Loading...
2023-03-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting March 22, 2023 Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Golembiewski. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair (online) Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier (online) Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell (alternate) Board Members Absent Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Richard Kuehn READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-0) WITH VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-0) WITH CHAIR GLADSTONE AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED, INCLUDING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE AMENDMENT AMD2022-0008 UNTIL THE APRIL 12, 2023 REGULAR MEETING. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 7 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Finis Tupper, Edmonds Resident, stated that he sent an email to the Planning Board on February 8 and other emails since then and had not received a response. He asked if the Board had taken action to approve the minutes from their February 8 meeting, as he had not been able to locate any. He stated that the Board met on February 8, he tried to attend, but was not able to. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds Resident, commented on Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding the design review process and step back standards in the CG zone. She urged the Board to take an analytical approach to this and not rely on personal opinion. She recommended they review development codes from two cities in the region that have the same approach as the Edmonds code for step backs adopted in 2017. She also recommended they consider the codes from Bothell and Shoreline that have the same approach expressed in the interim ordinance. She urged them to consider what is best for Edmonds. She also asked them to look at the code language in Edmonds regarding design exceptions and decide whether it has the degree of flexibility that they want. Some cities require that a departure from the code achieves the same or better results than strict adherence to the code. Others require that a departure from the code achieves a superior result. If they are going to add a requirement for step backs on a project, it should be balanced out with the amount of flexibility in the code language around exceptions. Roger Pence, Former Board Member, stated that last night at the City Council meeting, Parks, Recreation, and Human Services Director Angie Feser made a presentation on a property acquisition that the City is working on — approximately 1.1 acres on the south side of 232nd Street SW in the 9300 block. This sounds exciting and positive. He noted that the Planning Board, who is also the Parks Board, should be weighing in on property acquisitions. He also brought up the SR99 Community Renewal Project. The City had an open house on this project five months ago. Until recently this had been on the extended agenda for March, but it is no longer there. This is an important project, and he is concerned that the project has gone dormant. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 Board Member Maxwell said he couldn't find anything in the handbook that would give the Board quasi-judicial powers. He doesn't see that they do anything other than make recommendations. He noted that there are references to parts of the code that have been repealed, and he is concerned that is the part that gave them the quasi-judicial power. He recommended following up with the City Attorney on this and taking another look at the handbook and the code. Planning Manager Levitan explained that there are two quasi-judicial reviews that the Planning Board is responsible for — rezones and development agreements. This information can be found in Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Chapter 20.01 where it details all the different land use application types. He explained the Board's role in this process, which is to make a recommendation, as opposed to the final decision. Board Member Maxwell thanked Mr. Levitan and said he was comfortable with the handbook as presented. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD HANDBOOK AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. March 28 Planning Board Update to City Council Chair Gladstone noted that she will be making the presentation, and Vice Chair Campbell will be assisting. She asked if anyone else wants to present or attend the meeting. She also asked for input on what the Board thinks is important to provide to the City Council. Chair Gladstone commented that in the past they presented on what the Board had done over the year and what was on the agenda going forward. She thought that this is a good opportunity for the Council to tell the Board where they think it is particularly important to hear from the Board and if there is anything else they think should be on the extended agenda. She also thinks it is a possible opportunity to directly share the Board's feedback on the vision statement. Regarding the vision statement, Vice Chair Campbell was concerned that the City was not interested in getting feedback. She said she was interested in hearing if the vision statement was validated by the feedback that was received from the community. She also wanted to know the next steps and the Planning Board's role in that. She said she wanted to make sure that, if they are providing feedback on the Comprehensive Plan, they have the appropriate framework on which to couch their responses and make sure they're approaching it in the way the Council wants. Board Member Golembiewski thought the meeting with Council would be a good opportunity to discuss the overall process in which the Comprehensive Plan update is going to happen and how the communication will happen between the Council and the Planning Board. She is struggling a bit with things coming to the Planning Board from the City Council without a direct question or request for input. It seems as if it's more of a courtesy review. She feels there is confusion between staff, the Council, and the Planning Board as to what their role is on some of the elements that are forming the Comprehensive Plan. She would like more clarity on which items are just for information and which items the Board will be taking action on. Board Member Maxwell commented that there was a Stormwater Plan presented at the City Council meeting that did not go through the Planning Board. His understanding was that they would see this at the appropriate time during the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Levitan agreed. He explained there are plans that don't require a public hearing before the Planning Board such as the Stormwater Plan. This is different than the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Element. The Planning Board typically holds a number of different work sessions on all the individual Comprehensive Plan elements, and that will be later in 2024. 2023 is going to be dominated by information gathering, public outreach, technical analysis, and background research. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Staff will start to synthesize all of the information into goals and policies as well as some of the narrative in the individual elements. This is where the Planning Board will start to provide feedback on policy language, hold a public hearing for public input, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council so that they can consider the Board's recommendation. The Climate Action Plan was adopted last night by resolution at the City Council. It is not adopted by ordinance and not technically part of the Comprehensive Plan. It moved through the Climate Protection Committee, and there was no role laid out for the Planning Board in that process. He explained that there had been requests by Council to bring this to the Planning Board in the interim period between the February 28 introduction to Council and the March 21 adoption by resolution, but in a way this just created more confusion about the Planning Board's role. The Council has some discretion to identify other topics of interest outside of code amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Planning Board to review. He explained that if there are specific topics or documents that the Planning Board would like to have a more official or more formal role in reviewing, they could express that to the City Council. Board Member Maxwell asked if staff could provide a summary to Council of the way the Board and Council interact. Board Member Cloutier explained that the Climate Action Plan is not binding and is not legislation; it is basically a list of good ideas to pursue. It is up to the Planning Board to take action on parts that they can. Regarding stormwater, in the past staff has come before the Board to present new standards. He thought the last time was about three years ago. He noted that it is a very slow process, but this is the way the cycle works. Chair Gladstone noted there are a lot of planning efforts that go on that may provide information to a Comprehensive Plan that are not necessarily things that would go through the Planning Board. The Stormwater Plan is one of those; the Water Plan is another. However, there will be a Utility Element in the Comprehensive Plan that will incorporate some items from those other documents. The vision statement is the foundation of what follows in the Comprehensive Plan so those are two very different things. She thinks there needs to be clarity about what the pieces of the Comprehensive Plan are that they are supposed to be providing recommendations on. She thinks this is a good question to discuss with Council. One of her big questions is about when the appropriate touchpoints are for the Planning Board. Is it when staff is just formulating ideas before they take it to the public? Is it after they take ideas to the public? This is an important question because it makes a big difference as far as when and how the Planning Board weighs in. Board Member Cloutier explained that it is generally a mixture of those. Almost always, staff has a draft first with a range of options that are within bounds. This saves a lot of time and energy. He doesn't think it usually happens where it goes to the public before it goes to the Planning Board unless it is something that is not directly the Board's responsibility like the Stormwater Plan. Vice Chair Campbell summarized that the Board would like to have a discussion to try to narrow down what Council is looking for from the Board, when the touchpoints are, and what their expectations are. Board Member Maxwell thought the Board's feedback on the vision statement should also be included in this. He thought that the Board's impression was that it appears to do a good job of capturing what Edmonds' residents would like to have happen in Edmonds. Mr. Levitan discussed the vision statement validation process and the possibility that it might need some additional review depending on how the community feedback process goes. Chair Gladstone stated that her takeaway from the vision statement discussion was that it was a good statement of values of the community, but not necessarily a vision statement. Value statements are not going to help shape Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 7 policy. Board Member Maxwell agreed and suggested adding that the next step should be a visualization exercise where they imagine what it looks like when you walk down the street in Edmonds in 2040. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, THAT THEY SAY TO COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE THE STATEMENT AS A STATEMENT OF WHAT EDMONDS' CITIZENS VALUE AND THAT THEY ALSO FEEL A GOOD NEXT STEP WOULD BE AN VISUALIZATION EXERCISE OF WHAT EDMONDS WOULD BE LIKE. Board Member Cloutier said he liked the idea of discussing what Edmonds would be like in the future but he thinks that is the whole idea of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision. BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION BY SAYING THAT THEY AGREE THAT THE VISION STATEMENT REPRESENTS THE VALUES THAT EDMONDS' RESIDENTS ARE SEEKING, AND THEY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THOSE VALUES ARE ENVISIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. Board Member Cloutier clarified that the vision statement is just header in the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't need to include a lot of detail or nuance. It is implemented through the Comprehensive Plan and the code changes. Mr. Levitan pointed out that there are recurring themes listed below the vision statement which contain more specificity and aspiration. He suggested that staff could try to tie those in better. He noted that this went through the process with a lot of public input. The results were synthesized into a succinct vision statement, and they don't want to rewrite it completely. Those guiding themes are going to be some of the guiding principles and overarching goals within the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Mitchell said he wasn't sure if they were at the point where they can bring this up to Council other than saying they are waiting for it to be validated. He doesn't think anything more than that is justified. Vice Chair Campbell agreed and said she would be voting against the motion because the important thing they need to know is what the Council wants from the Board. THE MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Mitchell said he would like to ask Council about plans for the waterfront such as an emergency overpass or other infrastructure projects that could impact planning for that area over the next 20 years. Board Member Cloutier explained that the multimodal terminal which had been proposed by WSDOT for the waterfront area is not going to happen. BNSF is supposed to start construction of the second rail through Edmonds in 2023. There is no plan for an emergency connector yet. He stated that the Board's role in this process is to just sit and wait. They will simply review what comes before them to see if it fits with the Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Mr. Levitan noted that the current Comprehensive Plan references the multimodal terminal. This is something that will need to be addressed in the update. As they get into actual chapter and policy development, those are types of things that the Planning Board is going to be able to bring up in the update process. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 7 PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Events and Code Amendments on Extended Agenda Vice Chair Campbell asked for more information about the transportation open house in June and said she would like to find out if the Planning Board will have a touch point before that. Mr. Levitan summarized that there would be two major phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. He stated that the first phase of the Planning Board's involvement in the Comprehensive Plan update process will be community engagement. After that they will begin working on the details of the elements. As staff starts to develop the community engagement plan, they will bring the Board in where relevant. A lot of that will be informational in nature. There will likely be some interim items on the agenda before the transportation open house or other open houses so the Board is comfortable with the topic. He referenced Roger Pence's comment and noted that the Highway 99 topic was inadvertently left off when he was working on this, but it will be added back. He commented on the extremely packed extended agenda and noted it is subject to change. He expects that some of the code amendments will have to get pushed out to provide more opportunities to brief the Board on what the intent is for the open houses. Those items will be filled into the extended agenda. Those are the touch points in the beginning where the Planning Board can provide input about what they want to hear from the community. He discussed generally what to expect with the open houses. He commented on the importance of this being a recurring discussion as far as what the open houses might look like and including the Planning Board in the programming of the events. There is a lot up in the air until they see what happens with proposed legislation in Olympia. In general, staff will be providing relevant information and gathering community feedback. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the complexity of the housing issue and urged staff to reconsider the order of the events so that they allow more time for the more controversial topics. She asked for clarification of the process that staff intends to follow for the open houses regardless of the content so that Planning Board knows where it is appropriate to weigh in. Mr. Levitan thought they could reorder the events. He will work with Public Works to talk about the transportation open house and identify potential touch points for the Planning Board.1 Mr. Levitan asked for feedback about the upcoming meetings. Does the Board want to host at their regular meeting? Do they want open houses to be in lieu of meetings or in addition to the two meetings per month? Vice Chair Campbell said she would love to be involved with hosting as they can but she expects that meetings will occur on different days, times, and locations in order to meet the needs of the community. Board Member Golembiewski suggested working in additional meetings to times when there is already a bit of a break like longer months where there is an additional week between meetings. Mr. Levitan stated that staff will work on the schedule and try to find dates that work well. Board Member Maxwell said he values community input enormously so if there were a tradeoff, he would rather have more open houses and fewer meetings with more items on the agenda. 1 Chair Gladstone left the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Board Member Martini asked about alternatives to having in -person open houses. Mr. Levitan explained there are typically also surveys and online open houses in addition to the in -person open houses. There will be a consultant on board to help with the planning of outreach and the equitable engagement framework. Vice Chair Campbell commented that having more than three major items on an agenda has not worked well in the past. If they take up one of the regular meetings to do an open house instead it will slow them down significantly. She spoke strongly against removing any meetings. Board Member Cloutier commented that they talk way too much about things that are not on the agenda. They could move along faster if they focus on the agenda and get the work done. B. Extended Agenda There was discussion about potential reprioritization of topics. Mr. Levitan will work on updating this before the next meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Campbell thanked staff for sending out information via email ahead of meetings. This helps to save time in the meetings. She commented on the need to continue to improve meeting processes in order to have more productive meetings. She invited anyone interested to join her and Chair Gladstone at the Council meeting next week. She expressed appreciation for how engaged everyone is and the value of their comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and invited anyone to let him know when he goes off topic. Board Member Mitchell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and said is looking forward to getting some work done. Board Member Golembiewski agreed but said she struggles with not having a linear process. &ID1III I]nooIplinW The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 7 of 7