Loading...
2023-04-12 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 12, 2023 Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. She apologized for the delay in starting the meeting while they were waiting for a quorum. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair (online) Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Nick Maxwell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Susanna Law Martini Richard Kuehn Lauren Golembiewski Todd Cloutier Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rose Haas, Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Vice Chair Campbell suggested moving Administrative Reports to the end of the evening just prior to the Extended Agenda due to the late start. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Pagel of 8 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Seitz (online) commented that an email she had provided to the Board prior the meeting had been included in the packet; however, the six attachments she had attached to that email were not included. She requested that those be included in the final meeting minutes. Ken Reidy, Edmonds resident, welcomed new Planning Board members. He suggested that when the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council a member of the Planning Board attend the City Council meeting to make that recommendation in person to make sure it is conveyed as intended. He also referred to the absences of four Planning Board members tonight and noted that the decision as to whether or not those absences are excused needs to take place in an open public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING A. 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 Presentation: Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the staff presentation. He introduced the public hearing and reviewed the history of interim Ordinance 4283. Provisions of Ordinance 4283 are that it requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height) and that it requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. He reviewed work on this to date. The ADB's unanimous recommendation regarding process is to maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are adjacent/across street from RS zones and create a new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height that are not adjacent/across the street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice). All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I. The ADB recommendation regarding step backs is to maintain step back requirements for projects across the street from RS zones unless deemed not necessary by the ADB. He explained there had been discussion among the ADB about whether they wanted to maintain discretion and operate during the first phase of the two-phase public hearing as opposed to explicitly requiring the step back and then having the option to waive the requirement. Some members also expressed concerns about project costs for developers of having to prepare multiple designs. He reviewed visual representations that staff had prepared regarding various step back and modulation scenarios. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board take oral public comments regarding this item; review and ask questions about it; deliberate; and make a recommendation to Council on permanent code language. Council must hold their own public hearing and adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Public Testimony: Randy Hollis (online) encouraged the Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. He noted that the only members of the development community who have commented on this are working on a deal related to one parcel in this 260-acre area. He asserted that if the Council were making a radical departure from the code in nearby cities they would have heard from other developers. He raised concerns about the motivations of these stakeholders and discussed some background on their communications which he stated have consisted of incomplete information and personal attacks. Jan Steadman (online), Edmonds resident, commented that building step backs are a common regulation in land use planning when there are no transition zones, and a tall building needs to transition to a less intensive zone. The authors of the Highway 99 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required these step backs. These step backs were an important mitigation to the upzoning to 75 feet; however, when adopted in 2017 the City Council did not require step backs across the street because of the slow development environment. She stated that the development activity today is significantly higher. When this was reviewed in 2022 staff encouraged them to consider step backs across the street from residential. She noted that these CG property owners on the boundary of Highway 99 have already received a huge windfall from the city's upzoning of the area. She recommended that interim Ordinance 4283 be made permanent. Natalie Seitz (online), Edmonds resident, spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing EIS for the SR 99 Planned Action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding CG zone step backs seek to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She also spoke in support of the two-step process for design review. She pointed out that the SR 99 area brought in four times the annual sales tax of the downtown area and twice that of Westgate in 2022. She also pointed out that the Edmonds population has shifted to the east. The current population of the Highway 99 area exceeds downtown area population. She urged the Board to challenge their perception of how residential development in this area functions within the context of the City. She expressed concern that this area and its residents are not treated with the same consideration that would be given to a similar development downtown. She acknowledged that there is a housing shortage and that this upzone can help to address some of that but it also kills the city's commercial breadbasket and exacerbates the simplification of the housing structures into renters and single family. It eliminates middle housing and does not address the equity issues that are now required by the Growth Management Act. She asserted the impacts are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of the lower density, whiter, and wealthier areas of Edmonds. She asked the Planning Board to recommend step backs or an overlay to require the CG to function within the densities envisioned by the Planned Action. At a minimum, they should keep the City's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed. The interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, spoke in support of Chair Gladstone's right to make public comments to the City Council regarding this item and noted she had acted within her rights and with transparency. She stated she read the codes of many neighboring jurisdictions. Step backs to mitigate the mass and bulk of a building is a very common principle in the field of architecture design. She was not aware of any examples of cities that require step backs when abutting but not across the street. She urged the Planning Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Sue Oskowski, Edmonds residents, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She feels it is important to allow the public to participate in the design review of tall buildings in the Highway 99 area especially since the City removed the transition zone in 2017. She raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed 75-foot tall, six -story apartment building at the corner of 236th and 84th which would be built five feet away from the walkway of the neighboring three-story condo. She suggested that the developer could change the building's footprint and courtyard size to allow for a buffer from the condo building on the south boundary. She urged the City to make the interim ordinance permanent because it helps to level the playing field between the interests of the new development and the neighbors who were here first. Seeing no further public comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Clarification Questions: Board Member Maxwell requested a clarification about the difference between the two-step and the one-step process. Senior Planner Clugston reviewed the difference and how each process would work. Vice Chair Campbell asked staff if it was accurate that one of the developers who has provided comments related to the step backs was a person who provided recommendations in the 2017 design standards process. Mr. Clugston thought that it was. Chair Gladstone noted that Bothell has overlays. She asked if this is something that Edmonds has done or is able to do. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City has the ability to establish overlay zones. Senior Planner Clugston noted there are no overlay zones right now, but there are overlay districts in the Comp Plan. Chair Gladstone asked if the Council was made aware about the neighborhood objection to not doing the step backs. Senior Planner Clugston was not certain but thought it was probably discussed at more than one public meeting. Board Deliberation: Board Member Mitchell referred to the vagueness of the code and the discretion of the ADB to make the determination as to whether there are step backs or not. He noted that the skill level of whoever sits on the Board at the time varies. He expressed concern that there would not be consistent measures implemented across the same zone over time. He wondered what metrics they would look at when making that determination. He referred to the people concerned about the step backs and noted that a property can still take both step backs at the same time. He also noted that somebody could buy up a group of parcels, do a lot line adjustment into one parcel and not have to do the step back. Chair Gladstone referred to Board Member Mitchell's comments about the ambiguity of the code and the potential for inconsistency as ADB members change. She commented that if the ordinance just says that step backs need to occur and removes the ADB review it would resolve that issue. Board Member Mitchell agreed. Right now, any applicant could come to the table and easily remove the step backs and justify it in many different ways. From a community standpoint, if they are really concerned about mitigating the bulk with step backs, he thinks that the code language needs to be improved. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of urban development. Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four- story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing. They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017 ordinance was adopted. Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples of how codes are applied in surrounding areas. Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings over 35 feet. Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member Mitchell. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001) Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Staff Presentation: Rose Haas, Planner, made the staff presentation and noted that the applicant, Mr. Shapiro, was also present to answer questions if needed. She explained this is a citizen -initiated amendment to allow daycares as a primary permitted use in the BN zone. It would also exempt outdoor recreation space associated with daycare centers from the operating restrictions in the BN zones which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed buildings. This would benefit the applicant directly. It would also apply to all of the other BN zones. The Planning Department is in support of this. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that there would be a public hearing followed by a recommendation to City Council. Staff is hoping to schedule the hearing for May 10. Discussion: Vice Chair Campbell asked about the difference in the process if this were an allowable use. Ms. Haas explained they would not be going through the Conditional Use Land Use process. It would also remove the hearing examiner step. The applicant has identified that this is a use consistent with the intent of the BN zone. Chair Gladstone said she thought the more they could do to make daycare affordable the better. She is looking forward to the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell asked about potential objections to this. Planning Manager Levitan commented that staff didn't have any. Mr. Shapiro commented that if a daycare isn't a natural use in the BN zone, he wasn't sure what is. Hopefully the neighbors would utilize it and could even walk there. He thought close to housing was a natural place for this type of use. The current code does not allow anything outdoors, but the WAC requires outdoor playground areas. Board Member Mitchell commented on the long waiting lists to get into daycare and expressed support for this. Student Representative Distelhorst also thought that this makes sense. Vice Chair Campbell asked about impacts to traffic in the area. Also, are additional precautions necessary for the safety of children because of the traffic. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are general trip generation rates associated with these facilities. There is also a rigorous licensing process though the State where they look at things related to health and safety. Vice Chair Campbell said she was tentatively in favor of this and looked forward to the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell referred to the noise exception for human voices from 10 am to 7 p.m. and suggested that this would need to start earlier in the day. Planning Manager Levitan stated he could look at that. Vice Chair Campbell asked if it would be appropriate to put in maximum headcounts in different types of zones. Planning Manager Levitan replied that they have different definitions. A daycare center such as this is different than a home -based daycare. There are separate licensing processes and requirements. The zoning code generally relies on state regulations. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 6 of 8 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Summary of March 28 Planning Board Presentation to Council Vice Chair Campbell summarized the presentation she and Chair Gladstone had made to the City Council and Council's responses to questions that were raised as contained in the packet. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Chair Gladstone commented it would be helpful to know exactly what is expected of the Planning Board regarding park land acquisition. Do they want a recommendation on whether this should be purchased as a park or not? Also, what are the constraints on the property in terms of acquisition and use? Planning Manager Levitan stated he would clarify with Parks staff. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City Council, specifically Councilmember Teitzel, is interested in having a joint meeting with the full board sometime in June. A major focus of that would be related to housing. This would help to jumpstart some of the community engagement related to housing in the Comp Plan. Chair Gladstone referred to the Gantt chart in the packet and stated she will be working with Planning Manager Levitan on this so they can get a sense of what kind of activity needs to be done at each meeting and can better plot the meeting's pace and content. She expressed appreciation to Board Member Golembiewski for initiating this. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone apologized for being on Zoom and stated she would be in -person for the next meeting. She expressed concern about there almost not being a quorum tonight and noted they need to figure out how to prevent that from happening again. She commented that Board Member Golembiewski had informed her prior to the meeting that she would not be able to attend so she recommended that she should be excused. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell commented that the idea that there is a conflict of interest because a board member cares about a topic in their own neighborhood more than other people is in error. He pointed out that the guidelines for appointing people to the Planning Board state that there should be geographical distribution which implies that they would represent their geographical area. He also clarified that the only things board members can't talk about to people outside the meeting (non -Board members) are quasi-judicial matters. Recommendations to Council are not quasi-judicial. Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation for all the public comments tonight. He is looking forward to coming up with a good balance for the neighborhood and also for long-range planning. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Vice Chair Campbell agreed and added that they need to consider all of the Highway 99 corridor and CG zone, not just one neighborhood. She also spoke to the importance of making sure that board members attend meetings so that they can all fulfill their obligations to the City. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 8 of 8