Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2023-08-23 Planning Board Packet
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Op E D o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board s71. ,Hv� REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 23, 2023, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION: Meeting Link:https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode:007978 This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 26 Planning Board Draft Minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004) B. Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) NEW BUSINESS PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Edmonds Planning Board Agenda August 23, 2023 Page 1 A. August 23 Extended Agenda 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda August 23, 2023 Page 2 3.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/23/2023 July 26 Planning Board Draft Minutes Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Staff Recommendation Review and approve the meeting minutes from the Planning Board's July 26, 2023 regular meeting, which are attached. Attachments: July 26, 2023 Draft Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 3.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting July 26, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Chair Gladstone. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair' Emily Nutsch (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner David Levitan, Planning Manager Amber Brokenshire, Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2023 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE IN A JULY 24, 2023 EMAIL. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None 1 Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell arrived at 7:08 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Pagel of 7 Packet Pg. 4 3.A.a ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — 2023 Q2 Accomplishments Chair Gladstone said she had submitted an email with several questions to Planning Manager Levitan who will provide a response to everyone. There were no other questions raised. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) Senior Planner Clugston made the staff presentation regarding the proposed Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) code amendment. He discussed the definition of a CARA and the need for the code amendment to address two wellhead protection areas in the Olympic View Water District. He reviewed proposed changes that had been made since the last meeting as reflected in Attachment 1. He noted that there were still several unresolved items that need further research and refinement, either by the Planning Board or by City Council during their review of the code amendment. These are related to: • Stormwater management — Discussions are ongoing with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD). • Greywater — Need to re-evaluate in light of information provided by Snohomish County Department of Health. The County allows greywater reuse for irrigation during the dry season. Should the City continue prohibition of all greywater or allow some flexibility? Firefighting foam — Staff is waiting for confirmation that the fire district doesn't use PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) foam. Pollution Liability Insurance requirements — Staff is waiting for a response from the city attorney. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the prohibited and restricted uses are limited to commercial uses or if they include residential uses as well. Senior Planner Clugston explained that many of the uses, just by definition of the uses, are commercial. Board Member Golembiewski asked about things like the storing of hazardous materials and greywater. Senior Planner Clugston stated that staff could clarify this. Board Member Golembiewski asked if septic systems are allowed in CARAs. Senior Planner Clugston said he thought they were, but they could check with OVWSD. He wasn't sure if there were any onsite septic systems in the City of Edmonds anymore. Any new development would require connection to sewer. Board Member Maxwell expressed some concerns about allowing greywater although he had raised the initial question. Public Testimony: The public hearing was opened at 7:33 p.m. and public comments were solicited. Lora Petso commented as an individual. She recommended not passing this on until staff has a chance to complete their work and get input on it from the Planning Board. She would like to see a provision that this chapter would apply to all land use and development proposals on parcels entirely within the area and that the protections contained herein would not be subject to waiver, variance, mitigation, or any other exceptions provided in the city codes. She also expressed concern about the time of travel structure and explained that it is not based on the Best Available Science. She discussed the hazards of PFAS which are extremely toxic and Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 5 3.A.a don't degrade. Regarding greywater, she stated that it is all going to contain PFAS because it's in soaps, lotions, detergents, cosmetics, etc. She recommended not allowing greywater or rainwater at all because of this, noting that PFAS are now even in the rain. Additionally, since the science is evolving rapidly, the City is required to use the precautionary principle and err on the side of being overprotective. Finally, she recommended making the ordinance as self -updating as much as possible by using language that gives staff authority to impose restrictions to protect the drinking water sources including, but not limited to, those that are listed in the chapter. Bob Danson, General Manager, OlMpic View Water and Sewer District, thanked the City for working with them to try to protect our community's drinking water resources and by updating the City's CARA code. He explained the importance of protecting the watershed wellhead protection areas which are the source of the community's drinking water. He also discussed the hazards of PFAS and the need to protect the system from them. OVWSD is looking forward to continuing to work with staff on the stormwater piece to find a solution that best protects the drinking water aquifers. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS- CAMPBELL, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME TO ALLOW THE PARTICIPANTS TO ELABORATE IF DESIRED. MOTION PASSED WITH CHAIR GLADSTONE ABSTAINING. Lora Petso discussed other ways to make the ordinance self -updating such as referring to OVWSD mapping so that when OVWSD updates its maps, it is automatically recognized in the CARA code or to have a provision to recognize the State's Stormwater Manual so that when the state updates the manual it's automatically recognized in the CARA code. They should have a provision that in the event of conflicting requirements, the requirements most protective of the drinking water source shall apply. She also urged them to put all the stormwater protections and land use protections into the CARA ordinance so they can more easily prohibit things in the CARAs that they would want to allow elsewhere. Finally, she encouraged them to ban the use of recycled tire products, recycled asphalt, impervious parking lots and roads, and new infiltration facilities in CARAs. She thanked the Board for the additional time. The public comment period was closed at 7:48 p.m. Discussion: Board Member Maxwell said he was surprised to hear that PFAS were being found in rainwater. If that is the case, he recommended not allowing rain barrels and encouraging people to get their rain into the stormwater system as much as possible. Board Member Martini noted that so far, the water has been in good shape. They need to figure out what they are doing right to keep the drinking water clean and continue with that. Senior Planner Clugston thought it has to do with the land use. Single-family residential zoning is the biggest land use in both of those areas so there is not a lot of intense industry and heavy uses. Chair Gladstone noted that there are still some significant outstanding issues with this code. She proposed tabling this until those issues have been addressed. She was particularly concerned about stormwater and how the UIC (Underground Injection Control) wells are handled in the CARA. It would be good for the Planning Board to send a recommendation to Council that they feel confident about. Senior Planner thought there might Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 6 3.A.a be another meeting on Friday with Olympic View, but it is unknown if that will lead to a resolution. The project is tentatively scheduled for Council review at their first meeting in September. Board Member Golembiewski asked for others' opinions about recommending this with a pending stormwater issue. There was discussion about options for moving forward and potential timelines. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE MAJOR ISSUES WITH THE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT ARE RESOLVED AND STAFF IS ABLE TO COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Board Member Golembiewski asked if they were making a recommendation to postpone this until the stormwater is resolved. She wondered if they would want to entertain making a recommendation in lieu of stormwater since that typically wouldn't be in their purview anyway. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 23 AND SEEK AN UPDATE ON THE STORMWATER CODE AS PART OF THE CONTINUATION. Board Member Maxwell said he hoped that staff would seriously consider Ms. Petso's comments. Planning Manager Levitan indicated staff would follow up on this along with the stormwater code. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction to Site -Specific Rezone Proposal at 9530 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) Amber Brokenshire, Planner, introduced the rezone from RM-EW to BC-EW at 9530 Edmonds Way. She gave the site context and rezone criteria. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It would not require a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review at this point in the process. The zoning analysis shows that it would allow for increased densities, reduced setback, a smaller floor area ratio, and an increased height to 40 feet, if it met specific site development standards. Also, at least 3 public benefit measures must be incorporated into the building or site design within the BC-EW zone: sustainable building techniques (LEED Gold), inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income, public amenities, and low impact development (LID) techniques. She reviewed a map showing the uses and zoning of the surrounding area. Site specific rezones are a Type IV (legislative) permit, with the Planning Board holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to City Council. The Planning Board hearing is preliminarily scheduled for August 23. The City Council will hold a separate public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance to change the zoning. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 7 3.A.a Board members asked clarifying questions about the differences in zoning. Chair Gladstone asked how a single parcel rezone is not spot zoning. Ms. Brokenshire explained they follow what the Comprehensive Plan allows as a permitted zone. Director Levitan agreed that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and added that it is across the street from the zone requested. Ms. Brokenshire also pointed to its proximity to Westgate mixed use. Chair Gladstone asked about including the property immediately west of the project site. Ms. Brokenshire noted that this was the only site included in the application. The other property is PUD owned and there might not be any interest on that site to make it anything other than a substation. Director Levitan noted they could reach out to PUD if there was an interest in that by the Planning Board. Chair Gladstone expressed interest in looking into this further so the map isn't so spotty. It would be great to know if there were objections to expanding it. Chair Gladstone asked for clarification about the relationship between the shared driveway, common access, minimal curb cut, and easement. Ms. Brokenshire stated that when they rezoned adjacent properties, they had in mind that the four properties would be using the same curb cut. One of the city's goals is to reduce curb cuts on Edmonds Way for pull out traffic, and this is one way they are trying to meet that goal. It would essentially be a shared access for the four sites and would require frontage improvements such as a widened sidewalk and a planting strip as well a shared driveway. Board Member Martini asked if this would mean more trees in the sidewalk area. Director Levitan noted that this would be reviewed at the project level as part of a development proposal. Chair Gladstone asked about the citizen concern that had been raised about traffic. Ms. Brokenshire explained that would be a development -type concern and would be addressed with a traffic study at the time of a development proposal. Right now, there is no proposed development. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was on the Planning Board during the last rezone of this same property and wondered why they would want this change and why now. She recalled the previous rezone request where the developer needed the additional height for what they had in mind. If that was the intention just over a year ago to put that building in, and now we're looking at a rezone of the exact same property for a different kind of use, she wanted to know what has changed. She was concerned that they were looking at scope creep with this property. They had previously talked about being concerned about not having appropriate setbacks and overcrowding the main street. Now, she is concerned that they are adding another couple of feet in height and possibly different setbacks. Ms. Brokenshire responded that if the developer chooses to do the 40 feet, one of the options for them to get that bonus is an increased setback to 15 feet which is the same as the current zoning. In that case, the street setback would remain the same. She noted that the applicant is one of the same owners as the previous application. As to why they are applying for this rezone, they didn't provide that information, but the applicant will be at the public hearing. Planning Manager Levitan stated that there is nothing in the code or the Comprehensive Plan that prohibits them from requesting this. It is evaluated on a case -specific basis as to its consistency with the development code, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the approval criteria. He commented that if you look at the surrounding land use designations and zoning, at least immediately adjacent, the community business is the highest and best use in the area. If they were to propose something else, staff s initial thought is that it wouldn't be warranted by the existing land use framework. This seems to be the natural endpoint from staff s perspective. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 8 3.A.a Board Member Mitchell commented that this is within the Comprehensive Plan designations. In reference to Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell's question, he noted that this is probably market -driven or lender -driven rather than site -constraint driven. Chair Gladstone commented that, as a city, it seems beneficial to have mixed use along that corridor, especially if they want Westgate to be a center. However, she would still like to hear back about making the substation part of this rezone. The Board thanked staff for the presentation. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. The August 9 meeting will be cancelled for summer break. The August 23 meeting is potentially getting very crowded with the Tree Code and the Edmonds Way site rezone. The unresolved item on the 23rd is the continued CARA hearing. This could be just a written report, but action doesn't necessarily need to be taken at that meeting. He noted that there would be a 3-week gap between that meeting and the first September meeting and requested feedback on scheduling. Board Member Martini suggested squeezing the CARA hearing into the 3-week gap. Chair Gladstone asked if staff thinks they will hear back from the PUD about any concerns about expanding the zone before the August 23 meeting. Planning Manager Levitan wasn't sure but indicated they could notice the public hearing even if they haven't heard from them yet. Planning Manager Levitan noted they could push that out to September 13. Staff will reach out to see how quickly they can get some feedback from the PUD before they finalize the agenda. There was discussion about the August 23 meeting having mainly a written report on the CARA item and waiting to take action until September 13. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the difference between the two Tree Code discussions scheduled for August 23 and September 13. Planning Manager Levitan explained that the 23rd would be to review draft code language for private property tree removals and the 13' would be to review refinements to the existing development code language. The public hearing anticipated for October 11 th would be adoption of both. There was discussion about potentially shifting around topics depending on how things progress. Staff will remain in communication with Chair Gladstone. September 19 is a joint meeting with City Council regarding capital improvements. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell expressed appreciation for all the questions and encouraged board members to continue to ask lots of questions because it really helps everyone. Board Member Mitchell is excited they are one step closer to getting the Comprehensive Plan subconsultant on board after a tumultuous council meeting. He asked if it would make sense to hold a joint Planning Board/City Council kickoff meeting for the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concern that the City Council might not understand the weight around the document — that it is more than just an update. Planning Manager Levitan said Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 9 3.A.a they could look into that. Staff will also be getting into the scoping of the EIS and developing the alternatives so they won't have a lot of wiggle room with the timing. There might be an opportunity to do a joint meeting or to invite Council to one of the Board's meetings but the extended agenda is looking pretty full. Board Member Mitchell commented that there needs to be some level of buy -in with the Plan, and he didn't feel, based on the questions from Council, that there was a whole lot of confidence in the Plan as presented. Planning Manager Levitan stated that staff could work on the messaging to Council. It might not need to be a joint meeting for staff to adequately convey that they've never been in a situation where they've had to add as much housing as they are required to add now. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 10 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/23/2023 Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023- 0004) Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History On July 26, 2023, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter 23.60 ECDC, which regulates critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) in the City of Edmonds. The code amendment was introduced to the Planning Board on May 24, 2023, with an additional work session on July 12, 2023. After a brief staff presentation and public testimony, the Planning Board closed the public comment portion of the hearing (which was subsequently reopened to allow for additional comments from Lora Petso) and began deliberating on the draft code. The Planning Board subsequently approved a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of August 23, 2023, to allow for additional work on the draft code. As noted in the July 26 staff report, staff has worked collaboratively with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) on a number of sections of the proposed code, including the regulation of uses within CARAs and their buffers. The most prominent remaining items to address are related to stormwater management, including the use of underground injection wells within CARAs. The Public Works Engineering Division continues to work with OVWSD staff on options to revise the code related to stormwater management, but has yet to come up with mutually acceptable code language. As such, staff is requesting that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to September 13, 2023 to allow time to resolve the remaining issues. Staff Recommendation Open the continued public hearing and approve a motion to further continue the hearing to September 13, 2023 to allow for additional refinements to the draft code language before the Planning Board makes a recommendation to City Council Packet Pg. 11 7.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/23/2023 Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History Matt Driscoll of d/Arch LLC (applicant/contact) and Shawn Leiser (owner) applied for a rezone to the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 and 2). The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The property was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022 under PLN2-22-0009. Based on feedback provided by the Planning Board during their July 26 introduction to the proposal, City staff contacted Snohomish County PUD about including the adjacent parcel located at 9620 Edmonds Way (which includes a PUD substation and is currently zoned RM-1.5) as part of the rezone, so as to provide a consistent zoning pattern along this portion of Edmonds Way. PUD had no objections to including their property as part of the proposal (Attachment 9), so the boundaries of the proposed rezone have been expanded. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Board find that the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 and make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone of the two parcels located at 9530 and 9620 Edmonds Way from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. Narrative Please see the attached staff report for additional project information and an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the criteria in ECDC 20.40.010. Attachments: Staff Report Attachment 1 - Land Use Application Attachment 2 - Applicant's Narrative Attachment 3 - Zoning & Vicinity Map Attachment 4 - Public Notice Documentation Attachment 5 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Compatible Zoning Attachment 6 - Completeness Letter Attachment 7 - Engineering Division Comments Attachment 8 - Public Comments Attachment 9 - Snohomish County PUD Letter Packet Pg. 12 7.B.a '1Ic. 1 $yv To: From Date: File: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Edmonds Planning Board Amber M. Brokenshire /Planner August 18, 2023 PLN2023-0024 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application Matt Driscoll of d/Arch LLC. (applicant/contact) and Shawn Leiser (owner) have applied for a rezone on the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 - 2). The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The property was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022 under PLN2022-0009, Based on feedback provided by the Planning Board during their July 26 introduction to the proposal, City staff contacted the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) about including the adjacent parcel located at 9620 Edmonds Way (Parcel Number 27033600114000) — which includes a PUD substation- as part of the rezone, so as to provide a consistent zoning pattern along this portion of Edmonds Way. The District had no objections to include their property as part of the proposal, so the boundaries of the rezone have been expanded. (Attachment 9). B. Location The properties subject to the rezone are located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600) and 9620 Edmonds Way (Tax Parcel Number 27033600114000). (Attachment 3). C. Review Process A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV" application, per ECDC 20.01.003. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. The application was determined complete on May 30, 2023 (Attachment 6). A Notice of r_ 0 a a) 0 c a� E 0 a Packet Pg. 13 7.B.a Application was issued on June 13, 2023. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the notice requirements of ECDC 20.03 are provided in Attachment 4. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS A. Site Context The subject parcels lie directly south off Edmonds Way with a frontage of approximately 485 feet. The properties are currently zoned RM-EW (Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way, one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area) and RM 1.5 (Multi -family residential, 1500 square foot lot minimum). The RM-EW zone has a height limit of 35 feet with specific conditions. The BC-EW zone contains a floor area ratio (FAR) of three (3) square feet per square foot of lot area and would allow for the maximum height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way to be increased to 40 feet with specific conditions. The Edmonds Way designation to the BC zone and specific regulations that apply to the BC-EW properties were established pursuant to Ordinance No. 3627 in part to recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds Way entryway to the City of Edmonds and accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way Corridor. B. Neighboring Development and Zoning According to city LiDAR data, the single-family (RS-8) neighborhood south of 9530 and 9620 Edmonds Way sits approximately 22 feet higher than the subject parcels, and the elevation increases as you move east. 9620 Edmonds Way contains a PUD substation that is currently zoned RM 1.5. The adjacent properties to the east are developed with a combination of a duplex and single-family housing which are zoned RM-1.5, and these properties could potentially be developed with multi -family housing at some point. The north side of Edmonds Way contains a mix of zoning designations such as WMU, BC- EW, one RS-8 parcel and RM- 1.5. The WMU zone contains a variety of commercial developments including a gas station, bank, drive -through Starbucks, grocery stores, drug stores and other development. B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) SEPA review for this site -specific rezone is exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(c) because the site is located within an urban growth area, the rezone does not require a comprehensive plan change, and the applicable comprehensive plan was previously subjected to environmental review and analysis. C. Technical Review Committee This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division staff, who determined that the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 2 of 8 r_ 0 a a) 0 Cn c as E 0 a Packet Pg. 14 7.B.a Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with future building permit application for development on the site. A transportation analysis is not required at this time and may be deferred to the future development/building permit phase of the project. Traffic studies are typically required for projects that generate at least 25 PM peak hour trips. D. Public Comments To date, one public comment has been submitted on the proposed rezone from Rachel Ross speaking for Brad and Rachel Ross and Colin and Alek Adams (Attachment 8). Ms. Ross is concerned this rezone will increase the volume and frequency of traffic entering and exiting Highway 104. Staff Response: Traffic impact studies are specific to a development application and will be reviewed by the City's Transportation Engineer. Traffic impacts are mitigated through the collection of traffic impact fees in accordance with ECC 3.36.125. At this time, there are no development applications for this property. E. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan map designation for the subject property is "Edmonds Way Corridor" (Attachment 6). The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals listed for the Edmonds Way Corridor as listed below. Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and = Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also 2 provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential 3 areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple a family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small- 0 scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern 0. is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. Cn E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business c E developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. a PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 15 7.B.a E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations (Attachment 6). The compatible zoning classifications for the Edmonds Way Corridor are BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone and RM zones. The applicant has referenced additional comprehensive plan goals and policies such as sustainability, residential development, and design objectives which are summarized here and included in the applicant's narrative as Attachment 2. The applicant has noted that a height increase provides an incentive to support and promote sustainability and provide people with a mix of housing types and styles. Additionally, the increased height should not be an impact to the adjacent RS zoned lots which are substantially higher than the subject parcels. The design objectives for site design also encourages the use of a shared access easement. B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 4 of 8 r- 0 a a) 0 Cn c as E 0 Q Packet Pg. 16 7.B.a 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. Finally, the Community Business (BC) zone district has its own purposes as identified in ECDC 16.50.005: A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling units) that support business uses; D. To implement the policies of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor; E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the city of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality. The subject properties are located in the Edmonds Way Corridor comprehensive plan designation. An explicit purpose of the BC-EW zone is "to implement the policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor." The properties are encouraged to utilize a shared or joint use driveway and access points in order to reduce access onto SR-104 and make use of the natural topography of the properties to neighboring single family development. Per the project narrative a shared access would be utilized/provided between 9530 Edmonds Way and the three adjacent parcels to the east (9516, 9520, and 9524 Edmonds Way (Attachment 2). The BC zone specifically notes that its purpose is to reserve areas to allow for c mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support 0. business uses. The project narrative states a rezone on this site will allow for a mixed -use community within walking distance of existing commercial and Cnc° service uses (Attachment 2). A rezone from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW has the potential to increase density on the site, but to opt for the increased height it E would require the use of sustainability and/or inclusion of affordable housing in a PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 17 7.B.a its design which can help to achieve a variety of housing types. Rezoning the site to BC-EW is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. A. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; Multi -family zoning exists on the east and west sides of the subject properties. The adjacent properties to the east are developed with a combination of a duplex and single-family housing which are zoned RM-1.5 and RM-EW, and these properties could potentially be developed with multi -family housing at some point. A single-family neighborhood with an RS-8 zoning classification sits south at a higher elevation than the subject parcels. The north side of Edmonds Way contains a mix of zoning designations such as WMU, BC-EW, one RS-8 parcel and RM- 1.5. The WMU zone contains a variety of commercial developments including a gas station, bank, drive -through Starbucks, grocery stores, drug stores and other development. The BC-EW zone allows for increased density, reduced setbacks, and allows for an increased maximum height of any building fronting Edmonds Way from 35 feet to 40 feet, provided that the development includes sustainability, low impact development and/or inclusion of affordable housing pursuant to ECDC 16.30.030.4. D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; The primary change in the area and the subject property is the establishment of the Westgate Mixed Use zone in 2015. Additionally, the parcel located across Edmonds Way from the PUD substation was rezoned to BC-EW in 2017. The purposes of the zone districts are to implement the policies of the Edmonds c, comprehensive plan, and the BC zone specifically notes that its purpose is to meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the city of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality. A rezone from 2 RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW would require the use of sustainable, low -impact 0 development and/or inclusion of affordable housing in its design for an increased a height, which could help promote housing diversity as well as provide ground- 0 floor commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30-feet as measured from the street 0 front of the building. Rezoning the site to RM-EW would be consistent with the City's policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Cn E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One E factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; a PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 18 7.B.a There has been interest in 9530 Edmonds Way over the past several years as the property is currently undeveloped. As noted above, the parcel was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022. The proposed BC-EW zoning designation reduces lot coverage and allows for smaller setbacks while allowing for the developer to opt for an increased building height with the provision of sustainability components and/or inclusion of affordable housing in its design. Given the proximity to Edmonds Way and the elevation change of the RS zoned properties from Edmonds Way the requested rezone is a suitable zone for the subject property. F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. The public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely impacted by rezoning from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. With development of the site, any potential critical area regulations must address the critical area code as necessary The applicant for 9530 Edmonds Way states in part the following: "The developer in opting for the 40' height increase gains flexibility in design at the expense of the optional requirements. The public gains in sustainability and/or affordable housing, which are goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan." Development of either site will require compliance with all development regulations which should provide protection to the public health, safety, and welfare. III.CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 as identified in the staff report and specifically implements policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor in which the properties are located. B. Design standards within the BC-EW zone and other City of Edmonds development regulations will ensure that public health, safety and welfare is protected. IV. RECOMMENDATION r- Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff 0. 0 proposes that the Planning Board find the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 and make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the rezone from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. Cn c as E PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 7 of 8 a Packet Pg. 19 7.B.a V. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Zoning and Vicinity Map 4. Public Notice Documentation 5. Comprehensive Plan Map & Compatible Zoning Page 6. Letter of Complete Application 7. Engineering Division Comments 8. Public Comments 9. SnoPUD Email VI. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Brad and Rachel Ross 22804 — 96th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 d/SnoPUD No. 1 Mark Flury P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206 PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 8 of 8 d/Arch LLC Matt Driscoll 2412— Westlake Ave. N. Ste. 3 Seattle, WA 98109 Colin and Alek Adams 22806 — 96th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 r- 0 0. m M Cn c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 20 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS nnyst,ilaingPermit.com Land Use Application #1307425 - 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Matt Driscoll d/Arch LLC Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 2412 Westlake Ave N Ste 3 mattd(c�darchllc.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Seattle WA 98109 (206) 214-8839 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location State Zip License Expiration Date UBI # Number Street 9530 EDMONDS WAY City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98026 27033600117600 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). a O ca U Work Location Q Q Q N Property Owner First Name Last Name or Company Name C EDMONDS WAY LLC _J r Number Street Apartment or Suite Number PO BOX 60216 City State Zip E SHORELINE WA 98160 U r r Certification Statement - The applicant states: Q I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and (D authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I E have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Q Date Submitted: 5/1/2023 Submitted By: Matt Driscoll Packet Pg. 21 Page 1 of 2 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS MyguildingPermit.corn Land Use Application #1307425 - 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Project Contact Company Name: d/Arch LLC Name: Matt Driscoll Email: mattd@darchllc.com Address: 2412 Westlake Ave N Ste 3 Phone #: (206) 214-8839 Seattle WA 98109 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Rezone Rezone to Any Other Zone Project Name: 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Description of Work: Rezone parcel from RM-EW to BC-EW Project Details Project Information Zoning - existing Zoning - requested RM-EW BC-EW Packet Pg. 22 Page 2 of 2 I 7.B.b I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Q Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application A. Land Use application - 9530 Edmonds Way Rezone Pao c 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 23 Attach 28 April 2023 City of Edmonds Permitting and Planning Division 121-5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Rezone Application for 9530 Edmonds Way to BC-EW This application to rezone 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW We are submitting the following in support of this rezone: A. Land Use Application (attached) B. Narrative describing how rezone satisfies the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development code and Comprehensive Plan (see below) C. Scale Map of 9530 Edmonds Way (attached) D. Vicinity Map of 9530 Edmonds Way (attached) E. Environmental Checklist (SEPA) for 9530 Edmonds Way Rezone Packet Pg. 24 Attach B. REZONE NARRATIVE 9530 Edmonds Way CONTENTS SUMMARY 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2. ZONING ORDINANCE 3. SURROUNDING AREA 4. CHANGE 5. VALUE SUMMARY We're requesting a rezone of one parcel of land at 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW. (Tax Acct #270336001176001) This rezone is in keeping with the policies and goals of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Revision Date: May 18, 2021), which designates the parcel as Edmonds Way Corridor. This rezone is in compliance with the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code (ECDC) which is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. This rezone to BC-EW allows commercial uses (ECDC 16.50.010) which are not allowed in the current RM-EW Zone (ECDC 16.30.010). This rezone to BC-EW modifies the Site Development Standards of the parcel from the RM-EW Standards (ECDC 16.30.030) to the BC-EW Standards (ECDC 16.50.020).t As in the current RM-EW Zone, the rezone to BC-EW allows the developer to opt for a higher height limit. In this case, 40' instead of 25' with conditions as stated in ECDC 16.50.020.Table A. 2 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 25 Attach 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This rezone to BC-EW is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. See below. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Revision Date: May 18, 2021, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Which is indicated for Mixed -Use Development. Tr.. ,ids Woodway h ${floo! ■ 1 hones In NINON till 1111110tg 4 1 A or . r ems_ 3a.,�# I■ ■■:..�� r Farmer`` woodway ` > I I�11L. L +� r T � L LJ_I� rI f�IT' 14'— Z ML IF CL /h Y N Edmonds Way Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor c� Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — PURPOSE AND SCOPE E The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes: a B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way 3 Packet Pg. 26 Attach • To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." • To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the community. • To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and enhance the community's assets and natural resources. • To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. • To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. • To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. • To facilitate the provision of sustainable public services consistent with the community's values and needs. Growth Management Goals & Policies A.3. The role of commercial and industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and provision for consumer needs should be considered as a supporting part of achieving a sustainable community. A.4. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: A.4.a Light (including direct sunlight) A.4. b Privacy A.4.c Public views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features. AAA Freedom from air, water, noise, and visual pollution. A.5. Any residential growth should be designed to accommodate and promote a balanced mixture of income and age groups. The rezone from to BC-EW will have a positive effect on the property's tax base, as well as creating more opportunity for diverse housing types. It will not affect any public views. State Framework Goals Urban Growth — Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public services and facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce Sprawl — Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low - density development. Housing — Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. The rezone of this site, which has adequate public services and facilities, will encourage development on this undeveloped site with a density appropriate to its location, as well as creating more opportunity for diverse housing types. Regional Goals Development Patterns — focus growth within already urbanized areas to create walkable, compact and transit -oriented communities. 4 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 27 Attach Housing — The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing for all people. The rezone of this site to BC-EW will encourage development within this already urbanized area and is within walking distance of Westgate Village. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — ELEMENTS Sustainability Goals & Policies Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing. Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies, programs, and regulations designed to support co -location of jobs with housing ... and encourage business activities that supplement traditional businesses and employment concentrations. Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle. The rezone to BC-EW allows an increase in density and the provision of commercial space which supports the goals above. The housing provides an opportunity for more residents to stay in the community. Climate Change Goals and Policies Climate Change Goal E. Encourage Existing land use. Buildings and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. The rezone to BC-EW will allow a higher -density building to be constructed that meets current energy codes, facilitates by location alternative means of transportation, and provides sustainable features yielding a reduction in housing unit carbon footprint. Environmental Quality Goals & Policies Environmental Quality Goal A. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community -based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state, and national environmental standards. The rezone to BC-EW will allow a potentially taller building that provides features enhancing the environmental quality such as Low Impact Development (LID) Residential Development Goal & Policies Residential Goal A. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. A.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction... A.5 Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses... A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible... natural constraints... The rezone to BC-EW will limit building height to an elevation below the living levels of existing single-family residences to the South. Its orientation towards Edmonds Way is not incompatible with those residences that are accessed from 231 st PI. SW. Development on the site will fit and be constrained by the existing natural features. 5 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 28 Attach Residential Goal B. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents. B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage sustainable high -quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2.b.i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. The adjacent RS zoned lots (9529 & 9515-231st PI SW) uphill of the site proposed for rezone are substantially higher than the increased height available through the rezone. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of vegetative growth at the southern portion of 9530 Edmonds Way and the northern side of the closest RS zoned lots. B.2.b.iiiThe design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. A building on the rezoned site will have no visual relationship with the uphill single-family residences. Because of the slope of 9530 Edmonds Way, development would likely be at the bottom of the slope closer to Edmonds Way preserving some trees uphill and fitting into the slope. Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies Commercial Development Goal A. Commercial Development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of unique opportunities while being consistent with and compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor for mixed -use development. The site shares access off Edmonds Way with one curb cut shared with the three parcels to the East. The two parcels directly across Edmonds Way are zoned BC-EW Commercial Development Goal B. The Westgate Commercial area, which is nearby and to the West of this site is intended for commercial development and services. The rezone of this site will support many of the goals identified as being important for the Westgate Commercial Area Commercial Development Goal C. Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to provide a mix. 6 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 29 Attach Rezoning this site will allow a mixed -use project without creating a `strip mall.' It would allow an appealing mixed -use community within walking distance of shopping and service. Commercial Development Goal D. This goal references the Westgate Corridor which starts West at 100th Ave W. Rezoning this site will allow a project that would meet several goals identified in this policy such as shared access. Commercial Development Goal E. This site is in the Edmonds Way Corridor which runs from 1001h Ave W to Highway 99. Concern is expressed that development along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of traffic or intrude into adjoining residential communities. E.1 Minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Encourage shared use of driveways and access points EA Encourage design and use of topography to buffer development with adjacent communities Rezoning this site will allow a mixed -use community within walking distance of shopping and service. Additionally, the shared driveway and the effects of the topography meet these goals. Housing Goals & Policies Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community and is located according to the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element. Rezoning this site is in keeping with the pattern of development in the Edmonds Way Corridor. Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezoning the site to BC-EW will be consistent with this goal. Urban Design Goals & Policies General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the number and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. 9530 Edmonds Way and the three lots to the East share an access easement from Edmonds Way. There will be only one curb cut on Edmonds Way. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Rezoning the site will require buildings on the site to be located close to Edmonds Way. Parking will be garaged and partially underground due to the BC-EW Site Development Standards and the topography. 7 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 30 Attach A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. The common access from Edmonds Way will tie the circulation between the sites creating a pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle linkage to Edmonds Way A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use buildings. The common access from Edmonds Way will create a clear entry and departure point for vehicles and pedestrians. Internal circulation will support the `streetscape' by extending circulation into the project. Sharing the single driveway provides opportunities for seating or shared space. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. The setback on this parcel and 9516 Edmonds Way will match because of the constraint of the overhead power line and the Development Standards. Both will provide a landscape transition to the activity of Edmonds Way. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. The constraints of maximum building size, required parking, vehicular and fire access will work to provide open space. Goals A.7 through A.13 will inform good design on the site. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. The constraints of maximum building size, required parking, vehicular and fire access will work to provide open space. Goals A.7 through A.13, as we'll as the City Code and Design Review, will inform good design on the site. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance s B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 31 Attach with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building fagade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a fagade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in fagade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. The constraints of a mixed -use building with its requirements for light and air to the residential units and visibility and openness for the commercial space will direct adherence to these goals. The varying uses will structure the building masses both vertically and horizontally and direct fagade differences that meet goals A.14 through A.20. Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas Streetscape and Street Trees Goals & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. Through the development of this parcel and 9516 Edmonds Way to the East, the streetscape will be improved. Storm & Surface Water System Goals & Policies Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to: • Provide for public safety; • Minimize property damage; • Preserve and enhance critical areas; • Promote sustainability; • Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations. 9 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 32 Attach The term low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. This rezone to BC-EW will encourage Low Impact Development through the allowable height provisions of the BC-EW Zoning. 10 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 33 Attach 2. ZONING ORDINANCE This rezone to BC-EW is consistent with the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. See below. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4294, passed February 28, 2022. The City of Edmonds Zoning Plan Map, Revision Date: August 3, 2022, designates 9530 Edmonds Way as RM-EW RS-8 _ RS-8 e _ ri{rK s? svr M U 3 s RS-8 RS-8 j xadway d Madrana K-R Srhnnl Multi Family RM-3 Multi Family, 3,000 w. ft, of lot area per unit RM-2A Muld FoMMA 2,4W sq. ft. of lot prep per unit _ RM• 1-5 Muld Family; 1, 500 s4. ft- of lot area per unit - RM•LW Moo ti Fomily, RM•Edmonds Way Commercial WASU We Wte Mixed Use BP Planned Business BN Neighborhood Business ® FVMU Fuddle ylllage Mixed Use _ 6C Community Business - BC-EW Communi ty Business, BC-Edmvnds Way C{i General Commercial J j_ Z r Y i 9530 Edmonds Ways-"'" !�w 0 RIu. 11 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 34 Attach Title 16 ZONE DISTRICTS 16.00.010 Purposes states that in addition to the purposes stated in the city's comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance shall have the purpose to assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future. It further states that the zoning ordinance's purpose is to protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS 16.50.005 Purposes The BC and BC -Edmonds Way zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones: A. To reserve areas for... offices... which offer... services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling units that support business uses: D. To implement the policies of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor; E. To meet the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality This rezone to BC-EW is fully in keeping with each of the above stated purposes. 16.50.010 Uses Permitted Primary Uses include offices and multiple dwelling units (except on ground floor per ECDC 16.50.020(B). Permitted Secondary Uses include off-street parking and loading to serve a permitted use. 12 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 35 Attach 16.50.020 Site Development Standards A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Height Area BC None None None None' None' 25'2 3 sq.ft. persq. ftof lot area BC — None None 10, None' None' 256 3sq.ft. per sq. Edmonds ft of lot area Way r The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely belowthe surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet fromthe lot line adjacentto residentially (R)zoned properly. The required setback shall be completely landscaped with Type I landscaping permanenty maintained by the owner ofthe BC -zoned lot. ' Roof only may extend fr a feet above the slated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roofform (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls orflat roofswith a pitch of less than three-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unlessthey are part ofan approved modulated design. Examples of Modulated Roof Dealgnr �u '� ■ . ■ Idf15 .. •wF11 - Iwo Fit .Ilk 1 III i Elm ��r� Er'"'Ififfila r �I�!!I �!9!. iNiM �� a The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet. provided, that: (a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 15 feet in depth. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback. (b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential IRS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a) of this footnote, the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property; (c) At least three of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: (1) Achievement of least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification, (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at lowimoderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent ofthe gross number of units proposed, (3) Public amenities within an area comprising at least 25 percent of the length of any required street setback such as outdoor seating, plazas, walkways or other usable open space. The remainder ofthe setback area will be landscaped with Type III landscaping; (4) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to. bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. (d) Severity five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass_ Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicatethe appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. 13 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 36 Attach B. Ground Floor. Development on the ground floor shall consist of only uses to a minimum of 30' measured from the street front of the building C. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to buildings within the BC-EW zone: 1. Massing and Articulation a. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings and articulate the building from a pedestrian perspective b. Standards. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. 2. Ground Level Details. a. Intent. To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing Edmonds Way b. Standards. Ground -floor street -facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements: lighting or hanging baskets; medallions; belt courses; plinths for columns; bulkhead for storefront window; projecting sills; tile work; transom or clerestory windows; planter box; an element not listed here that meets the intent as approved by the Architectural Design Review Board 3. Treating Blank Walls a. Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls b. Standards. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment. At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into such walls: Masonry (except flat, nondecorative block); concrete or masonry plinth at bas of wall; belt course of a different texture and color; projecting cornice; decorative tile work; medallions; opaque or translucent glass; artwork or wall graphics; lighting fixture; green walls; an element not listed here that meets the intent as approved by the Architectural Design Review Board 16.50.030 Operating Restrictions A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried out entirely within a completely enclosed building B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Property Performance Standard 1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. 14 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 37 Attach Title 17 GENERAL ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 17.50 OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS 17.50.020 Parking Space Requirements A. Residential. 1. Single-family and multifamily. a. Single-family dwellings: two spaces per dwelling unit, except: b. Multiple residential according to the following table: Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per dwelling unit Studio 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 2 bedrooms 1.8 3 or more bedrooms 2.0 B. Commercial 4. Medical/Dental offices: one space per 200 sf 5. Business and professional offices with on -site customer service: one space per 400 sf 6. Offices not providing on -site customer service: one space per 800 sf Chapter 17.115 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE 17.115.040 Required Facilities Table 17.115.040. Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure Requirements Number of EV Capable Number of EV Ready Number of EV Installed Type of Use Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Single-family dwelling N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A unitst Multiple dwelling unitsl 40% of parking spaces 40h of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Nonresidential uses 40% of parking spaces 0% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Chapter 17.120 BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES 17.115.040 Required Facilities Table 17.120-1, Short -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units 1 per 14 dwelling units; not less than 2 spaces Nonresidential uses 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces 15 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 38 Attach Table 17.120-2, Long -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Minimum Number of Spaces Number of E-bike Installed Type of Use Required Spaces Multiple dwelling units' 0.75 per unit 40 percent of spaces Nonresidential uses 2 per 25,000 square feet of floor 10 percent of spaces area; not less than 3 spaces Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW 20.10.010 Types of Design Review The project will be subject to General Design Review per the ECDC. Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE The project will be subject to the Sign Code per the ECDC. Title 23 NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS 20.10.010 Administrative Authority The Development Services Director or a designee shall have the authority and rersponsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter 20.10.060 Tree Retention Associate with Development Activity The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan. 16 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 39 Attach 3. SURROUNDING AREA The City of Edmonds Zoning Plan Map, Revision Date: August 3, 2022, designates 9530 Edmonds Way as RM-EW PL SW 11 Y 150 Zoning 300ft sr SW 6r W 4 Cr The proposed rezone of the site to BC-EW will be compatible with the existing zoning and land use of adjacent sites. To the West, the RM-1.5 parcel is a PUD Substation and will not change in the foreseeable future. To the south, the RS-8 zone is up a steep slope and about 30'-40' higher than 9530 Edmonds Way. To the East of the site in the RM-1.5 Zone, there are currently two houses. Access to 9530 Edmonds Way will come from the shared easement with 9516 Edmonds Way and turn West on to 9530 Edmonds Way. This will create further separation r L L M Z c,> Q Q Q N r C a� E Q r c as E U r w Q 17 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 40 Attach between a project on the site and those two houses. The RM-EW parcel to the East at 9516 Edmonds Way is being developed as eight townhouse units. SW MI k#K � • �oe� . � r.r - • � RI � 22804 n cro 9715 )ZB 2302d 1 23030 1 ,2315T RL v� eX i 962 0 ■ - i�l 23QQ3J34a1 ■ ... 23009 1 r 9621 �27 7 23109 Addresses/Vehicular Circulation 9530 Edmonds Way ley J } X 1231 C n a rr There are no direct vehicle connections from 9530 Edmonds Way to the residential neighborhood to the South. The rezone to BC-EW will not change this. a B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way 18 Packet Pg. 41 J } X 1231 C n a rr There are no direct vehicle connections from 9530 Edmonds Way to the residential neighborhood to the South. The rezone to BC-EW will not change this. a B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way 18 Packet Pg. 41 Attach El. 338' per ++ survey ,+ + ,• �9530 Edmonds Way 70t� • !G/ "• • • At P� 3.40' Nay El. 334' per •• 4��� J` survey :q ■ ■ z'j • M EI.343' per ms sEl.l.ry`< survey—_ •+! �_� '3003 027 9601 ` 609 5 lV� 0 50 100ft I I500�] Topography Assuming an approximate average grade for a project on 9530 Edmonds Way of el. 340'. A 40' high building, allowed under the proposed BC-EW Zone, will only be as high as the top of slope on the adjacent single-family properties to the South. It would be approximately 65' away from the houses and separated by trees and other vegetation. W W L z N c Q a Q N C N E t V R Q r C d E t V a 19 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 42 Attach P0,15- :T ONIDS 20' PUD Easement Af •��•`'�09 r +r 9530 Edmonds' r 20' Shared Access ' I = Easement ■ r"gT` 9620 ■ ■ r Approximate center ' - � - - -- r Inrn inn of in' Frlmnnrlc 3027 s... ^iii IY, ,k6-90i o Stormwater & Easements f F O,, Stormwater from the uphill residential lots to the South apparently flows through the 9530 Edmonds Way site in a City of Edmonds 10' Easement. Development on 9530 Edmonds Way will have to relocate this easement and, in the process, improve the drainage. This is a benefit to the uphill neighbors and the city by creating a more controlled flow. Access to 9530 Edmonds Way will be in the shared access easement on the west side of 9516 Edmonds Way. 9520 and 9524 Edmonds Way will benefit from the improvement of this single access point. 20 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 43 M 9530 Edmonds Vllay 10 P� �, • 9620 water Service ■ , 0I,vmpM V'ew Water �............. s 23003 • 23111001 • • 23 00j • 23017 23047 nds„ • 909 xel— 0 50 100ft Water Service Attach L. N 0 • I?M o N Z J a 0 M • LO 0 0 CD Water service connects the uphill residential lots to Edmonds Way through an easement to the East of 9530 Edmonds Way. The rezone to BC-EW will not affect this. 21 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 44 Attach I 20H PL SW + s 9530 Edmonds Way, Mapped Critical , s rf ^ �_ �� Y� ._� ` Areas (colored areas) r.- 0 150 300ft Critical Areas 2Z8TH S SM .� I \1 r — — t- - Department of Natural Resources (DNF There are a few minor mapped critical areas on the 9530 Edmonds Way site. Uphill to the South of the site there are more substantial steep slopes and slide hazard areas mapped on the single-family lots. Development on the 9530 Edmonds Way site through this rezone may help to stabilize the uphill properties. a 22 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 45 Attach 4. CHANGE The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Revision Date: May 18, 2021, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Which is indicated for Mixed -Use Development. This rezone of 9530 Edmonds Way will allow the site to build a mixed -use project in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Property across Edmonds Way is currently zoned BC-EW. 5. SUITABILITY The property is economically and physically suitable for mixed -use under the proposed BC-EW Zone. Its size of 36,375 sf (0.835 acres) is large enough to develop an economically feasible mixed -use project. It is topographically separated and screened by vegetation from adjacent RS zones. The site is on Edmonds Way keeping the mixed -use traffic out of the RS neighborhoods. The site is proximate to the Westgate Commercial Center. 232ND ST SW 3 a Commercial WMU Westgate Mixed Use 13P Planned Business 13N Nelyhbarhoad Business FVMU Flydote Mope Mixed Use _ BC Cammunity8usiness BC-EW Commum ty Business, BC -Edmunds Way (.6 General Commerriai B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way I Packet Pg. 46 Attach 6. VALUE The relative gain to the public interest value is commensurate with the relative gain to the developer. The mixed -use development allowed by this rezone will provide development in an area designated by the city for this type of development. There is an increase in the density for the developer. The developer, if opting for the increase to 40' height gains flexibility in design by providing the optional requirements. The infill development resulting from this rezone will increase housing diversity in the community and raise the site's tax basis.The public gains in sustainability and housing, which are goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way I Packet Pg. 47 �n . ,ra city of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 REZONE + ':1;1P21F2&4 Z r I-R11 � RS-8 Y- 0 126.30 252.6 Feet 188.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site an 2,257 p B p pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be ac WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise r, © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUI Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 OR ® WMU ® BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes ZONING MAP Attachment 3 7.B.d 0 N t.0 Cn O M LO M ■ M Packet Pg. 48 V 7 a M C d E L V t4 a� a r Q Attach I 7.B.d I i City of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 REZONE 'LAP 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 4,514 P B P pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Q tV to OD O M In CD Legend 0 0. ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN d — <all other values> C 1 0 N 2 5; 4 L 0 9;71;7;8 0) C State Highways -. <all other values> tU -- 0 V 1 7 2 d Sections Boundary Q- Sections Edmonds Boundary c ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP v ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN > — <all other values> C Interstate Principal Arterial 0 IN Minor Arterial; Collector th Local Street; On Ramp C N State Highways E — <all other values> t) ftS - - 0 +�'+ Q 1 r C 2 tU t Notes r VICINITY MAP Q Packet Pg. 49 1 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION & COMMENT PERIOD FILE NUMBER PLN2023-0024 f 12c, l Sy\3 Attach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. — Matt Driscoll FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 2, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 13, 2023 REQUESTED PERMIT: Rezone OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA Determination EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 27, 2023 (A Future Hearing Date and Notice will be Provided) Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at httr)s://www.edmondswa.Rov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner /425-771-0220/ amber.brokenshire(@edmondswa..Qov Packet Pg. 50 Attach FILE NO.: PLN2023-0024 Applicant: Matt Driscoll, d/Arch I.I.C. DECLARATION OF POSTING On June 13, 2023, the attached Notice of Public Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library, and the Public Safety buildings. I, Amber M. Brokenshire, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 13th day of June, 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: i't'z i {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 51 2 �3 _ Attac� 7.B.e CI S 3 D �cLam one E'vei -Itt Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as it daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH978696 PLN20234-0024 as it was publisled in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 06/13/2023 and ending on 06/13/2023 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount IF the fee for licit publication is $65.36. Subscribed and sworn fore me on this Aday of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City• of E&x,,, s D—I.pnion S—i-186031703 MICIIEUE MARL IN Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 8/29/2025 Commission Number 4417 Packet Pg. 52 Attach Classified Proof �� �12C2�3_ OZ z�A CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION R COMMENT PERIOD FILE NUMBER PLN2023-0024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property front Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. — Matt Driscoll FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 2, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 13, 2023 REQUESTED PERMIT: Rezone OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA Determinatlon EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 27, 2023 (A Future Hearing Dale and Notice will be Provided) Any person has the right to comment on this appBcalion during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application, The city may accept public comments at any lime prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the protect permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20-06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/servicesipubllc_involvenient/publlc_n otices/development_ notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all Inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner /425-771-0220/ amber.brokenshire@edmondswa.gov Published: June 13, 2023. EDH978696 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/15/2023 10:00:20 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment 4 Click2Mail MOL Pro Tracing Data Page 1 of 3 For Click2Mail Order #21064513 Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Scan Address/Standard Type Location Address (ZipCode 00270200802188147923 FARMER DANIEL T & GASIMOVA DUNYA 437 NE 72nd St Apt 321 Seattle WA 98115-1406 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147923 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147945 BEAUCHENE JASON D & HOLLY L 12050 15th Ave NE Apt 401 Seattle WA 98125-5065 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147945 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147924 CASCARA LLC 9516 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147924 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147946 SNOHOMISH CO PROP MGMT 3000 Rockefeller Ave # 404 M/S Everett WA 98201 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147946 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147925 CALDERA GUILLERMO 9512 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147925 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147947 BARNES RICHARD M & MAURENE 23022 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147947 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147926 GETACHEW DESTA & SOLOMON GENET 20204 37th Ave W Lynnwood WA 98036-9192 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147926 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147941 MURRAY JASON & ELIZABETH 9609 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5023 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147941 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147920 WZL ENTERPRISES LLC 2800 Western Ave Apt 112 Seattle WA 98121-1154 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147920 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147942 9611 EDMONDS LLC 14150 NE 20th St Ste F1307 Bellevue WA 98007 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147942 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147921 PUBLIC UTILITY DIST 1 SNO CO 2320 California St Everett WA 98201-3750 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147921 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147943 NGUYEN KEVIN DUY/LE LISA MINH NGOC 9520 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147943 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147922 MANTOOTH JENNIFER RAE PO Box 462 Edmonds WA 98020-0462 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147922 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147944 MENCKE CHARLES & MARY 857 NE 67th St Apt 201 Seattle WA 98115-5552 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147944 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147927 COMMERS TESSA\SARTHY JAY 9504 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147927 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 7 13 e Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Scan Address/Standard Type Location Address (ZipCode) 00270200802188147928 DOYLE TIMOTHY P / MCCLOSKEY MARY E 9529 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147928 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147929 HARDIN WILLIAM C 9511 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147929 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147934 EDMONDS WAY LLC PO Box 60216 Seattle WA 98160-0216 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147934 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147913 MOORE GARY B & SHARENE D 424 Lakeview Rd Lynnwood WA 98087-2140 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147913 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147935 HOVLAND MARK A 23014 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147935 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147914 CONNELL MARISA 23003 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147914 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147936 LINNANE SCOTT G/LINNANE RONNE M & SHARON 23006 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147936 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147915 FOSTER JOHN THOMAS & KIMBERLY JUNE 23027 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147915 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147937 THE CASCADIAN IN EDMONDS LLC 901 Westminster Cir Everett WA 98203-3204 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147937 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147930 KORN JOSEPH & MELISSA 9524 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147930 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147931 DUBBELAAR DIRK 9520 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147931 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147932 DANBERG JENNIFER M & KEVIN 9515 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147932 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147933 SANCHEZ GEORGE A & KISSKEYS-SANCHEZ RAND 9521 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147933 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147916 LINDENSTEIN EDMUND H & JENNIFER L 22808 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147916 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147938 LONG JEFFREY J 4826 45th Ave SW Seattle WA 98116-4417 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147938 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147917 ADAMS COLIN M & ALEXANDRA 22806 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES Attachment 4 Page 3 of 3 7 13 e Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Address/Standard Type Address Scan Location (ZipCode 00270200802188147917 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147939 HUGHES PATRICIA A 23001 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147939 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147918 ROSS RACHEL S & BRADLEY T 22804 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147918 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147919 J ROBERTS PROPERTIES LLC 702 N 90th St Seattle WA 98103-3810 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147919 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147940 FAIRWAY APARTMENTS LLC PO Box 713 Mercer Island WA 98040-0713 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147940 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility Report Generated on : August 08, 2023 City of Edmonds E 2 � 2 97f o 2210 227145 9 2 2IN P 126 2 q �_ 01�~ 4 2 8� C .! PLN2023-0024 - Mailing Map 22h1`9 17r2l1 22706 i 2270� � .J CL Ln 9511 � 9721 04 L tv ry o G� rn rn rn a ry0 5ba� 9; C' 9727 �0 910 9801 hti W 0 9620 EDMONDS WAY 03 2300 00 .a ry m - ry ss 3 maa w �� a a 9 230T4 9 `3 0�■ 23 2 215 20 2 231f 23028 EN 23024 -- 230j� P !t v NN� ■ l ° o ■ �— a' ! i� O 104! 97® rn 231 97-M 11 2311 1118 , 9 Q25 971M 231AS Q , 219 2270 UE P rn 8TH5 s]AL________ 830 22901 1: 3,031 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 4,514 P B P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurz WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliat © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI( fC N 0 0. ^O (L Legend 0 a� Sections Boundary Sections L r0 Edmonds Boundary ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN = — <all other values> V Interstate Principal Arterial d Minor Arterial; Collector 0 Local Street; On Ramp CU State Highways M — <all other values> E 7 —_ 0 V 0 1 � (D 2 V O County Boundary Z Parks •v ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY WASHII 3 - a ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES + City of Edmonds M City of Lynnwood 0 City of Mountlake Terrace r Unincorporated King Co; Unincor r Q City of Woodway lv Citv of Arlinaton: Citv of Bothell: C E t Notes r Q 9530 Edmonds Way RM-EW to BC-EW Site Rezone Packet Pg. 57 �)Yl z 2230014 Attachment 5 7.B.f Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 ............................................................................................ Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space Mix of uses; refer to specific See appropriate category below; plan designations within activity also refer to specific activity center center discussion in plan Mixed use development See appropriate category below; corridor; refer to specific plan also refer to specific corridor designations within corridor discussion in plan Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ compatible with neighborhood. Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 < 4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 ................................................................................................_............................................................................................................_.............................. RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG; may include transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification Land Use 37 Packet Pg. 59 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'Ile. I S9 V May 30, 2023 Matt Driscoll 2412 Westlake Ave. N. Ste. 3 Seattle, WA 98109 mattd(2 darchllc. com Subject: Letter of Completeness Rezone Application Number PLN2023-0024 Mr. Driscoll: On behalf of the City of Edmonds Planning Division, I have reviewed the application for a rezone on the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW) for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if any additional information is necessary. Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks consistent with ECDC 20.03.002. A public hearing before the Planning Board will be scheduled at a later date. The Planning Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. I will work with you on scheduling the meeting before the Planning Board based on your availability. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at amber. brokenshire(&,,edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Amber Brokenshire, Planner Packet Pg. 60 Attach LJ Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM June 21, 2023 Amber Brokenshire, Planning Division Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division PLN2023-0024 — Rezone RM-EW to BC-EW 9530 Edmonds Way Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with any future building permit application for development of the site. The proposed rezone is understood to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Edmonds Way Corridor for Mixed -Use development. Depending on the future use of the site, either a tranpsortation study or an analysis will be required. Please note, the City's GIS utility map indicates stormwater flows through the subject property. Snohomish County records indicate a 4-lot subdivision was recorded in 2003 (AFN 200301175007) which granted a 10-ft drainage easement to the City of Edmonds through the property. While the subject rezone will not impact this easement, future development will need to give consideration to the easement. Any modifications to the easement will need to be addressed with any future development permits for the site. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 61 Attach Brokenshire, Amber From: Rachel Ross <raross1010@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:49 PM To: Brokenshire, Amber Cc: Brad Ross; Alek; cadams05O2@gmail.com Subject: PLN2023-0024 Comment Period Hi Amber - We are writing to oppose the request to rezone the lot at property location 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW. We are concerned this change in zoning will increase the volume and frequency of traffic entering and exiting Hwy 104 at a spot in the road where there is increase risk for collision. The following reasons support this conclusion: 1. There have already been multiple accidents along the curve at 95th PI W each year, which this lot is very near to. 2. Cars continue to speed along the highway at this location making it unsafe to enter and exit the highway when not at an intersection. 3. This would cause potential risk for collision for cars heading east and wanting to turn left at 95th PI W, as the turn lane would compete with drivers heading west and looking to turn left into the lot at 9530. The cars paths would cross within the same turn lane. 4. The lot across the street at 9601 is zoned for commercial use and their proposed site plans has the entrance/exit in conflict with this lot (9530), whereby drivers would be crossing the highway within the same turn lane section (also competing with 95th PI W). 5. Having commercial use at both locations (9601 & 9530) would cause a linchpin at a dangerous section of the highway, similar to the challenges of multiple intersections of cross traffic just west of this location - where PCC and the gas station sits. 6. No other commercial property resides east of 97th Ave W along the south side of the road where it is all residential properties. 7. Safety is our biggest concern as we walk along this section of the highway and an increase in cross traffic could pose a risk for pedestrians. As parties of record, we kindly request you consider our concerns when evaluating whether to approve this application to rezone to BC-EW. Thanks, Packet Pg. 62 Attach Brad & Rachel Ross 22804 96th PI W Edmonds, 98020 Colin & Alek Adams 22806 96th PI W Edmonds, 98020 Packet Pg. 63 Attach Brokenshire, Amber From: Levitan, David Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:02 AM To: Brokenshire, Amber Subject: FW: Potential Rezone of PUD substation from Multifamily Residential to Commercial in City of Edmonds Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI From: Flury, Mark <MMFlury@SNOPUD.com> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:43 AM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov> Cc: Zyskowski, Jason <JAZyskowski@SNOPUD.com>; Johnston, Kim <KDJohnston@Snopud.com>; Payne, Guy <GOPayne@Snopud.com>; Oens, Mark <MAOens@snopud.com>; Barnes, Maureen <MLBarnes@Snopud.com> Subject: Potential Rezone of PUD substation from Multifamily Residential to Commercial in City of Edmonds David: Thank you for your time this week to discuss the subject rezone proposal. Thank you also for your e-mail (7/27) and for the opportunity to consider a potential re -zone of parcel no. 27033600114000 from RM-1.5 to BC-EW. Our phone conversation was very helpful and I gained an understanding of the zoning differences between residential and commercial and the City of Edmonds' approach to zoning public facilities such as a substation. The subject parcel is the site of the District owned and operated Westgate Substation. The substation was constructed in 1968 under the jurisdiction of Snohomish County, prior to annexation by the City of Edmonds. The District has no objection to the proposed re -zone from RM-1.5 to BC-EW with the understanding that the re -zone will not result in the requirement to remedy any existing conditions that may be considered non -conforming, such as: • no changes will be required to poles or structures that exceed 25 ft. in height; • no changes will be required to fence height or materials; • no changes will be required to landscaping setbacks or screening; and, • no changes will be required to the driveway or sidewalk. Thank you for your pro -active outreach regarding the proposed re -zone. The District looks forward to working collaboratively with the City of Edmonds on any future improvements to this site. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Regards, Mark Mark Flury, P.E. Senior Manager, Trans. & Distr. System Operations & Engineering Snohomish County PUD No. 1 PH: (425) 783-1722 Cell: (425) 293-6301 mmflury@snopud.com Packet Pg. 64 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/23/2023 Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) Staff Lead: Deb Powers Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Deb Powers Background/History At the Planning Board's April 26, 2023 regular meeting and June 28, 2023 joint meeting with the Tree Board, board membrs reviewed high level code concepts and considered new regulatory options for property owner tree removals (unrelated to development) as amendments to Chapter 23.10 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) (Attachment 1). At the June 28 meeting, the Planning Board requested staff return with options for the remaining property owner tree code provisions that were still under consideration. Attachment 2 summarizes the main issues, prior Planning Board discussions and staff recommendations for private property tree removals unrelated to development activity. A September 13, 2023 work session has been scheduled for Planning Board review and discussion on changes to the existing development code. No public hearings have been scheduled, but are anticipated in October 2023. Staff Recommendation Members are asked to review and discuss the draft code options detailed in Attachment 2 and shown as mark-up to ECDC Chapter 23.10 in Attachment 3, and provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred approach to Draft Code Options I-V, including permit and mitigation requirements. Narrative During the 2021 tree code amendment process, the City Council and Planning Board discussed a "second phase" of code amendments that would consider limiting property owner tree removals unrelated to development activity. A primary objective for the 2022-2023 tree code amendments is an easier -to - understand code with greater efficiency in its application than the existing tree code. In examining new property owner tree removal code options, the Planning Board has discussed code effectiveness related to canopy cover, equity issues, property size and other tree removal scenarios that would affect code complexity levels. The Planning Board sought feedback from the community and stakeholders through public engagement efforts and joint meetings with the Tree Board. Staff has included summary information from public engagement efforts in Attachment 2. For the Planning Board's consideration of public and stakeholder feedback on property owner tree removal issues, staff has included summary information from public engagement efforts in Attachment 2. To provide additional context, staff has outlined the current process for tree removal inquiries and indicated below how code options in Attachment 2 would be administered: • Current practice - for tree removal requests or inquiries, staff checks the customer's address for critical areas using the City's web -based GIS map. • Current practice - staff checks if the lot is subdividable (which impacts tree removal/replacement Packet Pg. 65 8.A requirements), using the same platform. • New 2-per/12-months tree removal allowance - applicant submits simple notification form showing existing trees and proposed removals. Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability, confirms receipt of notification in permit database. • New 2-per/12-month tree removal allowance, applicable to specific tree sizes - applicant submits notification form that shows existing trees by size, notes removals that fall within DBH range and calculates number of removals. Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability, confirms receipt of notification in permit database. • New 2-per/12-month tree removal allowance applicable to graduating lot sizes - applicant submits notification form that shows property size in total square feet. Staff verifies lot size, checks proposed number of tree removals compared to codified table or calculation. May need to consider tree size. Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability, confirms receipt of notification in permit database. A permit would be required for property owner tree removals in the following cases: • To exceed the number of allowed tree removals (new) - applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees or documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. Trees that fit hazard/nuisance tree criteria may be removed in addition to trees removed under the tree removal allowance. • To remove trees in critical areas (unclear in current code) - applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees, documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. • To remove trees in multi -family and commercial zoned areas, vacant lots and subdividable properties (current code) - applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees, documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. Note that a permit process is recommended for any option where tree replacements would be required, such as the proposed removal and replacement of landmark trees or to exceed the number of tree removal allowances with the proposed removal of healthy trees, as shown in Attachment 2. Staff will present additional information on the efficiency of processing proposed property owner tree removal requests at the August 23, 2023 Planning Board meeting. To help illustrate how the new property owner tree removal options would appear within the framework of the existing tree code, Attachment 3 shows the proposed options, markups and strikeouts in text color corresponding to Attachment 2. Because the focus of the August 23 meeting is on property owner tree removal codes, ECDC 23.10 sections related to tree retention with development have been ghosted out. Attachments: Attachment 1 - April 26 and June 28 PB Meeting Minutes Attachment 2 - Code Options for Private Property Tree Removal Attachment 3 - ECDC 23.10 Markups Packet Pg. 66 8.A.a ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion on the negative effects that some trees have on active or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do so? ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals. Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation. Key concepts for consideration with this code update: • Number of removals • Frequency • Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions) • Landmark trees • Tree removal in critical areas • Replacement requirements Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees would be 24" DBH or greater. Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it would depend on the size and number of trees. Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 67 8.A.a Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees? Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the resources to deal with administering a complex code. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per 12 months rather than three trees. Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements. Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that went into the management plan. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger - sized properties. Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have made it clear they don't want a tree code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 68 8.A.a Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations around those because of landslides. Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact on their neighbors. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral testimony. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. In 2024 there will be a gap analysis of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board, etc. She noted that Goal 1A related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed. Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land. PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 69 8.A.a THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER KUEHN. Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a canopy problem. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not cut them down. Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension between private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan, but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible. Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree canopy is important for helping with climate change. MOTION PASSED 4-2. Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and workable to Council. Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification) not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 70 8.A.a Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of code for both the property owner and for staff. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him. He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Planning Board Member Maxwell said it should change with the size of the lot. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees. Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table. Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept that Kirkland used. Tree Board members departed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 71 8.A.a 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 Packet Pg. 72 8.A.a 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 Packet Pg. 73 8.A.a • 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 Packet Pg. 74 8.A.a 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 Packet Pg. 75 Preliminary Draft Code Options/Planning Board Direction - Property Owner Tree Removals 8.A.b CONSIDERATIONS I. Tree removal allowance — number of trees IRRl1P.0 • Current code allows unlimited tree removals on developed SF, MF, COMM properties (where no critical areas are present). • Tree replanting does not occur. • There is no data on property owner tree removals. PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS • Difficulty in balancing property owner's rights to remove trees with obtaining data on tree removal activity as it relates to canopy cover gain or loss. • Canopy cover data becomes available with analyses every 5-10 years. Without property owner tree removal data, trends in canopy gain/loss are difficult to understand. Note that between 2015 and 2020, gains in Discussion Edmonds' tree canopy outpaced losses by a very small amount.' • Difficulty in balancing property owner's rights to remove trees with • Consider 2 tree removals (versus 3) as a starting point for the number of tree community interest in reducing canopy loss. removals allowed at one time under a notification process (same as Kirkland • Calculating property size increases staff time in providing over -the- pre-2021), or... counter approvals. • Allow a certain number of tree removals per range of property size, shown in table format in the code (Redmond, Renton, Kenmore, Kirkland presently), or Public/stakeholder feedback • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting #2 — Question: "Should property owners be allowed to remove x number of trees (within a certain timeframe)?" Comment: without requiring a permit, a notification process for tree removal may generally be supported by the community. The concept seems straightforward." Those that did not respond did not clearly state opposition or support. • Public Survey — survey responses to Question 4 (How should trees be protected in Edmonds?) were generally divided between "limit the number of trees that a property owner can remove at one time" and "it depends on the size of the property and how many trees" (19%), and "people should be able to remove trees on their property if they want or need to" (22%). • Community Conversation Event #1 March 27, 2023: Note that public comments were organized by category, in which private property tree regulations fell under the "Preservation" category. Comments were evenly distributed between Preservation (21 %), Management (21 %), Credential (21 %) and Other (22%), with Planting category lowest (15%). • Community Conversation Event #2 May 15, 2023: The highest number of comments fell in the Preservation category (35%), followed by Management (26%), Planting (19%), with other comment categories less than 10%. Note that individual comments ranged from "the City has no role in limiting property owner tree removals" to "Yes, [limiting tree removal] is standard practice in municipalities, public good, etc." • Note that Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the development code. • Allow a certain number of tree removals per unit lot area, calculated for each property. Example: 2 trees for every 10,000 square feet. • Consider other scales (neighborhood, green factor, etc.) and the preservation of certain tree species when establishing tree removal allowances. Direction April 26, 2023: establish tree removal allowances for (undetermined number) tree removals that may occur at one time, depending on the size of the tree. DRAFT CODE OPTIONS 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 [applicable size] trees within [x] period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. OR 2. Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of [applicable size] trees per lot area below within (x] period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sg ft 2 (applicable sizel trees 10,001-20,000 4 (applicable sizel trees 20, 000 sg ft or greater 6 (applicable sizel trees June 28, 2023: Allow 2 tree removals that may occur at one time, applicable to 3. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 [applicable trees larger than significant trees (see #3 - applicable tree size, below). Some size] trees per 10,000 square feet lot area within (x] period with the submittal of a Tree concerns were raised about considering the number of tree removals allowed per Removal Notification form. property size (equity, greater code complexity, etc.), although there was general agreement to achieve greater code simplicity. Staff recommendation: use a simple numerical allowance, applicable to any size property, administered through an over-the-counter notification process that checks for critical areas, tracks notification to avoid unnecessary code enforcement response. 1 Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3 Packet Pg. 76 Preliminary Draft Code Options/Planning Board Direction - Property Owner Tree Removals 8.A.b CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS DRAFT CODE OPTIONS II. Tree removal allowance - frequency Issues • Unlimited number of property owner tree removals at the same time Discussion results in greater incremental canopy cover Ioss.2 Consider tree removal allowance within certain timeframes: • In some cases, unlimited residential tree removals inadvertently have o Every 12 months, allow 2 significant* tree removals (Kirkland pre-2021) allowed preemptive tree removals in anticipation of development, resulting in greater canopy loss than allowed in the current development o Every 3 years, allow 5 significant* tree removals (Bellevue) code provisions. o Every year, allow 4 significant* tree removals (Sammamish) Public/stakeholder feedback o Every 12 months, allow 2 significant* tree removals and every 24 months 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 [applicable • Tree Board Focus GroupMeeting #2 — Question: Is 12 months adequate 9 q allow 4 significant* tree removals (Woodinville) size] trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification between allowed removals? Response: Not answered/unclear. Direction form. • Public Survey — comments related to Question 4 (How should trees be April 26, 2023: Undetermined, it depends on the size and quantity of tree protected in Edmonds?) range from, ""People should be limited on how removals. many trees they want to remove on their property" to "I feel that people should be able to remove trees on their property if they want or need to." June 28, 2023: General agreement with 12-month interval. Do not "bank" future removals. • See Community Conversation Event general response categories shown under "Tree Removal Allowance - number of trees." • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing *Note ECDC 23.10 and other cities define "significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH development code. Staff recommendation: use 12-month intervals for streamlined and fair administration of tree removals that allows 2 [applicable size] trees to be removed from any size property. III. Tree removal allowance — applicable tree size Issues Discussion 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 significant • Diverse tree age distribution is a metric for healthy, sustainable urban • Significant trees* measuring 6-12" DBH seem to be too small to regulate under trees* within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. forests. Without mature tree preservation efforts, neighborhoods and the tree removal allowance approach. OR business districts can become devoid of canopy in even -aged tree • Consider defining a "mid -range" tree size that falls between significant and 2. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at populations due to senescence, pests/disease, extreme weather events, landmark tree DBH. least 24" DBH, AND climate change, etc. • Define landmark tree size (DBH) and determine appropriate number of landmark Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 1 "landmark tree" • Recent canopy study findings support preservation of existing trees to tree removals allowed within a given timeframe within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form OR loss of c address incremental loss of canopy cover and to protect ecological • Limit, do not prohibit landmark tree removals. CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A functions on private PERMIT PROCESS UNDER OPTIONS IV & V BELOW. • Familiarity and ease of application may beget greater code compliance: OR proposed tree size ranges (versus known DBH thresholds) may confuse Direction: those familiar with the code, asks property owners for more/detailed April 26, Consider trees larger than significant trees* for tree removal 3. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at information and requires additional staff time to provide over-the-counter e. Li Limit, but do not prohibit landmark tree removals. General support to allowance. L least 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH, AND approvals, defeating the purpose of an allowance. define landmark trees as 24" DBH. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at • Although landmark tree removals were prohibited under a prior June 28, 2023: Some agreement on applying the 2-per 12 months tree removal least 24" DBH, AND moratorium, there is no landmark tree definition or removal restrictions in allowance to trees 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH. Some agreement on further Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 "regulated" the current code. restricting landmark tree removals (fewer trees? increase timeframe?) but trees or 1 "landmark tree' within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree • Prior moratorium defined landmark trees as 24" DBH, which has become concerned how options may increase code complexity/implementation. Removal Notification form. familiar to residents (based on current landmark tree removal inquiries). OR z "The vast majority of tree canopy cover and gains/loss occurred on residential lands." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3. 3 "Most canopy gains came from incremental growth of existing trees, highlighting the importance of preservation efforts." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3 Packet Pg. 77 8.A.b Preliminary Draft Code Options/Planning Board Direction - Property Owner Tree Removals CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS • Landmark tree size definitions and removal frequency varies widely in other jurisdictions (Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, (Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: prohibit Snoqualmie, Redmond). Sizes range from 18" to 30" DBH. Kirkland Landmark tree removals). defines landmark tree as 24" DBH and allows 1 landmark tree removal per 12 months; Seattle prohibits Exceptional tree removal (30" DBH). Public/stakeholder feedback Tree Board Focus Group Meeting #2 — Question: Should "landmark" tree be defined as minimum 24" DBH? Response: Not answered/unclear. Initially agreed yes, but further discussion supports varying tree size thresholds. Question: Should "landmark" tree removals be prohibited (or limited, the same as smaller tree removal allowances)? Response: Yes, landmark tree removals should be limited ... only those that are hazardous should be allowed to be removed. Question: should the time between "landmark" tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? Response: Not answered. • Public Survey — the highest percentage of responses to Question 4 (How should trees be protected in Edmonds?) is "large/mature trees should have greater levels of protection" (26%). Comments include, "Trees need to be preserved wherever possible, especially large and mature trees," "large trees are priority," and "protect mature trees." • See Community Conversation Event general response categories shown under "Tree Removal Allowance - number of trees." Under the question, "What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related to private property tree removals?" s participant commented: "Protection for larger trees 30" DBH." • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing development code. *ECDC 23.10 currently defines "significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH. DRAFT CODE OPTIONS 4. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH, AND "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of "regulated" or "landmark" trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10, 000 sg ft 2 `regulated" trees or 1 `landmark" tree 10,001-20,000 4 `regulated" trees or 2 `landmark" trees 20, 000 sg ft or greater 6 "regulated" trees or 3 "landmark" trees OR 5. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH, AND "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove 2 "regulated" trees or 1 "landmark" tree per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. Staff recommendation: Use a familiar or currently defined numerical tree retention threshold and avoid new definitions that describe tree removal allowances by tree size range. For example, Option 1: apply the 2-per 12-month tree removal allowance to significant trees (currently defined as 6" DBH and greater), or Option 2: Define landmark tree as 24" DBH trees (consistent with 2021 moratorium definition) and apply the 2-per 12-month removal allowance to landmark trees only OR CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS UNDER OPTION IV & V BELOW. IV. Tree removal scenarios that require a permit Issues: Discussion: • Most cities/counties, even those without tree codes require permit • Critical area tree removal is directly related to public safety, especially where process for tree removal in critical areas. steep slopes are concerned. Preventing landslides and preserving habitat were 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 (applicable considered the primary reasons for prohibiting healthy tree removal in critical size) trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification • ECDC 23.10 and 23.40 permit requirements for critical areas is unclear, areas. form. resulting in excessive tree removal code violations in critical areas. • To exceed tree removal allowances in non -critical areas, a permit should be The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit. The proposed removal of: • Tree removal requirements for MF/COMM properties, vacant lots, subdividable properties, etc. are unclear. required to review whether additional hazard and nuisance trees fit criteria. • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW) • Canopy study findings show the removal of "forest patches" is negatively • Clarify in the current code when a permit is required for MF, COMM properties (for review of landscaping/buffer requirements per ECDC 20.13), vacant and • Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, impacting critical area ecological functions, water quality and landslide subdividable properties. high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25/critical areas hazards. (NEW) Public/stakeholder feedback: • Limit, do not prohibit landmark tree removals. • Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties (CURRENT) l y-zoned p p erties ( T ) • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting #2 — Question: Should a permit be Direction: • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT). required for tree removals in critical areas? Response: Yes, permits April 26, 2023: prohibit tree removal in critical areas except hazard/nuisance trees; should be required for tree removal in critical areas. require a permit for the removal of hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas. Packet Pg. 78 Preliminary Draft Code Options/Planning Board Direction - Property Owner Tree Removals 8.A.b CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS DRAFT CODE OPTIONS • Public Survey — Question: Should the same rules apply to tree removals June 28, 2023: require a permit to exceed tree removal allowances with in critical areas as those not in critical areas? Response: No, there hazard/nuisance trees and for the removal of hazard/nuisance trees in critical should be stricter rules on tree removals in critical areas (63%). areas. • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing (Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: consider development code. requiring permits for all property owner tree removals and greater restrictions on tree removals in critical areas). Staff recommendation: Require a permit for staff review of hazard or nuisance tree criteria to a) exceed the number of tree removal allowances and b) remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas. CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS UNDER OPTION V BELOW V. Replacement tree requirements Issues: • Difficulty in balancing property owner's rights to remove trees with the least onerous manner to obtain data on tree removal activity and minimize loss of tree canopy cover. • Code simplification: the current code uses various replacement methodologies: Discussion: 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 significant trees 0 2:1 replacement ratio for critical areas (ECDC 23.40). within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No • Consider tree replacements only when the number of remaining trees on the lot replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. o Appraised value payment for >24" DBH trees removed with reaches a minimum threshold, such as the last 3 trees remaining on the lot No replacement trees are required for hazard or nuisance tree removals that exceed development (23.10.060). would trigger tree replacements (Kirkland pre-2021). the number of tree removal allowances within 12 months. (NEW). 0 1-3 new trees for <24" DBH trees removed with development • OR use a formula based on replacement trees per increments of removed tree Replacement trees are required for the removal of trees within critical areas (23.10.060). trunk diameter (1 new tree for every removed 6" trunk diameter - Woodinville). (CURRENT - ECDC 23.40.22.C.8), trees located on commercial and multifamily- Public/stakeholder feedback: • OR require 1-3 new tree replacement trees based on size ranges of removed zoned properties (CURRENT ECDC 20.13) and trees located on vacant or • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting #2 —Question: What are appropriate trees, as with the existing development code (ECDC 23.10.080), with revisions subdividable properties (CURRENT ECDC 23.10.060-080). tree replacement requirements for property owner tree removals in to account for removed trees over 24" DBH. Edmonds? Response: Unclear. Discussion noted there was a difference Direction: CONSIDER REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTHY TREE REMOVALS of opinion on replacement requirements, such as whether conifers or April 26, 2023: undetermined tree replacement requirements. THAT EXCEED TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCE ONLY THROUGH A PERMIT certain species should be required to be planted, what the site conditions PROCESS: may be, and other policies related to replanting removed trees. June 28, 2023: divided on the number of replacement trees that should be required Any private property Comment: Only Landmark trees that are hazardous should be allowed to for smaller trees removed under the allowance, some agreement that landmark g be removed. tree removals should be replaced. • Public Survey — Question 5: When property owners remove trees, how important do you think it is to plant new trees? Response: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being extremely important, 63% responded with "10." • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing development code. Staff recommendation: Follow current code requirements for replacement trees in critical areas, vacant lots, etc. Do not require replacement trees for trees removed under tree removal allowances, including the removal of hazard or nuisance trees (outside critical areas) that exceed the number of tree removal allowances per 12 months. Consider tree replacements for the removal of healthy trees that exceed tree removal allowances thorough a permit process, require replacements at the same rate as the current development code ECDC 23.10.080.A . Packet Pg. 79 8.A.c Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Note: blue/red text corresponds to the code options shown in Attachment 2, blue being the least complex code and streamlined application, red being the most complex code options. Grey text is not related to property owner tree removal options. Sections: 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. 23.10.010 Administration authority. 23.10.020 Definitions. 23.10.xxx Tree removal allowances 23.10.030 Permits. 23.10.040 Exempt+s-Rs activities 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. 23.10.080 Tree replacement associated with development. 23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title. 23.10.090 Bonding. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 23.10.110 Liability. 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long- term survival; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 80 8.A.c G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds. L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.010 Administering authority. The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.020 Definitions. A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DBH. D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 81 8.A.c E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)." F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. J. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. x. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" DBH (NEW). L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 82 8.A.c 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. x. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least twelve inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground, up to and including twenty-four inches DBH. R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. V. "Tree removal" means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. W. "Tree topping" means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. X. "Viable tree" means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 83 8.A.c 23.10.xx Tree removal allowance (NEW) Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 significant trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are reauired for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Any private property owner of developed property may remove 1 "landmark tree" within a 12- month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. Three replacement trees are required for the removal of each landmark tree removed within a 12-month period. Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of [applicable size] trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sq ft 2 (applicable size] trees 10, 001-20, 000 4 Lapplicable size] trees 20, 000 sq ft or greater 6 [applicable size] trees No replacement trees are reauired for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 [applicable sizel trees per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. APPLICABLE TREE/PROPERTY SIZE OPTIONS: 1. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH, AND "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to Droaerty owner tree removals at least 24" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 "regulated" trees or 1 "landmark tree" within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for the removal of trees removed under the tree removal allowance. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 84 8.A.c 2. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH up to 23.9', DBH, AND "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to Droaerty owner tree removals at least 24" 197:1:W_1kup Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of "regulated" or "landmark" trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sq ft 2 regulated" trees or 1 "landmark" tree 10, 001-20, 000 4 "regulated" trees or 2 "landmark" trees 20,000 sq ft or greater 6 "regulated" trees or 3 "landmark trees M 3. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH, AND "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove 2 "regulated" trees or 1 "landmark" tree per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. 23.10.030 Permits. A. The following activities shall require a permit. 1. The proposed removal or pruning of street trees and trees located in the right-of-way pursuant to the requirements of ECC Title 18.85 and the Street Tree Plan (CLARIFICATION). 2. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees to exceed tree removal allowances outside critical areas (OR) The proposed removal of any trees to exceed tree removal allowances outside critical areas, including hazard or nuisance trees. (NEW). The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 85 8.A.c 3. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide/erosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (CLARIFICATION, consolidated from 23.10.050.D and 23.40.220.C.8). 4. Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties (CURRENT) 5. Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT). 6-4;-. Procedural ExemptieR. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS AND/OR EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCE WITH THE REMOVAL OF HEALTHY TREES, WITH TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS (NEW) B. Permit reauirements for the removal of hazard and nuisance trees: 1. Hazard trees with a tree risk assessment form prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree (moved from 23.10.040 Exemptions). 2. Nuisance trees with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance (moved from 23. 70.040 Exemptions). 23.10.040 Exemptions activities. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and de net req--- -o permit: (clarification, moved to 23.10.030 Permits). A. Emergency tree removal (move from 23.40.220.C.8.b.vi and 23.40.220.C.8.c). B. Public tree and utility maintenance. The maintenance and removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department, and/or franchised utilities for ene of the following purposes: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 86 8.A.c 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. C.s- Removal and maintenance of trees within city of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the parks department. D €. Pruning, routine landscaping, tree maintenance, of vegetation -aRld planting, and the removal of invasive/exotic species and management of brush and seedling trees are exempt activities except that portion of the property containing a critical area, er its associated buffers and native growth protection easements. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent (moved from 23.70.040.A.7). Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 - 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. or„r,iRg exiotiRg trees back to the peiRt ,n,here they have boor, r,re„ieu sl„ topped is c--e-p-Side-red maiRteRaREe fA—.,: these trees aIE)Re, pmvided PFURiRg Will be UR&FtakeR enlY to the exteRt ReEessaFy fer public safety er+roe health F. Trees that GIG Ret meet the exemptiens in subsectiens (A) threugh (E) ef this sectieR may be remeyed with s pperting dec umentatien• 1. (moved to 23.70.030. Permits) 2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8). [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B. Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 87 8.A.c C. Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. A. Introduction. The city's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the city requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision; 2. Subdivision; 3. New multifamily development; 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house; and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan. 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense. 2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 88 8.A.c iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.); v. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; v. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an "X" or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner must be provided. c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 89 8.A.c (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); v. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions. a. Phased Review. i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii. A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements. 1. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows: Table 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, 30% of all significant short subdivision, trees in the developable or subdivision site Multifamily 25% of all significant development, unit trees in the developable lot short site subdivision, or unit lot subdivision 2. Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 through The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 90 8.A.c 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 5. For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One. a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 18 inches DBH. 2. Priority Two. a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. F. Tree Retention Procedures. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 91 8.A.c 1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: a. Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section. 2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. 3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained at least to the number of trees required by subsection (C) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. 4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. G. If a development retains 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 92 8.A.c 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines. B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone. 7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 93 8.A.c c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 94 8.A.c 23.10.080 Tree replacement associated with development. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required f^r Upp „ttiRg peFFnits r,,quiFed by t hapteF and/eF for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to development services that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 95 8.A.c 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required. 4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title. The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.090 Bonding. A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15 percent of the performance bond or estimate in subsection (B) of this section. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 96 8.A.c B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties. 1. Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(2) of this section. 2. Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter; d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the appraised value of trees 12 inches or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the city arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions; e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s); The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 97 8.A.c f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the city. The notice shall describe the violation, the approximate date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.110 Liability. A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.10.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 98 10.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/23/2023 August 23 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Staff Recommendation Review and discuss the August 23 Extended Agenda. Narrative The August 23 Extended Agenda is attached. With the proposed continuation of the CARA code amendment to September 13, the planned work session on amendments to the existing development - related tree code may need to extend beyond the currently planned September 13 meeting, which would subsequently push back the public hearing date for the full suite of tree code amendments from the currently planned date of October 11. Director McLaughlin has also requested to have a discussion on the Highway 99 Landmark site during the September 13 meeting. Staff has tentatively included a third work session on the tree code on September 27 and moved the public hearing date to October 25. The introduction to the Multifamily Design Standards code work has also been moved to October 11, while the next Comprehensive Plan discussion has been moved back to September 27, which will allow additional time to report back on the EIS scoping period, which closes on September 10. As noted in an email from staff to the Planning Board on August 16, the Planning Board will be holding a joint work session with the City Council on the CIP/CFP on September 19 at 5:00 pm in Council Chambers. Packet Pg. 99