensive Plan and Highway 99 Subarea SEIS
2) Late May - Housing Open House
3) Late June -Transportation Open House
4) Late July - Environmental Qua lity/Sustainability/Natural Resources Open House
Staff Recommendation
Discuss extended agenda for code amendment and Comprehensive Plan topics and the board's
willingness to host/attend meetings outside of their regularly scheduled meetings.
Attachments:
3.22.2023 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 121
17 s- F f),v
:y �d-
PLAMNWR BOARD
Extended Agenda — Draft
March 22, 2023
March 2023
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
March 27 Tree Code Community Conversation (Community Event)
6 pm in Council Chambers; optional attendance
Mar 28 Joint Meeting - Planning Board Update to City Council
(City Council) Open to all members that would like to attend; presentation by chair
April 2023
April 12
1.
Public Hearing — CG Zone Permanent Ordinance (postponed from
March 22)
2.
BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment) —
Introduction and Discussion
April 26
1.
Tree Code, Potential New Regulations for Private Property (Code
Amendment) — Introduction and Discussion
2.
Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) - Introduction and
Discussion
3.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No
Presentation)
April 27
1.
Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment) - Introduction and
(ADB)
Discussion (Joint Meeting with Architectural Design Board)
April
SEPA Scoping Meeting for Comp Plan and Highway 99 Subarea SEIS
(Date TBD)
(Attendance optional but encouraged)
r41Y*1
May 10
May 24
1. Recap of 2023 Washington State Legislative Session (Housing, TOD,
Climate Change, Transportation, etc.)
2. Tree Code Update, Major/Moderate Changes for Development -
Related Activities (Code Amendment) - Code Analysis and Discussion
1. Critical Aquifer (Code Amendment) - Public Hearing
2. Tree Code Final Work Session (Code Amendment)
Packet Pg. 122
Items and Dates are subjecl
May 2023 Comprehensive Plan Open House — Housing
(Date TBD)
(Hosted/Facilitated by Planning Board)
June 2023
June 14 1. Public Hearing - Tree Code (Private Property and Moderate/Major)
(Likely to take entire meeting)
June 27 1. Planning Board update to City Council - Report rather than
(City Council) presentation?
June 28 Comprehensive Plan Open House —Transportation
(Shift to special/separate meeting as needed)
July 2023
July 12 1. Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment) — Introduction and
Discussion
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Introduction and
Discussion
3. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No
Presentation)
July 26 Comprehensive Plan Open House — Environmental Quality and
Sustainability (Shift to special/separate meeting as needed)
August LUL.i
Aug 9 1. Wireless Code Public Hearing (Code Amendment)
2. Accessory Dwelling Units Code Analysis (Code Amendment)
August 23 NO MEETING —SUMMER BREAK
September 2023
Sept 13 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Final Work Session
2. Neighborhood Center Plans
Sept 27 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Public Hearing
9.A.a
ochange
a
2
Packet Pg. 123
items ana pates are subiect to
9.A.a
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 (Vt 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
5. Annual Retreat (Q1)
6. OPMA Training (required every four years)
7. Breaks — no meetings on 2nd meeting date in August and December
a+
Q
3
Packet Pg. 124