2010-01-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 27, 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 STAFF PRESENT
Michael Bowman, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Karin Noyes, Recorder
Valerie Stewart
Todd Cloutier BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson Kevin Clarke (excused)
Cary Guenther (excused)
John Reed (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that the December 9, 2009 minutes, which were approved on January 131h, should be
corrected. Council Member Plunkett was attributed to making a statement that was actually made by Council Member
Wambolt.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2009 BE CORRECTED BY
REPLACING "PLUNKETT" WITH "WAMBOLT." CHAIR BOWMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. CHAIR BOWMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION TO CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Chair Bowman expressed frustration that while the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) and Planning
Board had a lot of information to report to the City Council, they were only given 45 minutes to make their presentations.
However, each of the City Council Members has a copy of the entire written report, and the matter is now in their hands. He
particularly thanked Vice Chair Lovell and Board Member Stewart for their hard work preparing the Board's portion of the
report.
Vice Chair Lovell said that at their monthly meeting with Mayor Haakenson, he asked him to share his perspective on how
specific items in the reports would be pursued based on City Council direction. Mayor Haakenson expressed his belief that it
would be the CEDC's responsibility to move the items forward, but issues that require Development Code and/or
Comprehensive Plan amendments would come before the Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City
Council. For example, one item on the ECDC's list is a Port of Edmonds Master Plan. Mr. Chave explained that he is not
sure what, if any, changes the Port would request, but they have indicated by letter their desire to potentially update their
plan. Any master plan proposal would be initiated by the Port, and the Board would be responsible for conducting a public
hearing and making a recommendation to the City Council since the change would involve an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. He summarized that any issues that involve Comprehensive Plan and/or Development Code
amendments would be brought before the Board at the direction of the City Council.
Board Member Stewart observed that some people may have been frustrated with the combined report since it contained a lot
of brainstorm ideas. She noted that the report did provide some helpful information and facts about the business
community, as well. She expressed disappointment that the Board and CEDC were not able to align their goals and present a
common message to the City Council on their recommended course of action. She expressed her belief that while a lot of
good ideas were raised during the CEDC's brainstorming sessions, most of them did not get into the report in such a way that
the City Council could sink their teeth into them. She summarized her belief that in order to report to the City Council in a
helpful way, they need more input from the City Council, the business community, property owners, developers, etc. She
suggested the Board meet with the City Council and CEDC at some point in the future to discuss how to move forward in a
way that involves the citizens in a productive manner.
Chair Bowman said he sensed that one of the CEDC's biggest concerns is that even if a property is "shovel ready" now, it
will be years before a project will return significant investment dollars to the City. Therefore, it is important that the City
start now. He summarized that the Board and CEDC did a great job of collecting data and presenting it to the City Council.
At this point, however, it is up to the City Council to decide how they want to move forward. He suggested it is time for the
Board to move on to other projects until the City Council forwards them specific direction regarding economic development.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the CEDC's report was intended to be an interim report that highlights ideas. It was not
intended to be an all-inclusive list of what they have been discussing or their ultimate proposal.
Board Member Stewart recommended the Board work to foster a relationship with the City Council and CEDC that is non -
adversarial and forward their recommendations to the City Council in a positive way. There are some creative minds in the
community, and the Board will continue to have the opportunity to speak up and be as positive as possible. Chair Bowman
agreed, but reiterated that the economic development issue is now in the City Council's hands, and the Board must wait to
see how they want to move forward.
REVIEW OF 2010 PLANNING BOARD WORK PROGRAM
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed 2010 Planning Board Work Program, which outlines potential items that will
come before the Planning Board in 2010. He noted that, in addition to the items on the list, unforeseen items would also
likely come up throughout the year. He reviewed each of the items on the list as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
• Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Water Plan. Mr. Chave advised that each year, the City
reviews a certain number of Comprehensive Plan amendments, and staff is currently in the process of updating the
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Water Comprehensive Plan. The draft language should be available for Board
review and a public hearing by mid year.
• Update to Policy Discussion in Public Utilities Chapter of Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave explained that from this
point forward, staff would continue to prepare individual Comprehensive Plans for utilities, transportation, etc., but the
overall policies would be incorporated into the main Comprehensive Plan document. This would allow the City to have
all their policy direction in one document. The first opportunity to move in this direction will be with the Stormwater
Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2010 Page 2
Comprehensive Plan and Water Comprehensive Plan. These two documents would be adopted by reference into the
Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, but the policy language in the Public Utilities Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan would be updated at the same time.
• Update to Capital Facilities Element. Mr. Chave advised that this update is intended to run parallel to the budget
process in the third quarter of 2010. It will involve an interactive process to identify capital facilities for the next 6-year
period to inform budget decisions. He reminded the Board that 2010 is a budget year, so it is also the appropriate time to
update the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Bowman inquired if the Capital Facilities Plan would include maintenance projects, too. Mr. Chave answered that
the Capital Facilities Plan only identifies major capital expenditures, and not maintenance projects.
• Update to Economic Development Plan. Mr. Chave explained that this item was placed on the work program as a
placeholder, depending on direction from the City Council after continued discussions with the CEDC. If potential
changes to the City's Economic Development Element are identified, they would be presented to the Board for review, a
public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council.
• Comprehensive Plan Framework (Compatibility with Vision 2040). Mr. Chave said he would like to accomplish this
project in 2010, depending on staff and Board time. However, it is possible the Legislature will extend the deadline for
updating the plan to as late as 2014. He recalled that the Regional Visions 2040 Plan was updated relatively recently, and
it contains a fair amount of policy direction that will require changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan. At this time, the
City's Comprehensive Plan references the Vision 2020 document. He expressed his belief that it is important for the City
to update their Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible to be consistent with the new regional plan. He said that while it
will be relatively easy to adjust the overall vision statements in the City's current Comprehensive Plan to be consistent
with Vision 2040, it will be more difficult to implement the new target population numbers. He summarized that while
staff would like to get to this project in 2010, it is not a State requirement.
• Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Land Use and Urban Design. Mr. Chave said this review would be a follow
up to the Vision 2040 discussion, and it is unlikely the Board will move forward with the project in 2010. At this time,
staff is waiting to see what the Legislature does in terms of timing requirements. Originally, the City anticipated grant
funding to help with the project, but the State has withdrawn all grant dollars. That is one of the reasons the State is
considering a deadline extension.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if there is current legislation that would postpone the deadline for Comprehensive Plan updates.
Mr. Chave answered that there is, and staff is keeping track of its progress. In addition, the legislation is supported by the
Association of Washington Cities. He reminded the Commission that Snohomish County goes through a regional process
of allocating population and setting urban boundaries. He pointed out that Snohomish County requires local jurisdictions
to update their comprehensive pans to be consistent with the regional plan every ten years, with the next being in 2015.
On the other hand, the State requires local jurisdictions to update their comprehensive plans to be consistent with new
Growth Management Act requirements every seven years, with the next being in 2011. Mr. Chave summarized that,
regardless of the state deadline, the City must update their policies to be consistent with Vision 2040. Otherwise, the City
could have difficulty obtaining certification, which is tied to federal transportation dollars.
• Streetscape Plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Parks Department is in the process of making some minor changes to
the Streetscape Plan, which would be presented to the Board for review in 2010.
• Comprehensive Plan provisions Mandating Hearing Examiner Review of Projects and Property Decisions. Mr.
Chave advised that in the 1980's and early 1990's before the Growth Management Act, the City's Comprehensive Plan
was part of Title 15 of the Development Code. When the new Comprehensive Plan was created in 1994, it became its
own document, but much of the existing language from the 1980's remained in the plan. This included a provision that
the Hearing Examiner is supposed to make recommendations on a variety of things prior to adoption by the City Council.
Since that time, the City's Codes have been substantially updated so that the decision -making process happens elsewhere.
However, the Comprehensive Plan was never updated to be consistent. The purpose of this update is to review the
Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2010 Page 3
Comprehensive Plan and determine if there are other review processes in place to make the Hearing Examiner review
obsolete and unnecessary.
• Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave reported that staff has been working on the Shoreline Master Program Update
for several years, and they are close to obtaining final sign off on the draft by the Department of Ecology. Once the
Department of Ecology has signed off on the draft, it would be available for public and Planning Board review and
comment. Staff expects this to happen sometime in 2010. He cautioned that the document is very large, and the City is
required to adopt their Shoreline Master Program Update by 2011.
• Port of Edmonds Master Plan Update. Mr. Chave advised that this was placed on the work plan as a placeholder. The
Port has indicated their desire to put forth a Master Plan update in 2010, but they would not be required to do so.
Code Revision Proiects
• Title 16 — Zoning Classifications. Mr. Chave explained that in recent years, various revisions have been made to the
code, including the non-conformance, nuisance, and process sections. However, there is a significant amount of work
remaining. For example, clarification is needed in Title 16 because the various uses do not track with the zoning
classifications. Staff intends to move towards a matrix similar to what was used for the BD zones. This would allow
people to see from a glance what uses are allowed in each of the various zones.
Chair Bowman asked if staff anticipates this issue would be controversial. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate a lot of
controversy because the update would not involve a significant change to the existing uses patterns. Instead, the goal
would be to simplify the existing language and provide clarification.
• Title 17 — Zoning Standards. Mr. Chave explained that this is an opportunity for the Board to revisit issues that have
not been considered for a number of years, such as the outdoor dining and home occupation provisions. Currently,
provisions for outdoor dining trigger the conditional use permit process, which may not be an appropriate approach. He
clarified that outdoor dining relates to dining that takes place outside of the public rights -of -way, and bistro dining is
typically tables that are located on the sidewalks and within the public rights -of -way. He noted that home occupation is
currently being brought before a Committee of the City Council for possible referral to the Planning Board. He advised
that the sustainability element encourages home -based businesses, and code changes would likely be required to
implement this goal.
• Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Chave announced that staff has been working on revisions to the subdivisions
regulations for quite some time, and they should have draft language ready for the Board's review by the second quarter
of 2010. Their goal is to improve the language to make it consistent with state laws and to integrate new design standards
such as low -impact development.
Park Issues
• Park Naming. Mr. Chave announced that the Board would conduct a public hearing on potential names for the City's
new Park on February 10t'.
• Periodic Updates and Reports. Mr. Chave advised that Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Manager, would provide periodic updates and reports to the Board throughout the year. He would also provide more
details about projects that would come before the Board during 2010.
City Council Referrals
• Economic Development (with CEDC). Mr. Chave referred the Board to their previous discussion regarding economic
development.
Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2010 Page 4
Highway 99 Parking Standards. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council recently referred this issue to the Planning
Board for review. He explained that until the 1990's, the City had a traditional Development Code where every use or
classification of use had a specific parking standard attached to it. This created a problem, particularly in the downtown,
when buildings were constructed for one type of use and later changed to another. Oftentimes, these changes resulted in
a much higher parking requirement than what could be accommodated on site, and property owners were forced to lease
off -site parking. In recent years, this problem was resolved in the downtown by establishing a flat rate parking
requirement. A property owner was only required to supply a certain number of parking spaces per square foot of
building space, regardless of the use. Existing buildings were grandfathered in so that the existing parking was
considered adequate to meet the parking requirement. This required businesses to make their own decisions about
whether or not there was adequate parking to serve their customers' needs. He reminded the Board that a parking study
was conducted several years ago, which indicated there was plenty of parking available in the downtown, but that
management was not adequate. Based on this information, the City changed the rules when the BD zones were put in
place. Currently, there is no commercial parking requirement in the BD zones, but parking is still required for residential
uses.
Mr. Chave suggested it is now time to consider changing the parking standards for other areas of the City. The changes
have been very successful in the downtown, and they have made it much easier for businesses to locate. This is
important in order to meet the City's goals for sustainability. He suggested it would make sense to consider a similar
approach on Highway 99. However, he said he would not likely recommend that the parking standards be removed
entirely. Instead, they could move towards a flat rate requirement regardless of the type of use. This would make it
easier for the business environment. Also, in areas where transit -oriented development is encouraged, it may be desirable
to eliminate the parking requirement entirely. However, this provision should only apply to properties that are not
located adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. It is important to approach the issue carefully to ensure that spill over
parking from commercial zones does not impact the surrounding neighborhoods.
• Homeless Shelters. Mr. Chave pointed out that the City's current regulations do not address the issue of homeless
shelters. The City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance, and the Planning Board must review the ordinance,
conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation back to the City Council.
• Title 20 Procedures. Mr. Chave recalled that at their first meeting in January, the City Council passed an interim
ordinance reinstituting an appeal provision that makes all Type III-B Actions Hearing Examiner Decisions that are
appealable to the City Council. The Board must review the interim ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and forward a
recommendation back to the City Council. In addition to the interim ordinance, staff is recommending additional changes
to this section of the Code. For example, when the chapter was last updated, public notice requirements were all put on
the applicant, and there is now serious doubt about whether this makes sense. Because the City of Edmonds has a lot of
one-time applicants, they are not always familiar with the public notice process, and a lot of staff time is needed to help
them through it. There have also been some problems obtaining the certificate of mailing because the post office has
been inconsistent with how they deal with applicants. Staff will likely recommend that some of the public notice
requirements be brought back under City control, but the applicant could still be responsible for dealing with posting the
sign, etc.
• Wireless Facilities Regulations Update. Mr. Chave advised that wireless providers are proposing things that are
outside of the City's current code language. Technology has changed, and the City's codes do not anticipate these
changes. For example, the City received a request by a Public Utility District to take out an existing wooden pole and
replace it with a larger concrete pole that looks more like a monopole, which is something the City has discouraged but is
not formally addressed in the regulations. He cautioned the Board that at the public hearing regarding this issue, they
cannot consider public testimony regarding public health issues. They can only address what can physically be
constructed and where.
Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2010 Page 5
Other Items
• Sustainability Implementation. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council adopted the Community
Sustainability Element and indicated their desire to track the City's progress. The Planning Board has been charged with
coming up with a program to monitor the plan's implementation. At a minimum, the Board could talk about identifiable
measures for tracking sustainability. Also, as the City Council refers economic development issues to the Board that fall
within the arena of sustainability, the project could become larger.
• Stormwater Code and Low -Impact Development Provisions. Mr. Chave suggested that the policies in the
Community Sustainability Element should be factored into all future Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments to ensure consistency. For example, when the Board reviews the Stormwater Code, they should consider
opportunities to incorporate sustainability concepts.
• Five Corners, Westgate Neighborhood Plans and Implementation. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that in 2009 a
private applicant approached the City with a proposal to update the Firdale Village zoning. He said staff would rather not
wait for more private applicants to come forward to address potential changes to Five Corners and Westgate. However,
he acknowledged both would be significant projects.
• Edmonds Landing (Rezone and Development Agreement). Mr. Chave recalled that both the CEDC and the Planning
Board's Economic Development Report to the City Council included a recommendation that the City support a rezone
and development agreement for the Edmonds Landing property. Because this effort will take money to fund a consultant
to help staff move the project forward, they will present the project to the City Council at their upcoming retreat. If the
project moves forward, a quasi-judicial rezone application would be presented to the Board for review, a public hearing,
and a recommendation to the City Council. However, the project is currently in the very preliminary stages and must still
go through the State Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Impact Statement processes. A determination has not
been issued, and the applicant is still in the process of supplementing their application information.
Mr. Chave advised that decisions the City Council makes during their upcoming retreat could have an impact on the Board's
extended agenda. Once the City Council has identified their priorities, staff would meet with the Board's Chair and Vice
Chair to schedule the items on the extended agenda.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that their February loth agenda includes a public hearing on potential names for the City's
new park. Staff may also have additional information to present regarding wireless facilities and/or homeless shelters. He
reminded the Board of the City Council's retreat that is scheduled for February 5th and 6th in the Senior Center, and noted
that the meetings would be open to the public.
Mr. Chave invited Board Members Cloutier and Johnson to contact either him or Diane Cunningham to arrange a time to
meet with staff to discuss their questions and obtain more information.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
The Board welcomed Kristiana Johnson as their newest Board Member.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
January 27, 2010 Page 6