Loading...
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