Loading...
2023-04-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 26, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Martini. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Richard Kuehn Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair (online) Nick Maxwell Board Members Absent Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner David Levitan, Planning Manager Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Chair Gladstone announced that Todd Cloutier had submitted his resignation due to work conflicts. Nick Maxwell has now moved into a permanent board member position. She expressed appreciation to Todd Cloutier for his many years of service on the Board. Staff will begin recruiting for a new alternate member. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (4-0) WITH BOARD MEMBERS GOLEMBIEWSKI, KUEHN, AND MARTINI ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Gladstone reviewed the agenda and noted that staff is requesting that the Hurst Property discussion under New Business be moved to a future meeting. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Pagel of 8 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Theresa Hollis commented on the opportunity for the City to purchase property from the Hurst family for a future park. She commented that she believes the use of that land for hiking and as a small green belt is redundant with the existing set of trails and green belt abutting the Madrona School property. She does not think it is a good use of city funds. The City needs more funds to purchase parkland for general recreation purposes. She discussed the status of the former Woodway Elementary school and suggested it might be feasible for it to become parkland for south Edmonds. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — Q 1 Accomplishments This item was included in the packet. Chair Gladstone solicited feedback. Board Member Maxwell said it appears that the responsibilities are well -matched to the budget. He referred to the Perrinville Creek restoration project that was brought up recently and asked if there is some way that the Parks Department could share some responsibility for that for the purpose of protecting natural resources. Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could check in with Parks about that. Board Member Golembiewski commented that as a public works contractor they are doing work on a project in Bellingham. It is a public works project but the parks department has some funding they are funneling into that project. They have also organized replanting events and gotten some grant funding in conjunction with this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell responded to Board Member Maxwell's comment about the budget and noted that it is important to recognize that this report from Director Feser is a list of accomplishments, not a holistic report on the status of the department. It is not showing the tremendous amount of backlog that exists in all parks departments or other projects they are not able to get to. They are accomplishing an incredible amount of work. She cautioned against "scope creep". If they are going to request that the Parks Department take on more of the Perrinville Creek project, they also need to be prepared for what is going to be taken away. In her experience as a former parks staff member, the backlog of deferred maintenance always gets larger and not smaller. Also, in terms of species management, historically, staff in parks departments are responsible for invasive species removal like ivy. In terms of projects addressing wildlife that might be living within the natural resources, directives are generally given by state or federal agencies which are implemented at local levels. She doesn't want to expect that Parks can add in a large scope project to their responsibilities. Board Member Golembiewski suggested it would be nice to see some of the major planning items coming up as part of the Parks report in the future. She is interested in seeing the prioritization of projects. Chair Gladstone agreed and suggested that seeing what they are not able to get to would be helpful. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations 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 to replace Interim Ordinance 4295 (AMD2022-0008). Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Senior Planner Clugston introduced this item and summarized the public hearing process to date. Due to some absences on April 12 the Board had decided to continue the hearing to tonight. The public portion comment period was closed at the last meeting. He noted that since the last meeting the Planning Board put together a subcommittee of members who had some several options to present. The subgroup was comprised of Chair Gladstone, Board Member Golembiewski, and Board Member Mitchell. Board Member Mitchell reviewed the subcommittee's work and recommendation. He explained that their goal was to come up with options for what to maintain from Interim Ordinance 4283. He summarized that if the city is not planning to upzone the adjacent RS zones in order to effectively transition from the higher intensity uses that are happening along Highway 99 by virtue of the CG upzone to 75 feet, it needs to explore ways to mitigate the bulk or massing of certain elements. The current emergency ordinance that is in place now leaves a lot of uncertainty for applicants which puts a lot of risk into the project. It also puts uncertainty into the adjacent RS zones not knowing what to expect. The group wanted to remove the uncertainty and ambiguity that could come with the ADB review and keep with the essence of what the planned action was really for - to view the whole planned action area as one component. He stated that the old zoning map had a certain amount of transition area along the perimeter where the CG zone abuts the RS zones. The subcommittee came up with options for the Board in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They included the following: l . Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB possibly). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting but staff decision. 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25 feet and 30' step back at 55 feet for buildings over 55 feet adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55 feet and under are exempt from step back requirements. Step backs would not eliminate requirements to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting. He reviewed a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. There was some discussion about how buildings under 55 feet would still have setbacks but would not be required to have step backs. Graphics of the various options were reviewed. Board Member Golembiewski pointed out that in reviewing the planned action, what was envisioned for these parcels was four-story buildings. Board Member Mitchell commented that the parcels they are talking about next to RS zones are more than likely going to be all residential, with no commercial on the bottom. Board Member Maxwell asked about design requirements for the ground floor. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is a list of design components that developers can pick from, and articulation and modulation is one of them. He pointed out that there would be an additional 10- foot setback from the back of the sidewalk than is noted in these graphics. Chair Gladstone commented that the current ordinance is a little bit taller than what was stated in the vision for the planned action in that it would allow for five stories, not three to four. The step backs are intended to provide some relief for that. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed strong support for Option 4. Her biggest concerns were equity and consistency within the process. Having two different options that would be acceptable is a very good Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 3 of 8 compromise. It would eliminate the requirement for the ADB review and could streamline the process. It gives the developer flexibility and clarity. Board Member Kuehn concurred. Option 4 is thorough and gives two good options to keep things equal for applicants. He commended the subcommittee for the work they did. Board Member Martini thought this would make things simpler. Board Member Golembiewski noted that the intention of the subarea plan is to spark development in the area and produce more housing choices. The two-step review really delays the process and makes it more difficult to get things actually built. Board Member Mitchell noted that this would remove a lot of the risk, waiting time, and uncertainty for developers. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that if the process were to shift to a Type 2, to remove the ADB review, it would be a staff decision. There would be public notice to properties within 300 feet and an opportunity to appeal the staff decision to the hearing examiner. Chair Gladstone asked if there is a way to expand the 300- foot notification area. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the 300-foot notification is for both Type 3 and Type 2. This is the norm but they could consider options. Board Member Golembiewski commented that the public notice signs for Edmonds are very small compared to surrounding cities. She recommended having larger signs. Other board members concurred. Board Member Martini asked if someone could look up public notices online. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they are all on the city website and postcards are mailed out to neighbors within 300 feet. Chair Gladstone noted that time is an issue with this matter. Since Council will be having their own public hearing, she recommended not reopening public comments for this hearing. There was consensus. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 4 AS PROVIDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE: RECOMMEND REVISING THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE 10' STEP BACK AT 25 FEET AND 30' STEP BACK AT 55 FEET FOR BUILDINGS OVER 55 FEET ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. BUILDINGS 55 FEET AND UNDER ARE EXEMPT FROM STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS. STEP BACKS WOULD NOT ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS TO USE OTHER MASSING TECHNIQUES IN CODE. ELIMINATE ADB REVIEW BUT REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE AND/OR MEETING. Board Member Maxwell commented that this recommendation is in the spirit of what citizen comments have been. Planning Manager Levitan stated that an introduction on this item is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at next Tuesday's meeting (May 2). If the Council is comfortable a public hearing would be scheduled for Tuesday, May 16 with potential adoption on Tuesday, May 23. Board Member Martini asked about the recommendation to provide bigger signs. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they could potentially look at it as part of the code modernization effort. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 4 of 8 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase I) to achieve the goal of reducing development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would just be a secondary use. Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12 months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist. Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals if it is evident in a photograph. Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time. Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Should tree removal on private property be limited? • Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others. • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees. • There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to remove the last two trees on their property. • Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction. Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be working in Edmonds for the tree canopy. • Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week. • Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover? What kind of loss are they trying to avoid? • Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method. • Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH (diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6" DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate. • Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden. • Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that. He gave an overview of the process. • Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8 • Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private property. They just don't know what it needs to look like. Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time? • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree they were talking about. • Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period. Does the Planning Board feel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance trees) Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size? Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees? Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? • There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees. • Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate. • Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be accepted politically. • Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend. • Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree. • Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are talking about because it is difficult to visualize. • Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities have larger trees designated as heritage trees. • Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy, sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size. • There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native. Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? • Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical areas. The current code is confusing on this topic. • There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas. • Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas. • Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree removal in critical areas. With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited? • Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit. • Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides. She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10" DBH would be a good starting point. NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting TBD) PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings proposed in June. Staff is proposing to invite the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree Code. They are also looking at having a joint workshop with the City Council on some of the current housing -related topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14 meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could be too much for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added that Multifamily Design Standards is a potential topic for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board. None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8