2023-02-15 Planning Board MinutesCITY 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
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
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
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
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
Planning Manager Levitan summarized the discussion from the last meeting. There was a staff report with
options about what they could discuss. There was a desire from Planning Board members to have the
opportunity for an overview of the OPMA from the City Attorney. He will be attending remotely. Any board
members who have not completed the OPMA training should still go through the online training through the
Attorney General's office. There was also discussion at the meeting about having an introduction to planning
and comprehensive planning from Joe Tovar as recommended by past Planning Board Chair Roger Pence. Staff
is still finalizing the preliminary work plan. There was some discussion about trying to approve the handbook,
but due to lack of time they decided to wait for a regular meeting.
Vice Chair Campbell proposed adding a discussion about the public input for the 2023 traffic calming program.
The deadline for this is coming up on March 3. Planning Manager Levitan said he would check with Public
Works to see if they could provide an overview. Chair Gladstone said she wanted to make sure this was within
their scope. Vice Chair Campbell said she wanted to provide an opportunity to make sure the public knew about
this. Chair Gladstone did not think it was an appropriate topic for this retreat due to limited time. Vice Chair
Campbell withdrew her request.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
This will be discussed at the retreat.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone thanked Planning Manager Levitan and staff for figuring out how to make up for the errors
that occurred in the last meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Campbell thanked everyone for providing public comments.
Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for putting this together on such short notice. He is looking forward to
the retreat.
Board Member Maxwell also thanked staff for the work.
Student Representative Distelhorst thanked staff.
Board Member Martini also thanked staff for the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 6 of 6