Loading...
2023-05-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting May 10, 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 Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Richard Kuehn (online) Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell (online) Susanna Martini Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Nick Maxwell Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent None Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Rose Haas, Planner Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jacob, Edmonds resident in the Five Corners area, expressed concern about large trees that have been lost over the last few years. He urged the Board to put special protection on the big trees because they are irreplaceable. He recommended having special protections for anything with a diameter of 24" and above. Deborah Arthur said hello to the group. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 Pagel of 5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing to Consider Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023 -000 1) Planner Rose Haas introduced the private code amendment by Great Kids Academy as previously reviewed. The applicant's proposal, and staff s recommendation, is to change daycare to a primary outright permitted use and exempt outdoor recreation spaces to be consistent with state law. She displayed a map with BN zone locations throughout the City. She reviewed the process and public comments. One email has been received from Mr. Roger Pence expressing support for the proposal. She discussed staffs analysis and recommendation in support of this proposal. Public Comments: Deborah Arthur asked if Five Corners is in the BN zone. She spoke in support of the proposal. She also agreed with Jacob about many trees being cut down every day. Board Comments: Board Member Maxwell said he heard from three people who thought it was a really good idea. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her concerns about traffic and/or safety were addressed by the City in regard to the permitting process. Also, whether it's an appropriate use for the area will still be considered. She expressed support for the proposal. Board Member Martini asked about the noise concerns. Planning Manager Levitan explained that human voices are exempt from the noise ordinance so that should not be a problem. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE CITIZEN -INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAYCARE BUSINESSES AS A PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) ZONE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND IN THE PACKET. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Levitan explained that this would be presented to Council next week and then move to a public hearing in June. Staff will draft the formal recommendation letter for the Planning Board to include with the public hearing packet. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments ADM 2022-0004 Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers reviewed the project scope of considering new limits to property owner tree removals and addressing existing development -related code issues with minor code changes. She briefly reviewed the prior Planning Board discussions on minor code amendments. She presented the layout of the comprehensive list of issues and sample code rewrites as way to keep track of everything. She reiterated that for some proposed minor code amendments, the "fix" does not change the intent of the existing code. Out of the 21 proposed minor amendments, 7 were removed to be addressed as major code amendments because the "fix" would change the intent of the code. The seven that were pulled include: 9. Retention incentive (Tree Board 12/1/22) 12. Double negatives (code restructuring) 13. Minimum retention threshold for 20.75.048 (numerical standard) 15, 17. Tree replacements (new system/one calculation) 16. Replant trees >24" DBH vs. fees in lieu (new, replant IS) 18. Fees in lieu (new system/one calculation, replant 1 S) She explained that the primary objectives of tree retention with development is to have a healthy sustainable forest now as well as 5, 10, and 25+ years from now. This is done by tree retention, replacing removals on site, and replacing removals by planting offsite. Where it can be done, tree retention is the priority. If the trees cannot be retained, the trees should be replaced by planting onsite. If that is not feasible, replacing trees offsite is the lowest priority option. The Tree Fund is funded by fees in lieu as well as penalties and fees from unauthorized tree removal. The code specifies what the Tree Fund can be spent on. Board Member Golembiewski asked about competing requirements regarding trees, utilities, design, etc. Ms. Powers explained they are just talking conceptually right now. Mr. Levitan acknowledged that there are a lot of competing interests happening. He noted that there are discussions and reviews going on concurrently with the rest of the development review process with Engineering, Stormwater, etc. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented that there are a lot of opportunities in the pre -application review or early in the process to get feedback on your project. Public hearings are another way to give and get feedback on projects. Ms. Powers explained the goal is to slow the loss of the tree canopy cover and replanting for the future. She reviewed a checklist/worksheet showing how the current code works for development (except for multifamily and commercial). There was some discussion about what a viable tree is. Ms. Powers stated that anything in fair, good, or excellent condition would be considered viable but it's all subject to review. She pointed out that under the current code anything over 24 inches is not replaced but automatically charged a fee in lieu for tree removal based on appraisal value. She displayed actual size visuals of various diameters of trees. She explained there are many levels of complexity with the current code. For example, if a developer retains 50% of trees on the site, they are able to waive all fees in lieu which can be very significant. Also, there is a cap for fees in lieu of $2/square foot area of the property. This always ends up being less than the appraised value or any other fees in lieu, and trees are not being replaced. The 50% tree retention threshold has been a bigger incentive for tree retention than anything else in the code. Board Member Golembiewski noted another issue is that developers can choose to remove the larger trees as part of their allowed removals as a way of avoiding fees. Ms. Powers also reviewed the gives or variances to development standards allowed in the code if you achieve greater tree retention. These variations include things like reduced setbacks, the ability to cluster houses in one Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 Page 3 of 5 area, or flexibility with access and driveway widths. This results in a more profitable project for the developer. The 50% retention policy seems to be working to retain trees and save developers money. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked if they have the data to show what size trees developers are retaining. Are they keeping the smaller trees and removing the larger ones? Ms. Powers said they have not conducted a boots - on -the -ground study, but under the review process they are trying to address the size of trees retained. Board Member Golembiewski asked about hazard trees. Ms. Powers explained a hazard tree is a tree that has enough defects or disease that predisposes parts of it or the whole tree to failure. The other part of that is that there needs to be a target. If it's in the middle of a critical area and is not going to target a structure or high occupancy use or services, it would be assessed differently. Ms. Powers noted that a hazard tree will always be a "poor" tree. Board Member Golembiewski asked about multifamily and commercial regulations. Ms. Powers explained that for multifamily, the tree retention threshold is 25% instead of 30% but everything else applies. Most of those sites are already built out, and what's allowed by zoning is practically 100% impervious lot coverage, which makes it harder to retain existing trees. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked about new housing legislation that is coming forward from the State. Ms. Powers commented that a building footprint is a building footprint whether it is a ADU or a duplex or a triplex. When they are talking about tree retention there's always going to be the potential for tree retention and replacement. Mr. Levitan further explained the new legislation (HB 1110) which would require cities to allow at least two units per lot in any zone that previously allowed for a detached single-family residence. There was some discussion about the potential implications of this. Ms. Powers reviewed stakeholder feedback on the existing tree code related to development. There have been three stakeholder meetings so far (Developers and Arborists in the Housing sector; Tree Board; Planning Staf ). Stakeholders were asked what they would change about the existing code and what are some ways the tree code could be improved. Ways to simplify the code with a minimum tree density system using a single calculation were discussed. hi general, the feedback has been that the code and review process is too complex. Mr. Levitan went over the project timeline. The next Planning Board meeting on this topic where staff will be soliciting feedback is expected to be June 28. He invited board members to contact staff with any questions or requests for more information prior to the next meeting. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said it seems like the consensus is that going through the process is painful for everyone. She asked if there are different methodologies for determining how trees can/should be retained? Ms. Powers offered to provide summaries of what other cities are doing. In particular, there is a simple calculation that can be used to address these issues. This would be useful to streamline the code and simplify the process. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought it would be helpful to have at least three options to compare. Mr. Levitan noted they could send out some information about various options. Chair Gladstone requested getting that information sooner than usual because it is a lot of information to digest. It would be beneficial to have the next packet far enough in advance so that if board members have questions, they can send them prior to the meeting and be able to provide useful direction at the meeting. Board Member Mitchell concurred. Mr. Levitan indicated they could send out a good portion of the next packet early so they can solicit feedback at the next meeting. He noted he was also available to answer any questions if needed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 Page 4 of 5 NEW BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Discussion followed. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone stated she appreciates the complexity of these issues, the kinds of questions people are asking, and the interest people are showing. She encouraged everyone to look at the packet when it is sent so they can get questions answered ahead of time. She also shared that she has filed to run as Commissioner of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell reiterated that there would be a community conversation regarding the Tree Code in this room on Monday, May 15 at 6:00 p.m. She is planning on attending and can report back to the Board. Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for the presentation. He expressed appreciation to the Tree Board also for coming up with the bullet points to make a complex set of issues simpler. Board Member Golembiewski expressed appreciation for the education on how the current Tree Code is being implemented. It helped to highlight where the pain points are. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 Page 5 of 5