Loading...
2010-10-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 27, 2010 Vice Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Kevin Clarke Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Kernan Lien, Associate Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT BOARD MEMBER CLARKE BE EXCUSED FROM THE OCTOBER 13, 2010 MEETING. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich said he just came from the meeting regarding the proposal to move the Mukilteo Ferry service to Edmonds. He noted that numerous alternatives were discussed, and Mayor Cooper and Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director, provided comments on behalf of the City. He recommended the Board discuss the issue and forward their comments regarding the issue before the comment period is closed. This would clearly show that the Board is aware of what is going on in the City. Mr. Hertrich referred to Item 6.a on the agenda (Proposed Amendments to the Subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD) Regulations) and pointed out that staff is proposing to eliminate the PRD section and fold the PRD Regulations into the Subdivision Regulations. He recognized that there have not been a large number of PRD's granted into the City, but it is an effective process that allows dimensions that are different than a normal subdivision. He noted that, over time, the PRD Regulations have been dissected and put back together several times with a lot of citizen input. He would hate to lose what people have worked so hard to create. The current process offers a forum for discussion and public awareness of proposed PRD projects. He expressed his belief that the PRD Regulations should be maintained as a separate element of the Development Code. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMNETS TO ECDC 18.48.079 AND ECDC 23.40.240 THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN FINES THAT MAY BE LEVIED TO ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING Mr. Lien advised that in reaction to some recent illegal tree cutting activity in the City, the City Council has received public comments that perhaps the fines are too low to act as a deterrent. The City Council's Community Service/Development Service (CSDS) Committee discussed the issue on September 141h and indicated a desire for the fines to be increased to $1,000 per tree. They further recommended that fines be tripled for trees that are cut illegally on public property, in the rights -of -way or in critical areas. Mr. Lien explained that fines for tree cutting are located in two separate sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) (18.45.070 and 23.40.240). Since ECDC 23.40 is part of the City's Critical Area Regulations, the Planning Board must first consider the proposed changes and make a recommendation to the City Council. He advised that ECDC 18.45 contains proposed changes that would increase the base fine for illegal tree cutting from $500 to $1,000. The fine would be triple for trees within critical areas. A new section (ECDC 18.45.070.D) would also be added to triple the fine for illegal clearing that occurs on public property or within public rights -of -way. As proposed, ECDC 23.40.240.E would be amended to remove the reference to a specific dollar amount and instead provide a reference to the provisions in ECDC 18.45.070. Board Member Cloutier inquired if staff reviewed the International Society of Arborists' method for evaluating trees. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. He said he also researched other jurisdictions in the area and provided a summary of this information as part of the Board's packet. He summarized that some jurisdictions base their fine on the value of the tree. He referred to an article that was published in the Journal of Arboriculture, which compares the various methods for evaluating tree appraisals. He summarized that this approach is subjective, but is an option the Board could consider. Board Member Stewart said she also did some research and found there are numerous formulas for identifying the value of a tree. She voiced concern about the history of developers illegally cutting trees in the City. She expressed her belief that even a $1,000 fee would be small compared to the value of a development project. She suggested the new language identify $1,000 as the minimum fee and that the City could go beyond that depending on the tree's value. She noted that the City of Bellevue has adopted a method based on real estate appraisals and the tree's value to the community. This approach gives them the ability to place a higher fine for removal of trees that have greater monetary values. She suggested the Board consider the option of raising the fee for some trees. The money could be placed in a fund that could be used to incentivize people to plant trees in the right places in the City. Mr. Lien said the City is in the process of forming a Tree Board, and they could be asked to review the tree code and make the fines more sophisticated in the future. The proposed language is intended to be a quick fix to address the current problems on an interim basis. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that the language could be adjusted to identify the $1,000 fine as the minimum rather than maximum. Mr. Clugston commented that, for a number of years, staff has wanted to make real improvements to the tree code. Because the tree regulations are located in two different sections, they are difficult for staff to administer, and it is hard for applicants to gain a clear understanding of what the requirements are. He suggested the Tree Board would be the best group to take on this project to improve the tree regulations. The proposed language is intended to be a stop gap measure. Board Member Stewart asked if the Tree Board would include a certified arborist since the City does not have a full-time arborist on staff. Mr. Lien said he does not know what the make up of the Tree Board would be. Vice Chair Reed questioned if it is within the Board's purview to act on the proposed amendments to ECDC 18.45, since they are not responsible for setting the amount of fines. Once again, Mr. Lien explained that because EDCD 23.40 is part of the City's Critical Areas Regulations, the Planning Board must first consider the proposed changes and make a recommendation to the City Council. He agreed that the Board is only required to act on the proposed amendment to ECDC 23.40, but their comments related to ECDC 18.45 would also be part of the record that is forwarded to the City Council. The Board agreed that based on the way the hearing was advertised, their recommendation should encompass both. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 2 Vice Chair Reed asked if the proposed language would allow the City to base the fine on the value the developer receives for removing a tree. Mr. Lien said this concept is not addressed in the proposed language. This would be a more complicated approach that is based on the value of the tree. It would be very subjective and would likely result in a lot of challenges. However, he acknowledged it is one option they could consider in the future. He noted that the City of Issaquah bases their fee on the economic benefit the developer derives from the violation. Vice Chair Reed asked if the City has any penalty that is more serious than a misdemeanor. Mr. Lien answered no and explained that a misdemeanor violation is considered a criminal offense. Vice Chair Reed asked how the City would administer the per day fine. Mr. Clugston responded that it is difficult to assess the fine on a per day basis. Staff would prefer a per tree fine because it is easier to administer. Mr. Lien explained that a violator may be required to submit a restoration plan by a certain date. If he/she does not comply with the requirement, a fine would be assessed for each day until the plan has been submitted to the City. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that people who participate in illegal tree cutting often feel the penalty is so insignificant that it is worth the cost. He said he does not believe that increasing the fine from $500 to $1,000 is enough to solve the problem. He suggested they raise the fine significantly so the penalty is much more painful. This would stop illegal tree cutting and give the City time to fix the problem right. He asked if the City has a mechanism for requiring violators to pay their fines. Mr. Lien answered that Sections 18.45 and 23.40 do not address this issue, but it may be addressed elsewhere in the code. Board Member Clarke said the code must provide a concrete way to require violators to comply. For example, they could prohibit a violator from selling the property until the fine has been paid. Regarding the idea of significantly increasing the fine, Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the tree cutting regulations are found in two locations of the code. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult for people to figure out exactly what is and is not allowed. He noted that the fines would be applied to single-family property owners as well as developers. He summarized that if the tree regulations were clear as to procedures and penalties, greater fines might be more appropriate. However, the proposed fines are consistent with many other jurisdictions. The City could consider higher fines or fines based on a tree's value if and when they have updated the tree regulations to provide more specific direction. He said this idea was discussed by the CSDS Committee, as well, but they felt the proposed amendments would be appropriate at this time. Roger Hertrich suggested the City consider placing moratoriums on developers who illegally cut trees and not allow the development to proceed for a certain period of time. He felt this would be the best preventative action the City could take and would have addressed the problem that occurred at Point Edwards. The same approach would also discourage developers from cutting trees on public property to increase the value of their property. He said he believes strongly in private property rights, and what he does on his property is his own business. He suggested the City allow private property owners to remove trees from the center of their properties with no permit requirement as long as the trees are not located in critical areas. However, he understands that there must be rules associated with tree removal in setback areas because of the potential impact to adjacent property owners. He summarized that the code should protect private property owners, and at the same time, it should provide a method to handle developers who clear trees to gain a greater profit. He acknowledged there are many questions about how to manage trees in critical areas. If you are a tree person, you want to save every tree, but that is not always the most practical approach. His said his recommendation for a moratorium would be a more practical approach than just a blanket type of rule. THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE WAS IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC PORTION WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Reed observed that making the fine a minimum might create more problems than it would solve. It would force the City staff to consider exactly how high the penalty should be in each situation. He said his impression is that the proposed amendment is intended to raise the fine amount to send a message to discourage illegal tree cutting, but there is a lot more work to be done. He suggested that rather than changing the language to indicate that $1,000 would be the minimum fine, the Board could forward their consensus to the City Council that the fines are not large enough. Board Member Cloutier observed that the Board and staff has similar concerns that additional amendments are needed to fully address the issue. However, the proposed amendments would at least put people on notice that tree cutting violations will not be tolerated in Edmonds. At some point in the future, the Board could discuss other options and clarify the code further. The Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 3 proposed ordinance is intended to be a quick way to address the problem on a short-term basis. Vice Chair Reed suggested that at some point in the future, the Board should consider the method used by Issaquah, which bases the penalty on the economic benefit the violator derives from the violation. Again, Board Member Stewart felt that $1,000 should be stated as a minimum rather than maximum fine. She noted that it would be quite some time before the tree regulations are updated to adequately address the problem. Setting the fine as a minimum would allow staff some flexibility to increase the fine in appropriate situations. She reported on her attendance at an Urban Forestry Symposium at the University of Washington, which was sponsored by the American Planning Association and others. A gentleman provided a presentation on urban forestry services and his suggestion was to place a valuation on each mature tree. He further suggested that a sign be posted at each tree to indicate value and that no trespassing is allowed. She expressed her belief that other jurisdictions are taking bold steps to address the problem, and she likes Mr. Hertrich's idea of placing a moratorium on developers who cut trees illegally. She expressed her belief that the Point Edwards developer should not have been allowed to continue the project when he illegally removed trees. Board Member Johnson observed that if someone is determined to cut a tree to create a view, a $1,000 fine would not really be a deterrent. She also referred to Issaquah's code language, which bases the fine on the economic benefit 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. She summarized that while the proposed language endorses the direction of the CSDS Committee, it would not be a deterrent where view issues are concerned. She expressed her opinion that the way Issaquah and University Place address the issue is worthy of future consideration. Board Member Clarke agreed that the City should base the fine on the economic benefit the violator derives. However, while Issaquah measures the value 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, he felt the value should be based on all three potential benefits. He said he also supports Mr. Hertrich's suggestion that a moratorium be placed on developers who violate the tree code. In a good market, this would be a painful penalty. He expressed his belief that raising the fee to $1,000 as a stop gap measure is insufficient. He suggested the fine be raised to $5,000 per tree and that it be tripled when trees are illegally cut on public property or in critical areas. Board Member Clarke referred to a study recently done by the National Geographic Association that talked about developing high -quality communities based on specific objectives and strict compliance to regulations. He said he does not believe most citizens of Edmonds would have a problem with stiff fines for tree code violations because the vast majority of them would not experience the penalty. Again, he expressed his belief that the fine should be much greater than what is currently being proposed. Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that the level of fines and penalties is the purview of the City Council and not the Planning Board. He noted that all of the Board's discussion would be forwarded to the City Council as part of their recommendation. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to change the language to indicate that the $1,000 fine is the minimum rather than maximum. He recommended the Board forward the proposed language to the City Council with that one change, along with the Board's strong comments that they believe this is just a starting point and the items they discussed need to be seriously considered by the appropriate bodies. He recommended they forward the language, as amended, along with a recommendation that the City Council consider a much higher number. Board Member Stewart felt the Board's recommendation should make it clear that the proposed language is a starting point. Board Member Johnson said that rather than establishing a very high fine, she would rather the penalty be based on the economic value derived from the violation. She supported Board Member Clarke's recommendation that the penalty be formulated based on the increase in market value of the property, value received by the violator and savings of construction costs realized by the violator. Board Member Cloutier suggested the penalty should also address the loss of the environmental value associated with the tree. Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board approve the short-term solution, with the recommendation that the City also pursue the more long-term solution of revising the tree code to address the issues discussed by the Board. Board Member Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 4 Clarke agreed that would be appropriate. He commented that City Council Members are diligent in reading Planning Board minutes, which will clearly portray the Board's thoughts and concerns. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.45.0970 AND ECDC 23.40.240 AS AMENDED TO INDICATE THE $1,000 FEE WOULD BE A MINIMUM. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BOARD'S WISHES TO SEE THE FINE LEVELS SET MUCH HIGHER THAN INDICATED IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Board Member Johnson explained that she voted against the motion because she wanted the Board's direction to the City Council to be more detailed. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PREVIOUS TWO MOTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS PENDING A REVISION OF THE CODE REGARDING THE CUTTING OF TREES TO INCLUDE THREE COMPONENTS: VALUE OF THE TREES, ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE DEVELOPER FROM REMOVING THE TREES, AND THE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS AS A RESULT OF TREE REMOVAL. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING INTERIOR LOT LINES OVERLAPPING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOMENT (PRD) PERIMETER BUFFERS Mr. Clugston recalled that in April the City Council approved an interim ordinance to clarify ECDC 20.35.050.C.2 regarding PRD's and the application of exterior buffers on side setbacks. The code, as previously written, was unclear as to how the buffer and setbacks could be implemented. The proposed amendments are intended to codify the interim ordinance approved by the City Council as a stop gap measure. He reminded the Board that they are in the process of updating the Subdivision and PRD Regulations, and further amendments may be considered as part of this process. Vice Chair Reed noted that the interim ordinance was extended in August, so the new expiration date is February of 2011. However, the City Council has the item scheduled on their agenda for November. Roger Hertrich expressed his belief that the proposed amendment is appropriate and should be approved. However, he expressed concern that the provision addressed in the proposed ordinance would be eliminated as part of the Board's update of the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that, as per staff's recommendation, the PRD section of the code would be eliminated and various elements of it would be folded into the Subdivision Regulations. This could result in a loss of public involvement in the PRD process. He cautioned the Board to very careful as they move forward. THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC PORTION WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the Board just received the first draft of the proposed new Subdivision Regulations, and they have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review its contents. He assured Mr. Hertrich that the PRD regulations would be foremost on the Board's mind as they review and discuss the document at future meetings. Board Member Clarke explained that by recommending approval of the proposed amendment, the Board would acknowledge the public's concern. The new language would remain in place until such time as it is amended as part of the update of the Subdivision and PRD Regulations in the future. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 5 BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.35 AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Board Member Johnson explained that because this interim ordinance does not expire until February 2011, she felt it would be more appropriate for the Board to postpone a recommendation until they have complete their work on the Subdivision and PRD Regulations rather than approving the amendments on an interim basis. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that because of the holidays and the complexity of the Subdivision and PRD Regulations, amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would not likely be adopted before the interim ordinance expires. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) REGULATIONS Board Member Clarke observed that the agenda advertises this item as a continued discussion of the Subdivision and PRD Regulations, yet the Board was not presented with the first draft of the document until yesterday via email. Board Member Cloutier agreed the Board just received the draft proposal, but they have discussed the potential amendments on numerous occasions. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that he has not yet had an opportunity to read, study, analyze and form an opinion on the proposal. Vice Chair Reed explained that the purpose of tonight's discussion is for staff to present and help the Board understand the materials. The issue will be scheduled for continued Planning Board discussion in December. He emphasized that the Board would have further discussion on the proposal before it is scheduled for public hearing. Mr. Clugston apologized for getting the draft proposal to the Board so late, but he reminded them that they have discussed the issue a number of times in the past. He said staff s intent was to present the draft information to the Board and provide a general overview of the elements it contains. The Board could then read through the document and prepare for future discussion in December. Mr. Clugston introduced Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, who has been helping him with the Civil Improvement Section of the proposal. He reminded the Board that the Subdivision Regulations are interrelated with several other sections of the code. He referred to the two documents presented to the Board. The one in landscape format provides a comparison between the existing code language and the proposed new code language. The other document is the proposed subdivision code language in a more readable format. Mr. Clugston reviewed that staff studied subdivision regulations from other municipalities to identify a reasonable flow for the document and identified eight chapter titles that the existing code language would fit within. He advised that notes were provided in the margins of both documents to give the Board an idea of whether the language is new entirely or an update of existing language. He emphasized that this is staff s first iteration of the proposal, and they are still working on additional language related to multi -family site design for town house type subdivisions to include features such as guest parking, shared access, sidewalks, etc. This language would be presented at the Board's next discussion in December. Mr. Clugston reviewed the draft proposal as follows: • General Subdivision Review Process. This flow chart outlines the subdivision review process. The intent is to provide more flow charts and drawings to give people a better idea of how the process works in a fairly streamlined way. Pictures would also be provided to illustrate examples of good development. • Section 26.20.020 — Subdivision Design Priority Criteria. This section will provide design standards for how subdivisions should look. One goal of the rewrite is to incorporate elements of sustainability. The current subdivision regulations were created in the 50s and 60s, and they are very stale. The intent is to update the regulations using guidance from the City Council found in the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, they have included ideas for subdivision design priority criteria. He noted that design criteria already exists in the code, but the proposal pulls the language into the actual Subdivision Regulations to capture the applicant's attention about issues such as tree cutting, clearing and grading, low -impact development, etc. Hopefully, this will improve the end result of future projects. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 6 • Section 26.20.030 — Single -Family Residential (RS) Zone Standards. The Board has talked about lot size and width as something that could be flexible. Flexibility regarding building setbacks is identified in the existing PRD Regulations, but not in the Subdivision Regulations. The Board may want to consider incorporating this flexibility into the Subdivision Regulations, as well. • Section 26.20.040 — Multi -Family Residential (RM) Zone Standards. Staff s intent is to incorporate site design standards for town house type subdivisions. Perhaps there are opportunities to improve site design standards for these types of development. • Section 26.30 — Preliminary Review and Decision. This language exists in the current code, but it has been rearranged to make it more useful. The language has also been referenced to other sections of the code. • Section 26.40 — Civil Improvements. At this time, civil improvement guidance is sparse at best. Right now, the civil improvement requirements are not well written out, and this chapter should help. • Section 26.50 — Final Review and Decision. This language is contained in the existing code in one format or another. Staff is reformatting the information into language that is easier to use and understand. • Section 26.60 — Plat and Planned Residential Development Amendment. The current Regulations contain specific provisions about amendments to approved subdivisions and PRD's. The intent is to incorporate this information into a single chapter that is easier to use. There are currently 60 to 70 existing PRD developments in the City. Going forward, the City needs to have code language that allows them manage these developments when changes are requested. • Section 26.70 — Lot Line Adjustment and Combination. These processes already exist in the code, and the goal is to clarify them and make them easier to use. • Section 26.80 — Application Requirements. The matrix contained in this section identifies all of the application requirements in one location so it is easier for applicants to figure out what they need to do. • Section 21 — Definitions. The intent is to place all definitions found in the PRD and Subdivision Sections into Chapter 21, along with all other code definitions. This will make it easier to use and will be a significant improvement. Many of the definitions already exist and some new ones will be added. • Section 17.40.030 — Nonconforming Lots. The existing language in this section is confusing and needs to be updated to reflect the changes that may take place in the update. In addition, some changes need to be made anyway because several terms are referenced in the section that have no validity and are not defined in the code. Again, Mr. Clugston explained that the purpose of tonight's discussion is to quickly review the draft documents and get a feel for what the language is intended to do. The Board can review the documents and have a more detailed discussion at a future meeting in December. Board Member Clarke asked if the proposed language would apply to commercial and industrial properties, as well. Mr. Clugston answered that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) has a type of subdivision called a binding site plan, which is one way to address commercial subdivisions. However, this concept is not included in the current proposal. He said he does not believe there is a huge need for subdivision criteria for commercial properties at this time, but the Board could consider adding language. He referred to Section 26.20.050, which states that subdivisions in all other zones must comply with the dimensional requirements of the particular zone. Board Member Clarke inquired if the proposed language addresses the issue of condominium platting. Mr. Clugston answered that the RCW has requirements for "condo-ization" through a binding site plan, which is something the Board could consider. However, he noted that subdividing condominium property has never been done in the City. Board Member Clarke said he knows that other jurisdictions have provisions that allow the land beneath condominium units to be platted and owned by individuals. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 7 Board Member Clarke observed that, as a result of the poor economy, there are numerous condominium and subdivision projects in various stages of completion. He asked if the proposed language addresses situations where plats are not fully developed and become a nuisance to the community. Ms. McConnell reviewed that the current code allows a developer to move right from approval of civil improvements to construction, without installing a bond. The newly adopted Surface Water Management Code require sites of a certain size or proposals that disturb a certain amount of soil to post a bond for erosion and stormwater issues. This same time of language would be pulled into the Subdivision Regulations, as well. Regardless of the size of a project, upon civil plan approval, an applicant would be required to post a minimum bond for right-of-way improvements, stormwater management, erosion control, etc. This would provide additional protection to the surrounding properties. She explained that many items in the current Subdivision Regulations will be moved to Title 18, such as bonding. The Subdivision Regulations would provide appropriate references to these items in Title 18. She expressed her belief that stronger language is needed in Title 18 to deal with all situations in the code. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for doing an amazing job on the draft language. She noted that it required a lot of work. From what she has read so far, she sees a lot of forward thinking and careful attention to language that strengthens the code. Vice Chair Reed referred to the comparison document and suggested that further explanation be provided about why staff is proposing to eliminate so many sections. It is important that the Board have a clear understanding prior to the public hearing. He specifically noted that the current PRD Regulations are extensive, and the new language related to PRD's is much smaller. He said it is important to illustrate how each of the elements of the existing PRD Regulations is covered in the new language. Mr. Clugston explained that the intent of the updated Subdivision Regulations is to create lots. Design issues are better addressed in separate design standards. He acknowledged that the proposed language does provide some design criteria for multi -family development to address issues such as shared parking, sidewalks, separation of buildings, etc. He summarized that design standards for single-family residential development could be created at a later date, based on direction from the City Council. He agreed to revisit the comparison document and provide additional explanation and references. Vice Chair Reed asked staff to review the anticipated schedule for moving this item forward. He noted that an additional work session has been scheduled for December 9`h. By that time, Board Members will have had an opportunity to become familiar with the draft language. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that there are still parts of the draft language that have not been completed yet, and he anticipates several more discussions before the document is ready for a public hearing. The main objective of the process is to come up with a streamlined regulation that is easier to use and provides flexibility for creating subdivision lots. Vice Chair Reed suggested the Board may want to have a special work session to discuss the Subdivision Regulations only. He asked if the draft language has been presented to the City Council for comment. Mr. Clugston replied that staff has had discussions with the City Council regarding the general intent of the proposed new language. They know the intent is to incorporate the flexibility of the PRD Regulations into the Subdivision Regulations. However, they have not seen the draft documents. Vice Chair Reed recalled that the Board has been frustrated on previous occasions when they have worked hard on a proposal only to have it rejected by the City Council. There may be some benefit to providing an update to the City Council regarding the general direction of the proposed language. Mr. Clugston said staff does make an effort to keep the City Council up to date. The City Council has provided feedback that if done properly, folding the PRD Regulations into the Subdivision Regulations would be amenable. Vice Chair Reed expressed his belief that if the opportunities for public scrutiny currently found in the PRD Regulations are carried forward to the Subdivision Regulations, nothing would be lost by eliminating the PRD Regulations. Mr. Clugston advised that the current PRD Regulations include a public outreach element that is intended to show the public what the proposed development would look like. If this element is removed, a developer would be allowed to build residential units on the lot just like any other single-family residential development unless the City adopts design standards at some point in the future. The lot standard changes should be fairly easy to grasp and will be very minimal. He pointed out that PRD regulations in the 1970s and 1980s were much more liberal than the current PRD regulations. The PRD concept provides an interesting way to create open space and retain critical areas. But at the same time, it sets those areas apart from the larger community. In 2003, the City Council said they wanted PRD development to look like regularly created subdivisions, with only minor variations. The intent of the proposal is to allow subdivisions to occur without drastically altering the looks of the neighborhood. Another goal is to incorporate low -impact development elements. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 8 Board Member Stewart asked if other jurisdictions in the area are going this same direction of combining PRD and Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Clugston answered that some are moving in this same direction. However, there are numerous options available. Most jurisdictions have "planned development" ordinances, which are radically different than PRD's. Some jurisdictions also have "cottage housing" provisions. He said that many jurisdictions are eliminating their minimum lot size requirements since they inhibit the efficient use of land. While minimum lot size requirements result in uniform subdivisions, they do not offer a lot of flexibility to address site constraints, retain existing trees, etc. He recommended a better approach is to allow developers to make the lots as big as they need to be to accommodate the allowed densities, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. There would be no incentive for developers to create lots that are not buildable, and flexibility is critical in this regard. Board Member Johnson asked if the updated Subdivision Regulations would be bound by the decision the Council makes regarding PRD perimeter buffers. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the current PRD Regulations require an additional exterior buffer around the entire PRD development. Another option would be to employ the current setback standards for the zone, but include some type of buffer or open space requirement. He summarized that the Board would not be limited by the City Council's decision regarding the PRD Regulations. Board Member Johnson asked if there are currently any PRD applications that could reasonably be reviewed by February. Mr. Clugston answered no. Board Member Clarke asked staff to describe the term "zero lot line development." Mr. Clugston said the City's provisions for town house type development are the closest equivalent to "zero lot line development" in Edmonds and allows up to six contiguous units. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that town house type development is not really "zero lot line development." Mr. Clugston agreed it is somewhat different than other municipalities, and the Board could direct them to consider the option further. Board Member Clarke asked how staff decided what elements to include in the proposed new language. Mr. Clugston answered that the elements contained in the draft are issues the Board has discussed on previous occasions, and he has not received guidance from the Board to include additional items. The town house provisions have worked well for the types of development that have occurred in Edmonds. They have not received any requests to plat condominium properties into separate lots. He agreed to consider the issue further and report back to the Board. Board Member Clarke pointed out that some members of the City Council could provide helpful expertise to the Board regarding the proposed language. He questioned how the Board could ensure they get feedback from the City Council early in the process so they can know they are heading in the right direction. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that their job is to review the regulations as a separate body and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Staff will have continued conversations with the City Council so they understand the general direction the Board is heading. The City Council will have an opportunity to review the draft language after the Board has forwarded their recommendation. Vice Chair Reed recalled that in the past, the Board has met jointly with the City Council to discuss specific issues and obtain feedback. Mr. Clugston agreed that might be appropriate after the Board has held a few discussions. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Reed announced that only one Planning Board Meeting is scheduled in November and December. He reviewed that the November 10'h agenda includes a continue discussion on proposed amendments to the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Regulations. A public hearing regarding home occupation code amendments is also scheduled for November 10`". The December 9`" meeting agenda will include a work session on the proposed amendments to the Subdivision/PRD Regulations, a public hearing on the Meadowdale Annexation zoning, and election of 2011 officers. Board Member Johnson suggested that at some point before the end of the year, the Board should have some discussion about the Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Centers. The preliminary data has been collected, and the University of Washington students are preparing a presentation. She suggested the Board will want to participate in the next phase of the project. They should also talk about public participation and how the Board can be involved before the work commences. Vice Chair Reed suggested the Board Members attend the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) meeting at which the students make their presentation. Board Member Johnson agreed to notify the Board Members of when the students are scheduled to present to the CEDC. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 9 Board Member Stewart announced that the Planning Board is invited to attend the CEDC's November 171h meeting from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. where a panel of speakers will be present to discuss the topic, "Growing and Prospering with Green Development." She noted that Sustainable Edmonds has been invited to attend the event, as well. Board Members will receive additional information about the event within the next week. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Reed suggested the Board discuss the proposal to relocate the Mukilteo Ferry to Edmonds. Board Member Johnson said she attended a meeting regarding this issue and learned that the deadline for public comments is November 18th. The Board could discuss the issue at their November 10'h meeting. She reported that Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director, and Mayor Cooper spoke at the meeting and indicated that formal written comments would be submitted regarding the City's position. Mr. Clifton pointed out that there is a final Environmental Impact Statement for the Point Edwards multi - modal site alternative and there is a decision of record regarding two of the other potential alternatives that have to do with the current location of the ferry in Edmonds. Vice Chair Reed asked if minutes of this meeting would be prepared for public information. Ms. Johnson answered that no formal minutes would be prepared, but a website has been set up to accept public comments as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Mr. Clugston noted that the EIS would respond to each of the comments individually. He agreed to seek direction from Mr. Chave about how the Board could add their comments to the record. Vice Chair Reed requested that this item be scheduled on the Board's November 10" agenda for further discussion. Board Member Johnson noted that some improvements are planned for the Mukilteo Ferry in the spring, and riders will be rerouted to Edmonds during that time period. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Clarke suggested the Board schedule a time to review the Planning Board guidelines and update them as appropriate. Once updated, the document could be provided to new Board Members. He noted that the current guidelines indicate that a quorum must be in attendance before a motion can be presented. A quorum is the majority of the Board Members, but any Board action requires approval from at least three members. He suggested the guidelines be updated to address the current situation of having only six Board Members while they wait for the City Council and Mayor to fill the vacant positions. The Board should be allowed to continue their work and take action during times when they are short members. In addition, he noted the guidelines do not identify an official number of Board Members. The Board agreed to place this discussion on their extended agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 27, 2010 Page 10