Loading...
2010-12-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 8, 2010 Chair Lovell 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 Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Planner Gina Coccia, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING FOR THE MEADOWDALE BEACH AREA ANNEXATION Ms. Coccia presented the staff report. She explained that the "Meadowdale Beach Area" annexation refers to a small area within unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68th Avenue West that has expressed interest in being annexed into the City of Edmonds. Earlier in the year, the City Council agreed to accept a petition signed by at least 60% of the property owners living in the area. This petition has been submitted and is currently being certified by the County. The City Council also decided it would be appropriate to identify the zoning the City would apply to the properties prior to the annexation. After the public hearing, the Planning Board would be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council as to what the appropriate zoning would be for the subject properties. Ms. Coccia explained that there are 48 lots in the neighborhood, which is approximately 18.5 acres in size. The lots are developed with single-family homes built in the 1960s and 1970s. Most lots are 0.29 acres (about 12,600 square feet) in size, and staff recommends that RS- 8 zoning seems to be the best fit and most consistent. She referred to Attachment 3, which provides a comparison of the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County single-family development standards. She advised that in order to prevent a situation where a number of properties have nonconforming issues if annexed into Edmonds, it is appropriate to pick a zoning designation that best matches up with the current County zoning designations. Because most of the lots are in the 12,000 square foot range, the lot area for the RS-20 is too large. In contrast, the lot area for the RS-6 zone is too small. The setbacks required for the RS-12 zone are large in comparison and would make many of the existing homes nonconforming. The RS-10 zone requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, but the setbacks are large like the RS-12. RS-8 seems to be a good fit because setbacks are smaller and more in line with the existing setbacks. It will not likely create situations where properties are subdivided because 16,000 square feet would be needed for a short subdivision and most of the properties are in the 12,000 to 14,000 square foot range. Both the existing zoning and the proposed RS-8 zoning provide a minimum lot width of 70 feet. She summarized that staff believes that RS-8 zoning would be the best match. Ms. Coccia reviewed that the signatures on the petition must be certified by the County Assessor within 180 days of collection. If accepted by the Council, the next step would be for staff from Edmonds and Lynnwood to consider an Interlocal Agreement. If the final 60% petition is accepted by the Council, staff would submit the application to the Boundary Review Board for a decision. If approved by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council would finalize the ordinance. Board Member Clarke referred to Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the Plat Map (Attachment 2), which are the largest lots in the neighborhood at approximately 16,000 square feet. He particularly noted that clearing, grading or building is restricted beyond the dashed line on the map. Ms. Coccia said the plat map was recorded in 1973, and since that time, the City has adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance that provides topographical data to help the City determine what would be reasonable if someone wants to build on the western portion of these properties, which is a steep slope. Board Member Clarke recalled previous comments by Mr. Chave that private covenants are not recognized as land use laws by the City. He asked if the proposed RS-8 zoning would also restrict development in the western portions of these four properties. Ms. Coccia explained that an applicant would be required to submit geotechnical studies as part of any development application for this area because of the steep slope. Board Member Clarke summarized that because of the steep slope, it is highly unlikely that any of the lots would be subdivided if the zoning is changed to RS-8. Ms. Coccia observed that these lots are larger than others in the subdivision because of the steep slopes. Steep slopes are very difficult, if not impossible, to develop. Chair Lovell asked if the western portions of Lot 4, 5 and 6 are unbuildable because of the steep slope. Ms. Coccia reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is to discuss appropriate zoning for the subject properties and not the specific single-family development standards and critical areas ordinance. Again, she suggested the four lots are larger because of the steep slopes on the site. Board Member Clark noted that the houses are developed close to the street curb, and because there is no address assigned to Lot 6, he assumes it is undeveloped at this time. Ms. Coccia added that two of the lots are held under a single ownership. Board Member Clarke recalled the Planning Board raised the issue of whether properties could be subdivided based on the proposed RS-8 zoning. After additional research, staff concluded that there is a very low probability that any of the lots could be subdivided. Ms. Coccia observed that these lots are much larger than the other lots in the neighborhood, which skews the average lot size numbers. The most common lot size in the neighborhood is 12,000 square feet. Board Member Clark pointed out that a property owner would need 16,000 square feet of property in order to subdivide. Ms. Coccia reminded the Board that other development standards would also apply. Chair Lovell pointed out that Lots 4, 5, and 6 are much larger than the other lots in the neighborhood. Taxes are based on land area even though a large portion of the properties is undevelopable because of the steep slope. Ms. Coccia replied that the County allows a different tax rate for properties that are located on steep slopes, and property owners can contact the County to work out these issues. Board Member Clarke said it is important to establish a clear record related to the ability of these lots to subdivide at some point in the future. If the annexation is approved, the property owners could approach the City with a request for some type of an opinion that the land areas are not buildable if the County has assessed the lots as though they could be subdivided. He explained that a property's assessed value is assigned by the Snohomish County Assessor not the City, and property owners could use this information to appeal to the tax assessor. Ms. Coccia cautioned that the City cannot say that the lots can never be subdivided. If a property owner submits an application that appears feasible, it would be processed by staff. She noted that the properties are located next to Lund's Gulch so they would be difficult to subdivide in the future. Even if the lots could be subdivided based on the proposed RS-8 zoning, staff is still recommending that RS-8 zoning is the most appropriate designation for the subject properties. At the very most, it would only result in two to three more lots. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 2 Board Member Clarke pointed out that staff carefully reviewed how the properties that are currently zoned R-9600 by Snohomish County would be impacted by a zoning change to RS-8000. They have determined that by using RS-8 zoning, the properties would not become legal non -conforming uses. The goal is to provide property owners with flexibility. Ms. Coccia explained that any new addition would have to meet the City's current development standards for the RS-8 zone, but RS-8 zoning would place the properties closer to achieving the requirements. The larger zoning designations have more onerous setback requirements. Lynn Tresler, Edmonds, said she was one of the property owners who initiated the annexation process. She became involved when she read in the local newspaper that the City of Lynnwood was planning to annex the area. She and her husband and neighbors circulated three different petitions, and the vast majority of the residents of the neighborhood have indicated their support of annexation into the City of Edmonds. She said she was presented at the initial meeting with Mayor Haakenson and a former City Planner that took place about two years ago. An official from Lynnwood was present, as well. The property owners were under the impression that Lynnwood and Edmonds had already indicated support for the annexation if that is what the residents wanted. She expressed concern that now staff is saying the City must obtain formal approval from the City of Lynnwood before the annexation can move forward. She summarized that they have already circulated three petitions, and she thought the City had already had a discussion with Lynnwood and they were okay with the annexation going forward. Ms. Coccia explained that the area is within Lynnwood's urban growth area, which means they have plans to annex the area at some point in the future. If the City Council approves the annexation, it will be forwarded to the Boundary Review Board to make the final decision. At that time, it would be helpful to have Lynnwood's support. She said she understands Ms. Tresler is concerned that they have spent so much time preparing and circulating petitions without any assurance that Lynnwood will support the annexation. She reminded the Board that the annexation process is not the subject of the public hearing, but she would be happy to review the process with Ms. Tresler at some other time. She encouraged members of the audience to share their comments about the appropriateness of the proposed RS-8 zoning. Scott James, Edmonds, said he has signed two annexation petitions, and he supports the proposed RS-8 zoning. He said he appreciates the staff s effort to understand Ms. Tresler's concern. He said he has been before the Boundary Review Board on previous occasions working for city government. He expressed his belief that with the number of supporters who have signed the petition, he does not expect the Boundary Review Board would encounter a lot of objection from the City of Lynnwood. The level of support for the annexation is high. He encouraged the City and the neighborhood to develop a relationship with the City of Lynnwood so that issues can be resolved before the application comes before the Boundary Review Board. Mr. James said he appreciates the Board's detailed questions to staff. He reminded the Board that once a property is annexed into the City it must comply with all of the City's existing land use codes and regulations, including the Critical Areas Ordinance. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Johnson said that when she tried to evaluate the zoning question, she looked at the first replat of the Meadowdale by the Sound development. She compared the information on this map to the site standards for residential development and found it is closest to the RS-12 zoning designation as it relates to minimum lot area and maximum density. As to minimum lot width, most of the properties seem to meet the standards for the RS-12 zoning designation. Where the widths are smaller, they would not meet the RS-8 width requirements, either. Street setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and parking requirements are the same for the RS-8, RS-10 and RS-12 zones. The most significant differences between the three zoning designations are the side and rear setbacks. The RS-8 zone has a side setback of 7'/z feet and a rear setback of 15 feet. The side setback in the RS-10 and RS-12 zones is 10 feet, with a 25 foot rear setback. Board Member Johnson advised that she visited the site and found that most of the development is between 30 and 40 years old. It is an established neighborhood with some newer homes, as well. It appears there is little likelihood for additional short plats and subdivisions within the original plats. The real question is about nonconforming uses if people choose to expand their homes. Staff is recommending RS-8 zoning because it provides the maximum flexibility for residents. Ms. Coccia thanked Board Member Johnson for bringing up the issue of non-conformance. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 3 Board Member Clarke said he lives in an area that was annexed into the City in 1995, and he appreciates staff s approach of allowing more flexibility. He knows what it is like to own property that is identified as legal nonconforming as a result of grandfathering. He said he supports the proposed RS-8 zoning, which has a 15-foot rear setback requirement. The 25-foot rear setback of the RS-10 and RS-12 zones could create several nonconforming properties. He felt that RS-8 zoning would be fair for the property owners. While most property owners would not be able to subdivide their property, they may want to make changes in the future. The zoning designation should be flexible enough to allow these changes to occur. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION OF RS-8 ZONING FOR THE PROPOSED AREA OF ANNEXATION. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) REGULATIONS Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that prior to their October 27t1i meeting, he provided a comparison table with the current code sections in the right hand column and the updated text in the left (Attachment 1). The newest version of Attachment 1 contains additional existing PRD language that was inadvertently left out of the right column of the October 27th document. Attachment 2 is a clean version of the draft, with no changes from the October 27th meeting. Attachment 3 is a copy of the excerpt minutes from the October 27th meeting. He reminded the Board that while the draft language (Attachment 2) was provided at their October 27th meeting, there was not a lot of discussion. The Board Members agreed to review the document in preparation for tonight's discussion. Staff is anticipating further direction from the Board. Mr. Clugston referred to Section 26.20, which contains the single-family design standards, which determine how a lot looks. Section 26.20.010 describes the purpose of the design standards. To prepare Section 26.20.020, staff used the same approach as that used for the wireless regulations. A criteria checklist was added to identify the elements of design the City wants developers to consider when designing a subdivision. While many of the criteria already exist in other parts of the code, referencing them in this subsection will remind applicants to consider and value environmental factors when creating lots. The intent is to have subdivisions be designed with nature as opposed to being forced onto the land. The goal is to encourage developers to consider more sustainable options. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that now, more than ever, the City is trying to encourage tree retention. Commonly, when properties are subdivided, they are cleared of all vegetation and divided into uniform lots. The recommended approach encourages developers to consider options for designing sites so that existing vegetation can be protected. The same approach would be used for critical areas and clearing and grading. It is also important that developers look for opportunities to incorporate low -impact development techniques to minimize site disturbance and impervious coverage and maintain the existing site hydrology. On -site energy generation is a new concept, but there may be opportunities going forward to use ground source heat pumps to obtain more local energy as well as from solar. This option will depend on how the lots are arranged to maximize solar access. Mr. Clugston explained that lot standards for both the single and multi -family zones are contained in Section 26.20.030 and 26.20.040 respectively. The standards for single-family zones integrate some of the PRD design criteria for sites but leave out the criteria for individual buildings. He suggested that building criteria could be the subject of a future discussion regarding design standards for development in single-family zones, but they are not relevant to the act of parcel creation. He explained that the goal of the rewrite is to include flexibility in lot creation as part of doing any subdivision rather than having to do the separate PRD process as well as the subdivision process. Keeping density constant, lots created under the proposed code could vary in size and width just as they currently do under the PRD process. For example, new lots created today in the RS-8 zone must have a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and be 70 feet wide unless the standards are reduced through the PRD process. Using the proposed code, newly created lots would not have to meet the minimum size or width requirements. This could lead to a two -lot subdivision where a larger lot is created that retains existing trees and protects critical areas while allowing for a smaller lot, as well. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Clugston referred to Section 26.30.030.A.1, which would allow lot sizes to be reduced so dwelling units could be shifted to the most suitable locations in order to maintain as many healthy trees as possible. Section 26.30.030.A.2 would allow modifications to the minimum lot width. Further discussion could include modifications to the setback and lot coverage requirements. He summarized that the maximum density for each of the residential zones would remain the same, but the shapes and sizes of the lots could be different in order to preserve natural features and allow low -impact development to occur. Mr. Clugston explained that Section 26.30.040 codifies the existing townhouse interpretation into the multi -family zone standards and describes how lots can be created in multi -family zones. He said that while there was originally some desire to include additional design standards for townhouse subdivisions as part of this update, it became apparent after reviewing some recent multi -family developments that there is little difference between how units in townhouse subdivisions function versus those in a condominium or rental development (see Attachment 5). Future work could include establishing design standards for access, guest parking, cottage development, etc. but these concepts are not relevant to the creation of lots through the subdivision chapter and would be more appropriately discussed as part of a larger discussion of the multi -family zone in general. Board Member Stewart expressed appreciation for the attention staff gave to preserving the natural features of a site. The proposed language places an emphasis on low -impact development, which is a good direction. Chair Lovell referred to Section 24.40.060.A, which states that preliminary plats of formal subdivisions will expire at the end of 7 years. Mr. Clugston clarified that the State legislature changed the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) so that preliminary approval of formal subdivisions would last seven years instead of five. It was felt that, given the current economic conditions, it may be difficult for developers to get the final plat process completed within a 5-year timeframe. The proposed language came directly from the RCW. The 7-year provision would revert by to 5 when the temporary change expires on December 31, 2014. Chair Lovell referenced Section 26.80.040.2.d related to stormwater. He asked if the 50% impervious surface limitation would conflict with a developer's ability to develop a subdivision that exceeds 50% impervious surface but mitigates the impact using low -impact development techniques for stormwater runoff. Ms. McConnell answered that the language would not conflict with developers who want to use low -impact development techniques such as pervious pavement. She explained that low -impact development techniques are a way to manage stormwater runoff on site. However, they do not manage 100% of the stormwater, so a developer would only receive partial credit for the technique. It is important to keep in mind that the City's current code does not have any restrictions on the amount of impervious allowed on site. A developer could develop a site with 100% impervious area as long as the project meets all the stormwater management requirements. The goal of the 50% restriction is to encourage developers to reduce environmental impacts by using low -impact development. Chair Lovell asked if the proposed language would provide flexibility for the City to allow a developer to exceed the 50% impervious surface limitation by receiving credit for the low -impact development techniques they incorporate into the project. Ms. McConnell answered that the intent is that developers would be credited for using low -impact development techniques to handle stormwater management on site. Board Member Stewart summarized that a developer would receive partial credit for a green roof because it would reduce the effective impervious surface. Ms. McConnell agreed that a green roof would satisfy some but not all the stormwater requirement. The credit will depend on the type of low -impact development technique that is used. Board Member Clarke asked if the 50% impervious surface restriction would apply to multi -family residential zones, too. Ms. McConnell said that is not the intent of the proposed language. Multi -family residential projects would go through the normal building process that is already established by code. The 50% impervious surface restriction would only apply to the subdivision code. She agreed this should be clarified if the Board decides to move forward with the concept. Board Member Clarke referred to Attachment 5 and explained that whether the units are rented or owned is irrelevant. However, how the properties are legally platted is very relevant. For example, a condominium plat could be developed with detached single-family units and a common lawn area. He asked if staff has considered ownership flexibility to accommodate these newer forms of legal ownership. Mr. Clugston answered that the purpose of Attachment 5 was to Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 5 illustrate that there are a number of options for multi -family residential development, but whether the units are rented or owned is irrelevant from a subdivision perspective. He cautioned that the subdivision regulations are not the appropriate location to address design standards for either multi or single-family residential zones. If the Board wants to change the design standards, they should do so as part of a comprehensive review of the design standard sections. Board Member Clarke observed that two identical projects could have different legal rights based on how the properties are platted. A property could be platted to create separate lots for each unit, or it could be platted to create a common area that is owned by all. The setback requirements for each type of development would be very different. Chair Lovell suggested that addressing this issue is beyond the scope of the Board's current discussion related to zoning requirements for multi and single-family subdivisions. Mr. Clugston referred to Coopers Crest, a townhouse subdivision that was approved in 2007. There is a six -unit multi -family development on the southern portion of the property and the remainder of the site was subdivided into individual single- family lots. Board Member Stewart asked why the current code limits townhouse subdivisions to six units per building. She suggested that a higher number of smaller units may be a more sustainable option. Mr. Clugston answered that the current interpretation of the code allows six units per building. He said the number may have to do with building code requirements, but he would research the issue further and report back to the Board. Chair Lovell referred to the proposed process for a major subdivision approval, which requires civil and site plan drawings before a development permit can be approved. He asked if this would change the current process used by the City for reviewing subdivisions. Ms. McConnell answered that the proposed language reflects the City's current process for reviewing subdivision applications, but it makes the requirements clearer. She said staff spends a lot of time talking to applicants at the counter about the City's three -step process of preliminary, civil and final review. Chair Lovell asked if the City's process is consistent with other jurisdictions. Ms. McConnell answered that, in general terms, most jurisdictions have similar requirements that include civil construction drawings to show that all code requirements can be met. However, she said she cannot say the City's process is exactly the same as other jurisdictions in the area. Chair Lovell cautioned against throwing up additional road blocks for potential developers by increasing the permit application requirements. Mr. Clugston expressed his belief that the City's process is very similar to the processes used by other jurisdictions throughout the Puget Sound area. The proposed language would not change the process that has been used by the City for the past 30 years. The proposed changes are intended to clarify the language. Board Member Stewart encouraged staff to contact some of the forward -thinking jurisdictions in the area to see how they address the issue of impervious surface. If the City does come to the conclusion that they want to recommend a 50% restriction for impervious surface, they should provide options for the developer to implement low -impact development techniques to offset the more stringent requirement. It would be helpful for developers to have a clear understanding of the benefits associated with sustainable building. Board Member Clarke referred to Attachment 4 and questioned why fractions are used for the maximum density numbers. He asked if the number would be rounded up or down. Mr. Clugston referred to Note 1, which states that the number of lots or units permitted would be rounded down to the nearest whole number. Chair Lovell pointed out that a property owner would only receive a benefit from the fraction amount if they were developing a large subdivision. Board Member Clarke noted that while his neighborhood was developed under Snohomish County standards, the stormwater system failed almost immediately after the subdivision was completed. After the neighborhood was annexed into the City, an additional subdivision was approved nearby that added even more stress to an already failing stormwater system. He asked if the proposed new language would provide some safeguard to ensure this does not happen in the future. Ms. McConnell answered that stormwater issues are addressed by ECDC 18.30 and not the subdivision code. As per code requirements, the Stormwater Manager reviews applications, and a storm drainage system is required for projects that involve more than 5,000 square feet of improved area. The type of drainage system required would be based on a downstream analysis. She reminded the Board that the City's stormwater code was recently updated to make the requirements clearer. She agreed to seek additional input from the Stormwater Manager. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 6 Board Member Clarke asked if the City has a map that identifies the critical areas for stormwater management where the current infrastructure is insufficient to handle stormwater runoff. Ms. McConnell answered that the City has watershed and storm basin maps, as well as maps that identify the soil types throughout the City. Board Member Clarke expressed concern about where stormwater from redevelopment of Harbor Square would go if the Dayton Street flooding problems are not addressed first. Ms. McConnell said stormwater requirements for Harbor Square would be based on the design and size of the development. The Stormwater Manager has the authority to review proposed applications and stormwater analysis to identify potential problems that would require different types of detention systems to further reduce the flow of water leaving the site. However, there is only so much the City can require a private developer to do to improve the City's system. Board Member Clarke agreed that, by law, the City cannot require private developers to install systems that are beyond the normal capacity required by the code to address larger issues downstream. Ms. McConnell clarified that the City cannot necessarily force requirements on a private developer to upgrade the city's system downstream, but additional requirements could be placed on developers to deal with stormwater coming from their development. Board Member Stewart observed that developers need to understand the importance of natural hydrological functions such as wetlands and marshes. Restoring the Edmonds Marsh would likely take care of some of the existing stormwater runoff problems at Harbor Square. It is important to educate developers about the benefits of rain gardens etc. Perhaps they need to be specific about the options they want to encourage or require. She expressed concern about overloading a system that is not currently working well by adding more development at Harbor Square. She also expressed concern that even with the new stormwater requirements, new developments will not always handle stormwater runoff sufficiently on site unless additional measures are taken and more incentives are offered to developers. Ms. McConnell said some of the stormwater issues are more than what can be addressed by private developers. Fixing the problems will require capital improvements by the City. Staff is aware of the existing problems, and they are working to obtain sufficient funding to move forward with projects to address the issues. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that because there is very little funding available for stormwater improvement projects, additional development will continue to exacerbate the existing problems. He asked if it would be possible for the City to identify the critical stormwater problem areas and place a moratorium on additional development that will add to the flow of stormwater downstream until the City has addressed the issue via a capital project. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that stormwater runoff impacts can be considered and mitigated through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that if a proposed development can meet the code requirements, the City would not have the ability to require mitigation. Ms. McConnell referred to a recent development proposal for a site on 2nd Avenue. Staff has discussed options for stormwater management, and they have notified the applicant that a stormwater detention system would be required if they propose to discharge their stormwater to the Dayton Street system. The Board agreed to continue their discussion of the subdivision and PRD regulations on January 261h. They further agreed to forward their additional comments to Mr. Clugston. Board Member Johnson observed that the Shell Park and Shell Park I developments are the earliest PRD developments in the City. The neighborhoods were developed in the 1970's as single-family residential projects. She asked if this type of development would be allowed to occur based on the City's current code. She expressed her belief that this option speaks to the need to provide different housing types for various incomes and needs. The developments represent integrated neighborhoods that seem to be effective. Mr. Clugston explained that these two developments were done under the PRD code that existed at the time. There must have been a caveat in the zoning code that allowed for a section of multi -family development within the single-family subdivision. Neither the City's current code language nor the proposed language would allow this type of development to occur in a single-family zone. He suggested that the Board could consider this option at some point in the future, but they would need to have City Council's support for the idea. Again, Board Member Johnson said she found the mixed density in the two Shell Park neighborhoods to be a good way to integrate different periods of life (i.e. starter homes, empty nesters) into a single neighborhood. Board Member Stewart concurred. She said she would also like the Board to consider options for encouraging developers of multi -family projects to include low-income units by offering a density bonus of some type. Mr. Clugston agreed it would be appropriate for the Board to consider these ideas at some point in the future. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 7 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston announced that Mr. Chave would provide an updated extended agenda at the Board's first meeting in January. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell thanked the Board for all their participation and hard work over the past year. He summarized that they were able to accomplish a number of important projects. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS In anticipation of the combined Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) annual report to the City Council, Board Member Johnson indicated that she would put together a rough draft of the Board's 2010 accomplishments for review at their next meeting. Board Member Cloutier reported that the Sustainable Works energy audit project would continue through January. He reported that his home was audited and received no recommendations for improvements. He encouraged the Board Members to sign up for the audit program, which is being offered at a subsidized cost. Applications will be accepted through the end of January. He also announced that property owners can measure the effectiveness of their improvements by comparing their November and January energy statements since these two months had the same average temperatures and billing days. Board Member Stewart reported that the deadline for applications for the Planning Board student representative position has expired, but no applications were received. She indicated she may allow an additional week for applications. If not, the process has been established for the Board to pursue applicants for the next academic year. Board Member Stewart thanked the Board Members for attending the green building event, which dovetailed with the CEDC's November meeting. She thanked Sustainable Edmonds for advertising the event, which was well attended. She reported that all the speakers provided thought -provoking ideas, and there was a good follow-up discussion. The presenters indicated their willingness to provide additional guidance to the City in setting up a Green Team or Green Incentive Program. They also agreed to help the City rewrite their codes and educate the public about green building and practices. She agreed to forward the minutes from the event to each of the Board members. Board Member Clarke questioned what economic development activities the Board would include in their report to the City Council. Board Member Johnson referred to the ordinance that established the CEDC. Both the Planning Board and CEDC were tasked to work together on economic development activities and provide an annual report to the City Council. She agreed to forward a copy of the ordinance to Board Member Clarke. She reviewed that the Board has been asked to work towards the general goals of the ordinance, but it does not specifically tell them what they are to do and how to do it. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that many of the items the Board has worked on over the past year have some connection to economic development. Board Member Johnson agreed to prepare a summary of the Planning Board's projects that are related to economic development. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2010 Page 8