2010-01-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 13, 2010
Chair Bowman called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Cary Guenther
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
Todd Cloutier
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Reid
CHAIR BOWMAN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2009 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience desired to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES
Mr. Chave advised that the City Council recently took actions that will have an impact on the Planning Board's 2010 work
program. The Board is required to review each one and provide recommendations back to the City Council.
Interim Ordinance Amending Title 20 ECDC Review Criteria and Procedures. Mr. Chave announced that the City
Council adopted an interim ordinance on January 5, 2010, that expands opportunities for closed record administrative
appeals. Their intent is to revert back to the City Council appeal provisions that were in effect prior to adoption of the
new Title 20 rules. He noted that there are some problems with the interim ordinance that need to be addressed, and staff
also has some proposed changes to Title 20 that are mostly for clarification. Staff is recommending all of the
amendments be considered by the Board at the same time.
Chair Bowman expressed concern that the City Council is seeking to overturn their previous action to adopt the proposed
amendments to Title 20. He observed that the Board spent a significant amount of time conducting public hearings and
deliberating the proposed language that was just recently adopted. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council's interim
ordinance only applies to Type III-B Actions, making them Hearing Examiner decisions that are appealable to the City
Council. The other changes he mentioned earlier would be brought forward by staff to improve the clarity of the
ordinance. There are also some mistakes on the matrix that need to be corrected.
Vice Chair Lovell observed that the City Council previously adopted changes to Title 20 based on advice from the City
Attorney. Mr. Chave agreed but added that the City Attorney also prepared the interim ordinance in response to the City
Council's request. Because it was adopted by the City Council, the interim ordinance is now applicable. However, it will
only be effective for six months. During that time period, the Board must review the interim ordinance, conduct a public
hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not it should be made permanent.
Chair Bowman recalled that the main purpose of having the Hearing Examiner make the final decision with no appeal to
the City Council was to keep applications from becoming litigious as much as possible. Mr. Chave recalled that when the
Board previously discussed amendments to Title 20, staff provided a matrix outlining the pros and cons of retaining the
City Council's ability to hear appeals. This same matrix would be furnished to the Board again as part of the staff report.
Board Member Guenther inquired about the timeline for making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave said
staff intends to bring back more specific information regarding the issue in early February, and a public hearing could be
held in March. Again, he advised that it would be helpful if the Board were to review all of the proposed changes to Title
20 at the same time and not just address the interim ordinance. He reminded them that their recommendation does not
have to agree with the City Council's direction.
Mr. Chave referred to the matrix that is contained in Title 20 and said staff would propose that "preliminary long plats"
be moved from the Type III-B column to the Type 111-A column. He explained that, historically, all short and long -plat
decisions have been made by staff. However, an inadvertent change in the interim ordinance implies that final plats
would require a Hearing Examiner decision, which would be appealable to the City Council. This has not been the case
for a number of years. Staff will point this out to the City Council when they hold their hearing on the interim ordinance
in February. They would also seek direction regarding the other proposed changes to the ordinance at that time.
Interim Ordinance 3769 Defining Temporary Homeless Shelter and Identifying Zoning Districts Where
Temporary Homeless Shelters are permitted. Mr. Chave reported that the City has received a few inquiries over the
past few years from primarily churches and people affiliated with churches about temporary homeless shelters, which the
current code does not address. He explained that because the City cannot prohibit these uses, it would be appropriate for
the code to acknowledge them and provide at least minimal standards to employ.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to Section 5 of the interim ordinance, which states that temporary homeless shelters shall be
permitted as primary or secondary uses in all zoning districts where churches and local public facilities are permitted as
primary uses. However, the use would require a "sponsor" which is defined as a community -based organization that is a
public agency or non-profit corporation. He asked if the interim ordinance would require a non-profit organization to run
a homeless shelter that is located in a City -owned facility. Mr. Chave answered that the shelter must be run by a
community -based organization that is either public or private, and this would include the City. He noted that Seattle
created a temporary homeless shelter several years ago as a public agency.
Board Member Clarke inquired if City -owned parks could be used for temporary homeless shelters. Vice Chair Lovell
pointed out that, as per the interim ordinance, temporary homeless shelters must be located in permanent buildings.
Board Member Guenther summarized that while the City cannot prohibit temporary homeless shelters, they can define
limitations about where they can be located and how they must operate. Mr. Chave agreed, as long as there is a nexus
between the entity and the mission, the City cannot prohibit the use.
Mr. Chave advised that prior to a public hearing on the interim ordinance, the Board would have a question and answer
session with the City Attorney so they have a clear understanding of the City's limitations with regard to regulating
temporary homeless shelters.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 2
• The Regulation of Utility Poles. Mr. Chave advised that while the City Council has not passed an interim ordinance
related to utility poles, they have asked the Planning Board to review the issue and provide a recommendation. He
explained that new technologies are being employed by wireless service providers, and the City's codes have not kept up
with the changes. There are also issues related to replacement poles.
Vice Chair Lovell said he read through all of the information provided by staff regarding the issue, and it appears the
Board needs more information regarding the City's authority to regulate utility poles before they can make a
recommendation to the City Council. If a utility provider can prove they need the additional coverage, it appears the City
cannot exclude utility poles in residential neighborhoods. He recalled the Board's previous discussion about utility poles
several years ago, which required them to address a number of technical issues, as well as the City's authority to regulate
their height, location, and type of installation.
Mr. Chave said the City is limited in the amount of control they have because State and Federal regulations pre-empt the
City's code requirements. However, the City can restrict larger towers to just the commercial zones. He pointed out that,
in recent years, many of the existing wooden telephone poles have been replaced with concrete and metal poles for a
variety of reasons, and this is not something the City's standards anticipated. In addition, there are new technologies that
are used in place of the traditional, relatively small antennas. He cautioned that the City cannot regulate the health
impacts associated with utility poles, and they must allow utility companies to provide adequate coverage. However, the
City's code can address issues such as size, location, and scale in relationship to the surrounding buildings. He observed
that, until recently, utility companies had been placing their smaller antennas on existing utility poles, but newer
technology now requires larger poles and a greater separation between antennas.
Mr. Chave said that in addition to the issues of height and location, the Board will also address the issue of appearance.
Replacing existing utility poles with poles that are slightly taller is not typically a problem. The significant concern is
related to replacement poles that are much larger in bulk and constructed of concrete rather than wood. He pointed out
that adequately addressing the issue will require a review of Title 18, which is related to Engineering and Public Works
Projects. Board Member Stewart suggested the Board consider language that encourages utility companies to extend the
existing poles rather than replace them whenever possible. She expressed her hope that when poles are removed, they are
used somewhere else rather than wasted.
Chair Bowman said City Council Member Wilson mentioned he would like to prohibit towers within five miles of all
schools, which would mean the closest tower to Edmonds would be 7 miles away. Mr. Chave said the City cannot
institute a rule that has the affect of prohibiting utility poles in the City. Chair Bowman asked if the City could require
that the poles be hidden. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively.
Mr. Chave advised that staff would conduct a study session with the Board prior to the public hearing regarding potential
amendments to the utility pole regulations. At the public hearing, the Board would likely hear from the public and the
utility industry. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that before the Board conducts a public hearing, they need to have a
clear understanding of what they can and cannot regulate. Mr. Chave that staff would provide background information
prior to the public hearing, and a representative from the City Attorney's Office would be invited to provide legal
information, as well. Representatives from the Engineering and Public Works Departments could also be invited to share
their experience with utility poles in the rights -of -way.
DISCUSSION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 19, 2010
Chair Bowman referred to the emailed comments the Board received from Board Member Reed regarding the draft Planning
Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission 2009 Annual Report to the City Council.
Vice Chair Lovell advised that he attended a portion of the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Meeting
that started an hour prior to the Board's meeting. He reported that a subcommittee of the CEDC has produced a draft report
that was distributed to the Board and CEDC Members. The Commission is currently discussing the draft, and the process is
becoming very complicated as everyone tries to get their viewpoint included in the document. They have discussed the
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 3
option of creating an executive summary of the lengthy report, which would include very simple bullet points to emphasize
the main points. The more lengthy report would expand upon each of the bullet points.
Vice Chair Lovell referred the Board to the summary reports that were produced by a subcommittee of the Planning Board
(Vice Chair Lovell, Board Member Stewart and Board Member Clarke) working with Mr. Chave. The Board's reports have
been attached as Appendices 2 and 3 to the joint CEDC/Planning Board Report. He noted that the Board's reports are short
and succinct, and he cautioned against embellishing the points and providing a lengthy list of recommendations to the City
Council at this time. He suggested the Board agree upon the main points to include in the report and then wait for the City
Council to provide more direction about what they want the Board to focus on in 2010.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the report that was prepared by the CEDC subcommittee includes the
Planning Board's name on the cover, even though the Planning Board did not really help write the document. With the
exception of a few words she submitted, the report does not necessarily represent what the Board's subcommittee has put
together. She said she does not want the Board's name included on a document that they did not help produce.
Chair Bowman expressed concern that while the Board has a clear understanding of what individual City Council Members
are against, they have no idea what they would support. He recalled that early in the process, he met with Council President
Wilson to seek additional input and direction from the City Council. However, he still has no idea what direction the City
Council wants to go. He said he is not particularly concerned about the content of the report; the real work will start after the
City Council has reviewed the report and provided direction on how they want the two groups to proceed. He cautioned
against spending too much time talking about any one concept until the City Council has offered their support.
Board Member Stewart said she hopes all the work done by the Board's subcommittee does not end up being a waste of time.
Hopefully, their ideas will actually produce some action on the part of the City Council. She said she now sees the concerns
that Board Members have raised time and time again about putting a lot of work into recommendations that end up going no
where once they reach the City Council level.
Board Member Clarke advised that Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director forwarded the
Board and Commission Members a copy of what was supposed to have been the final joint Planning Board/CEDC Report.
However, when he attended the CEDC's meeting prior to the Board Meeting, he found they were still reviewing a marked -up
copy. From their comments, it was very clear that the mark-ups were provided by just a few of the CEDC members, and
they were very sensitive about comments from Planning Board Members.
Board Member Clarke specifically referred to Idea 4 on Page 3 of the CEDC's report, which states that "the City should
support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that maximizes revenue while addressing
environmental concerns associated with the adjacent wildlife preserve." He questioned the use of the term "maximum
revenue." He voiced concern that the report prepared by the CEDC gives the appearance that the Planning Board is
recommending approval of what the Port is proposing for the Harbor Square Redevelopment. However, it would not be
appropriate for the Board to make any public statements regarding a proposal that will likely come before them for review
later in the year for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. He cautioned against the Board taking
ownership of a recommendation related specifically to Harbor Square and noted that it is not the Planning Board's
responsibility to evaluate ways to maximize revenues for a certain project. He suggested the Board carefully consider
whether the report prepared by the CEDC accurately represents the Board's position. Board Member Stewart agreed.
Chair Bowman recalled that he expressed his concern early in the process that it would be difficult for two separate groups to
work together to produce a joint report. He suggested the Board could pull out their report (Appendices 2 and 3) and present
it to the City Council as a separate document. He cautioned against a report that throws out a lot of ideas with passionate
statements without having clear direction as to what the City Council wants. He recalled there have been numerous
economic development presentations in the past, yet nothing has happened. The only thing different this time around is the
two groups are asking for direction and a firm commitment from the City Council majority as to how they want to proceed.
He said his sense is the majority of the City Council is not even interested in the efforts of the two groups. They think of
Edmonds as a bedroom community, and they are okay with the status quo.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 4
Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that it is time to try new approaches for soliciting input from the stakeholders
(business owners, developers, citizens, etc.) She suggested the City consider hiring a skilled facilitator and take the issue out
of the context of the City Council meetings. Community forums outside of regular City Council meetings could be a more
effective approach to get a visioning process started. She noted that other cities have used this approach and have actually
been able to reach out to a wider constituency, including their younger citizens. She noted that a visioning process was
identified as a goal in the reports from both the Planning Board and the CEDC. She pointed out that she spent a lot of time
preparing the Board's draft report to the City Council hoping it would go somewhere and get their creative thoughts flowing.
She said she hopes the City Council will take the opportunity to read it carefully.
Mr. Chave recalled that when the City Council approved the resolution that created the CEDC, they asked that the Planning
Board and CEDC share their ideas and opinions. He cautioned the Board Members against assuming they know what the
City Council Members are thinking. Chair Bowman pointed out that the reports contain numerous ideas that resulted from
the brainstorming sessions. Now it is time for the City Council to provide direction about how they want to move forward.
He cautioned against either group spending a lot of time refining their reports until they know what direction the City
Council wants to go.
Mr. Chave suggested Chair Bowman contact the Chair of the CEDC and Stephen Clifton to discuss the Board's roll in the
presentation to the City Council on January 19"'. He suggested the CEDC would present their portion of the report first, and
the Chair of the Planning Board would follow. The Board could offer support for the ideas and concepts presented in the
CEDC's report, and then provide some additional points of their own. The main focus should be on pushing the overall
agenda of the two groups forward.
Vice Chair Lovell suggested the CEDC's report be renamed so that it is clear that the Board and CEDC reports are separate.
Appendices 2 and 3 could be specifically labeled as the Board's report to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested it would
be appropriate for the Board to reinforce that they participated with the CEDC and they agree on a lot of issues. However,
the Board could include additional points to address their specific concerns.
Vice Chair Lovell cautioned that it is not the Board's role to tell the City Council what to do. Instead, their charge is to
identify areas that could be studied, put forth ideas for consideration, and ask for direction on what the City Council would
like them to work on. He suggested the Board does not necessarily disagree with what is contained in the body of the
CEDC's report. The basic message of the two reports is the same; it is time to do something. He hopes the City Council
recognizes this message and takes the appropriate steps to move forward.
Chair Bowman advised that he plans to make a short and succinct presentation to the City Council to emphasize the main
points of the Board's report. The City Council will have an opportunity to read the report in its entirety, so there is no need
to provide a verbose presentation. He will emphasize the point that the reports provide numerous ideas and the City Council
needs to consider each one and prioritize what they want the two groups to focus on in 2010.
Mr. Chave encouraged Chair Bowman to work with chair of the CEDC to coordinate their presentations. He suggested the
presentation could focus on the list of ideas that is provided on Page 3 of the CEDC's report. He particularly noted that Idea
2 (commitment by the City Council to develop/review/update a strategic plan every year) and Idea 3 (initiate neighborhood
business center plans) have been discussed previously by the Board as part of their work on the Community Sustainability
Element. They have also discussed the issue of fiber optics (Idea 5). In his presentation, he suggested that Chair Bowman
call attention to the Board's report and then highlight the commonality contained in each of the reports. He should
emphasize that more work is needed, but the groups needs further direction from the City Council before they can proceed.
Board Member Clarke said he found it difficult to understanding the verbiage contained in the listed items on Page 3 of the
CEDC's report, particularly Idea 9. He also referred to Idea 4 and recalled the two groups previously agreed that all
references to Harbor Square Redevelopment should be excluded from the final report because it was not their responsibility
to specifically push redevelopment of a particular site. He suggested the City Council should be invited to identify where the
City's additional revenue would come from if the real estate market does not rebound for five to eight years. He noted that
the report does not address this issue, yet the City Council should provide leadership by answering this question.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 5
Board Member Clarke referred to Idea 6 on Page 3 of the CEDC's report and suggested that its meaning is unclear. He
recommended the language be changed to provide a stronger recommendation. He suggested the CEDC's portion of the
report should provide economic development recommendations, followed by the Boards' report, which emphasizes the need
to work collaboratively with the City Council in both planning and realizing actions to achieve sustainability goals. The
Board's report further emphasizes that they are willing to investigate and study a number of factors that have been impeding
efforts to keep pace with surrounding communities as population grows, resources become stretched, and infrastructure and
buildings age. He suggested this direction could provide a starting point for dialogue between the Planning Board and the
City Council, but only if the City Council is committed to finding a solution.
Chair Bowman emphasized that this is an interim report that contains a lot of findings and points out of lot of issues that need
to be resolved. It is imperative that a majority of City Council Members make a commitment to work hand -in -hand with the
CEDC and Planning Board to move forward. It is important that they agree to stay on course to make the hard decisions that
will have an economic impact on the future of Edmonds.
The Board agreed to submit Appendices 2 and 3, as modified further by Board Member Stewart, as the Board's final report
to the City Council. Appendix 2 would be titled, "Planning Board Summary Report for 2009," and Appendix 3 would
become Appendix 1 of the Planning Board Summary Report. Vice Chair Lovell agreed to forward the Board's report to Mr.
Clifton as soon as possible. They agreed the combined report should be re -titled as follows, "Combined Reports from the
City of Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. They agreed that their oral
presentation should emphasize the need for additional direction from the City Council on what items the Board should focus
on in 2010.
Board Member Stewart suggested the Board Members put their frustrations aside and freshen their outlook to extend a
positive invitation for the City Council to work with them in the future. Board Member Cloutier observed that now is an
opportune time to present their report to the City Council before their retreat and when there are new faces on the Council.
Chair Bowman recalled the Board's earlier discussion about the need to bring together all stakeholders in the City, including
the business owners on Highway 99 and other commercial districts. He said he previously talked with Mayor Haakenson
about using the Edmonds Theater for a day -long workshop with various members of the community. The Mayor indicated
support for the idea but cautioned that the City does not currently have money to fund a meeting of this type.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board postponed their review of the extended agenda until the January 27th meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman said he would like the Board to recommend the City Council communicate with them when they appoint new
Board Members. He expressed disappointment that the City Council turned down the application of a very qualified
individual with an exceptional background in architecture because she had differing opinions than some members of the City
Council. He suggested that it is important that boards and commissions in the City include individuals of varying opinions,
and the Planning Board has a better understanding of the type of experience they need in order to make better decisions.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that on December 9th, they postponed their recommendation on the Climate
Action Plan until all Board Members had an opportunity to review it. She noted that she was unable to locate the document
on the City's website, and she agreed to contact Linda Carl to find out how to access the document. The Board agreed to
discuss the Climate Action Plan and take action at their next meeting.
Board Member Clarke expressed appreciation to Vice Chair Lovell and Board Member Stewart for their hard work to
prepare the Board's report to the City Council. He said he was unable to spend a lot of time on the project due to work
related responsibilities.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 6
Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that Mr. McIntosh, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director, sent them
an email asking them to schedule a public hearing to consider names for the City's new park. Chair Bowman agreed to
contact Mr. McIntosh and suggest the hearing be scheduled for either February 1 Oth or February 24th
Chair Bowman welcomed Board Member Cloutier to the Board, and Board Member Cloutier indicated he is excited to serve
on the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2010 Page 7