Loading...
2012-11-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 14, 2012 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 Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Ian Duncan Bill Ellis John Reed Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, noted that the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) is scheduled for review on the City Council's November 20th agenda. He questioned how the City Council could make a final decision on the HSMP until they adopt the final Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He cautioned that it appears the SMP is being designed to meet the needs of the HSMP. He suggested it would be more appropriate to get the SMP right first and then require that the HSMP be consistent. He suggested that review and approval of the HSMP should be postponed until the City Council has completed their review and approval of the SMP. Mr. Hertrich also suggested that the Westgate Planning process should be slowed down. He noted there is no comprehensive traffic study for that area. In addition, implementing a form -based code approach would replace the existing regulations with new and different ones for each project. He cautioned that this approach would open the door for more legal challenges because the City would not have any specific requirements to use as base regulations. Form -based codes are not rigid enough to protect what needs to be protected, and they can be dangerous. He reminded the Board that representatives from other cities in the Puget Sound area have indicated they did not use a true form -based code approach, but a modified version of the concept. He said he does not like the form -based code concept, and he does not believe it is the right approach for the City. Board Member Reed recalled that the Board has discussed the timing of the HSMP and SMP at previous meetings. He explained that the Board has been working on the SMP Update since June of 2011, and there are very few items left to resolve. The Board felt it would be appropriate to forward their recommendation regarding the HSMP to the City Council, recognizing that the SMP would follow soon after. He summarized that the City Council would have the benefit of the draft SMP when reviewing the HSMP, and the two proposals could be reviewed and adopted by the City Council simultaneously. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS STREET VACATION PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN ECDC 20:70 (FILE NUMBER AMD20120005) Mr. Lien said that earlier this year, the Board conducted a public hearing on proposed code amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.70 to provide expanded notice requirements for street vacations. During the public hearing, Ken Reidy, a citizen, suggested two additional amendments to ECDC 20.70 that he felt would be appropriate. The Board emphasized that the May 9th hearing was intended to focus solely on the amendments related to expanding the notice requirements. When they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council, they indicated their general support for the additional changes and invited the City Council to task them with holding a public hearing. At their hearing on June 5"', the City Council adopted the street vacation notice requirements and tasked the Board with reviewing the following two additional amendments: Insert "construction repairs and maintenance of' prior to "public utility services." In ECDC 20.70.030. This would clarify the type of easement that the City may retain in street vacations. Change "applicant" to "owners of property abutting upon the street or alley or part thereof so vacated" in ECDC 20.70.140.A.3. The current language does not make sense if the City initiates the street vacation. Mr. Lien pointed out that the proposed new language for both amendments cam verbatim from Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79.030. He recalled that after reviewing the proposed amendments on July 1 lth, the Planning Board directed staff to review ECDC 20.70 for all references to `applicant" and determine where changes to the term would be appropriate. He reported that in addition to ECDC 20.70.140.A.3, the word "applicant" in ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.b was also changed to "abutting property owner(s)." Staff is also recommending a clarifying statement on the term "applicant" in ECDC 20.70.050.C, which would read, "Hereafter within this chapter, where the term "applicant" is used, if the City did not initiate the vacation, applicant shall refer to the owner(s) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof, subject to the vacation request." Mr. Lien said that, at the Board's request, the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and did not have any concerns, particularly since the language came directly from the RCW. Chair Lovell opened the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, thanked the Board for addressing this issue. He commented that Mr. Lien did a great job of preparing the Staff Report, and he supports the proposed amendments as written. No other members of the audience indicated a desire to address the Board, and the public hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.70 (FILE NUMBER AMD20120005), WHICH CLARIFIES THE TYPES OF EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE RETAINED DURING A STREET VACATION AND ADDS CLARIFYING LANGUAGE WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT OF A STREET VACATION PROCESS, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATIN OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the SMP Update has been underway for a number of years. The City hired consultants to work on the update, and an initial presentation was given to the Planning Board in February 2007. The Planning Board has reviewed various materials related to the update at nine meetings in 2011 and 2012. In early 2012, the Planning Board had the same question as Mr. Hertrich regarding the timing of the SMP and the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP). They decided to table the SMP while they dealt with the HSMP, and then forward both documents to the City Council for simultaneous review. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted by the State Legislature in 1971 and by voters in 1972. The overarching goal of the SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." The SMA outlines policies for shoreline uses, environmental protection and public access. Shoreline Uses. The SMP establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas and requires that "uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shorelines..." Preferred uses include single-family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water -dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. It emphasizes that, to the extent possible, shorelines should be reserved for water - oriented uses, which includes water -dependent, water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Environmental Protection. The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the State and their aquatic life" against adverse affects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. Public Access. Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly - owned areas and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities. Mr. Lien advised that as per the SMA, all cities and counties in the state that have shorelines must prepare and adopt an SMP. State law also requires that SMPs be updated every eight years. He further advised that in 2003, the DOE adopted SMP Guidelines (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26), which identify state standards that local governments must follow when updating their SMP's. The guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. He emphasized that the proposed SMP Update was crafted based on the DOE's SMP Guidelines, and review and approval by the DOE is required to ensure that the update is consistent with their adopted guidelines. Mr. Lien said the proposed SMP Update consists of several documents: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Development Regulations and a Cumulative Impact Analysis to ensure the update results in "no net loss" of ecological functions. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City received a grant from the DOE in 2006, which was used to fund a consultant (2006 — 2008) to review the City's current SMP policies and prepare the necessary documents for the SMP update. A Citizens Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed in 2006 to review the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study, the Restoration Plan, and all policies contained within the current SMP. The proposed development regulations were developed based on the work of the consultant and the TAC. Mr. Lien explained that the SMP applies to all shoreline jurisdictions within the City, including all marine waters, streams and rivers greater than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs), lakes that are 20 acres or larger, upland areas within 200 feet of the shoreline, and associated wetlands. Mr. Lien recalled that in previous discussions, there has been some confusion about the terms setback, buffer and shoreline jurisdiction. He emphasized that these are three separate and distinct terms. A shoreline jurisdiction is measured 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and should not be confused with a buffer. Any activity that takes place within a shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the SMP and may require a Substantial Development Permit. A setback is the distance a structure must be set back from the shoreline or OHWM. Buffers are intended to provide an ecological function to protect ecologically sensitive areas. He provided a map of the Lake Ballinger area to clearly illustrate how wetland buffers, building setbacks and shoreline jurisdictions would be measured. Vice Chair Stewart asked if a wetland buffer would be part of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction or adjacent to it. Mr. Lien answered that the buffer would be part of the shoreline jurisdiction. For example, the proposed setback for Ballinger Lake is 35 feet, and the wetland buffer is 75 feet. The shoreline jurisdiction would extend an additional 90 feet from the OHWM for a total of 200 feet. Chair Lovell asked if it would be possible to have a situation where the buffer width is in addition to the setback. Mr. Lien said that buffers and setbacks can overlap, but they are both included in the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. When the buffer and setback requirements are different, the most restrictive would apply. Board Member Ellis asked if buffers and setbacks are always measured from the OHWM. Mr. Lien said that is the case for streams and wetlands, but there are also setback requirements that are measured from the top of a bluff. The shoreline jurisdiction is always measured Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 3 from the OHWM. Board Member Ellis summarized that the shoreline jurisdiction, buffer and setback are not accumulative. Each one is measured from the OHWM. Mr. Lien referred to the draft SMP (Attachment 1) and noted that it is divided into 10 parts. He briefly reviewed each section as follows: • Part I — Introduction. This section explains that the SMP is an adopted element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. It is intended to work in conjunction with the ECDC to produce coherent and thorough shoreline regulations. It makes it clear that uses, developments and activities must comply with both the ECDC and the SMP in all cases. If there is a conflict between the two, the SMP would prevail. • Part II — Master Program Elements: Goals and Policies for the SMP. This section contains goals and policies that form the foundation of the SMP, which are implemented through the regulations in ECDC 24.40 through 24.60. The goals and policies were reviewed by the TAC in 2006 and remain largely unchanged from the current SMP. However, the Planning Board recommended the following additional policies to ECDC 24.20.050.0 related to climate change, low - impact development (LID) and the Edmonds Marsh: o The City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the Shoreline Master Program development standards as soon as adequate scientific information is available. o The Edmonds Marsh study identified in the City of Edmonds Capital Improvement Plan is an important study for determining the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on the City of Edmonds and should be considered a high priority for completion. o All use and development should use low -impact development (LID) techniques where appropriate and feasible. • Part III — Shoreline Environment. The shoreline environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdictions. The designations in the draft SMP were reviewed by the TAC, with the exception of the new proposed Urban Mixed Use III Environment. The intent of the environments is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current and desired character of the shoreline. The SMP includes the following 11 environments: o Aquatic I and Aquatic II Environments. The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment (Aquatic I) is to protect, restore and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM. The purpose of the aquatic high -intensity environment (Aquatic II) is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation and commerce, and to assure compatibility between the shoreland and aquatic uses. The Aquatic I Environment would be applicable to all marine aquatic environments waterward of the OHWM between the southern boundary of the City and the old Unocal dock, between the northern edge of the Edmonds fishing pier and the southern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal, and between the northern edge of the Main Street ferry terminal and the northern boundary of the City. It is also applicable to Lake Ballinger. The Aquatic II Environment would apply to marine aquatic environments waterward of the OHWM between the old Unocal dock and the northern edge of the Edmonds fishing pier and between the southern and northern edges of the Main Street ferry terminal. o Natural Environment. The purpose of the natural environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human uses. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. The Natural Environment would apply to the Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route (SR) 104. It would also include the Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone. o Conservancy Environment. The purpose of the Conservancy Environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. This environment would apply to Bracketts Landing South and North, the off -leash dog park, and the Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 4 o Shoreline Residential Environments. The purpose of the Shoreline Residential Environments is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. The Shoreline Residential I Environment would apply to properties in north Edmonds east of the railroad tracks that are currently zoned RS-12 and RS-20. The Shoreline Residential II Environment would apply to properties located east of the railroad tracks that are currently zoned RS-6. The Shoreline Residential III Environment would apply to properties near Lake Ballinger that are currently zoned RSW-12. o Urban Mixed Use Environments. The purpose of the Urban Mixed -Use Environments is to provide for high - intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Language was added to ECDC 24.30.070.B.I to describe the differences between the three Urban Mixed Use Environments. The Urban Mixed Use I Environment would apply to the properties located north of the fishing pier to Brackett's Landing South, and the Urban Mixed Use II Environment would apply to the ferry terminal and Marina Beach to the Fishing Pier. The Urban Mixed Use III Environment was created to specifically address the shoreline jurisdiction around the marsh. Late in the process the DOE indicated that the marsh must be classified as a shoreline rather than an associated wetland. This resulted in an extension of the shoreline jurisdiction 200 feet beyond the edge of the marsh. In later discussions with the DOE, staff used a map prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to identify the historic boundaries of the marsh and how they have changed over the years. As per the DOE's requirement, the draft SMP identifies the Edmonds Marsh as a shoreline, and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the edge of the marsh. o Urban Railroad. The purpose of the Urban Railroad Environment is to identify the 100-foot right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. The designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions. Part IV — General Policies and Regulations. The policies in this section are intended to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of the shoreline. They shall be applied either generally to all shoreline areas or to shoreline areas that meet the specified criteria of the provisions without regard to environment designation. Policies and regulations related to critical areas are a required element of the SMP and are found in ECDC 24.40.020. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is an outgrowth of the GMA and is not always consistent with the requirements of the SMA. A recent Supreme Court decision determined that the SMA would govern properties within shoreline jurisdictions and the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would govern properties outside of shoreline jurisdictions. The DOE offered the following options for integrating the CAO into the SMP: copy specific sections of the CAO into the SMP, reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions would not apply to the SMP, and/or include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP. The City chose to pursue a combination of the latter two options. The proposed SMP Update would adopt the City's current CAO language found in ECDC 23.40 through 23.90 with the following changes: o The DOE felt that certain sections did not meet the SMA requirements. As a result, new language was added to ECDC 24.40.020.D to identify the specific provisions of the CAO that would not apply to development within shoreline jurisdictions. o Language was added in ECDC 24.40.020.0 to clarify that any shoreline project that proposes going beyond a 25% buffer reduction through the mechanisms described in ECDC 24.40.020.E.3 would require a shoreline variance. No variance would be required for wetland buffer reductions consistent with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3. This change could have a substantial impact on the Shoreline Residential Environments along Puget Sound. The CAO requires a 50-foot buffer area measured from the bluff. However, the buffer area could be reduced through a shoreline variance if a geotechnical report indicates it is safe to build closer. o ECDC 24.40.020.F was modified to address the DOE's concern that the wetland buffers identified in the SMA (taken from the CAO) were adequate. The language was updated to be consistent with the DOE's Guidelines Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 5 for Small Cities, and the proposed wetland compensatory mitigation ratios are in accordance with the DOE's Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. o An additional provision was added in ECDC 24.40.020 to address geologically hazardous areas, in ECDC 240.40.020.11 to address critical saltwater habitat, and ECDC 24.40.020.I to address critical freshwater habitat. o A provision was added to ECDC 24.40.040.B.I to require all new multi -family development and subdivisions of four or more lots to provide public access to the shoreline. A provision was added to ECDC 24.40.040.B.11 to make it clear that the view corridors in the existing SMP would apply to the Urban Mixed Use I and II and Aquatic I and II Environments. As proposed, a view corridor, in one continuous piece, must be maintained landward of the OHWM across 30 percent of the average parcel width. Structures, parking areas and landscaping would be allowed in the view corridor, provided they do not obscure the view from adjacent public rights -of -way to and beyond the Puget Sound. The view corridor must be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the City may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed between the north and south property lines in a location that will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of Puget Sound. o A Shoreline Development Table is provided in ECDC 24.40.080 to identify the allowed uses and permits required for each of the environments. o The Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table in ECDC 24.40.090 was updated to identify the proposed new setback and height limitations within each of the environments. The Board still needs to address the setback requirements for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment. • Part V — Specific Modification Policies and Regulations. Shoreline modification activities are structures or actions that permanently change the physical configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly where the land and water meet. Shoreline modifications include bulkheads and piers and actions such as clearing, grading and removing vegetation. This section provides both general regulations for shoreline modification, as well as specific policies and regulations that apply to shoreline modification in each of the environments. Part VI — Specific Use Policies and Regulations. This section is similar to the section related to specific modifications. It provides both general regulations for shoreline uses, as well as specific policies and regulations that apply to shoreline uses in each of the environments. ECDC 24.60.030 prioritizes commercial uses within the various shoreline environments, with water -dependent uses being preferred, followed by water -related, water -enjoyment and non -water - oriented uses. As per ECDC 24.60.070, a Substantial Development Permit would not typically be required for construction of a single-family residence and appurtenances. However, a permit would be required if grading exceeds 250 cubic yards. Subdivisions of four or more lots and multi -family development would be required to provide public access. • Part VII — Nonconforming Development. This chapter combines the existing SMP nonconforming section (ECDC 23.10.220) with the nonconforming regulations in ECDC 17.40. Any legal nonconforming uses and structures that result from changes to the SMP would be allowed to continue. Part VIH — Administration — Shoreline Permits. The Administrative Chapter is largely based on WAC 173-27, with a few changes. The current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by the Hearing Examiner. The proposed new language in ECDC 24.80.100 would only require permits to be decided by the Hearing Examiner if. one or more persons requests a hearing, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Significance is issued, a permit requires a shoreline variance or conditional use, or the project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits. This is a significant change in process. Another significant change in this section has to do with timing requirements in ECDC 24.80.140.A. Once a Substantial Development Permit has been issued, an applicant would have two years to start the project and five years to complete the project. There would be an opportunity for a one-year extension. Under the current SMP, the time limit does not apply while the developer is pursuing other local, state and federal permits. The update would give applicants five years to get the other required permits, plus a possible one-year extension. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 6 • Part IX — Definitions. The definitions in this section are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26), and the DOE's Shoreline Administrative Procedures (WAC 173-27). • Part X — Appendices. This section contains maps of the shoreline environments and jurisdictions, as well as the SMP Critical Areas Ordinance with the exceptions removed. Chair Lovell opened the public hearing. Robert Bernhoft, Edmonds, said he was present to speak on behalf of the Browns Bay Perrinville Creek Foundation. He submitted written comments to the Board, and noted that the Foundation has submitted written comments related to the SMP on previous occasions, as well. He asked that the Board consider the following in their review of the SMP: • The SMP maps for eel grass are out of date. There is current information from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and additional testing is being done at this time. • The Perrinville Creek Stormwater District Project #15 should be added to the SMP because the terminus of it is within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. • The Talbot Road Storm Drain Improvement Project should be added to the SMP for the reasons suggested in his written comments. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, noted that the eastern boundary of the marsh has been determined by the salinity of the water. However, the SMP does not adequately address how the boundaries of the marsh may change when Willow Creek is daylighted, allowing the marsh to be influenced to a greater degree by tidal waters. He asked if the eastern boundaries of the marsh would expand as the salinity line changes. The anticipated rise in sea level could also have an impact on the eastern boundary of the marsh. Mr. Hertrich said there has always been a strong argument and the SMP has stated that water -dependent uses are preferred in the shoreline area. In addition, the City's economic development policies state that mixed -use commercial and light industrial uses should be permitted in the area that is currently proposed as Urban Mixed Use III Environment. He questioned if the definition for mixed -use commercial would include residential uses. He expressed concern that the proposed Urban Mixed Use III Environment was designed to specifically accommodate the Port's needs for redevelopment at Harbor Square. Rather than basing the SMP on a proposed development that has not happened yet, he suggested they should have started by making an SMP determination about what is important for this area of the shoreline. Bob Shepherd, Teacher, Seaview School, reiterated Mr. Bernhoft's comments. He said that, in his view, Perrinville Creek has been neglected not only in the SMP, but also by the City of Edmonds in general. He commented that it is inaccurate to categorize the creek as only a drainage pond for stormwater. They should consider it as a reasonable creek for salmon. He said he has planted over 1,000 salmon into the creek over the past several years. Neither the current SMP nor the proposed SMP adequately address the ecological functions and benefits of this creek. This information is important to include in the plan. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, urged the Planning Board to gain a clear understanding of the role of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology in regulating shorelines, wetlands and streams within the City of Edmonds. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to participate, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lien referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment about how the boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh would be impacted if Willow Creek is daylighted at some point in the future. Once again, he referred to a map that was prepared by WSDOT as part of the Edmonds Crossing planning process. WSDOT surveyed the Edmonds Marsh and identified the current boundaries of the salt water marsh and how the boundaries could change if Willow Creek is daylighted. He emphasized that the marsh would not expand towards Harbor Square because that area has been filled. However, the southern boundary could expand into an area that is largely buffer area now. This would change the shoreline jurisdiction boundaries, as well. A Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study would be done when the SMP is updated again in 8 years, and the boundaries of the marsh would be adjusted accordingly. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Lien explained that only a small portion of Perrinville Creek is located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. In addition, the creek, itself, does not meet the definition of a shoreline as it does not flow at 20 cfs or greater. Board Member Duncan asked if the creek would be classified as a shoreline if it were salmon bearing. Mr. Lien answered no because the definition is based on water flow and not salmon habitat. Chair Lovell recalled that, at a previous meeting, it was discussed that there is an agreement that the marsh would not expand. Mr. Lien said Keeley O'Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, has addressed the Board on numerous occasions, indicating that the boundaries of the marsh, itself, would not expand. However, the portion of the marsh that is influenced by salt water would likely expand as a result of daylighting Willow Creek. Given the prediction that sea levels will rise in the future, Vice Chair Stewart questioned where the water would go if the marsh boundaries are not expanded. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that specific policies were added to the SMP related to sea level rise and the Edmonds Marsh being a special study area. While these new policies do not provide specific information about the impacts of sea level rise, there are a number of studies in progress throughout the region and the City is currently conducting a study of the Edmonds Marsh to identify potential impacts related to climate change and sea level rise. When the SMP is updated again in eight years, staff anticipates there will be significantly more information available regarding this subject. Vice Chair Stewart advised that Bainbridge Island is also updating its SMP, and they have hired a consultant to do a scientific addendum to their update. They conducted a thorough evaluation of the impacts of sea level rise based on current information. The City of Edmonds, on the other hand, has nothing current that speaks to this issue. She expressed concern about waiting for seven or eight more years to conduct a study of this type and address the issue in the SMP. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the new policy would require the City to stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the SMP development standards as soon as adequate scientific information is available. If new information comes available, the City could make minor updates to the SMP before the next major update. Chair Lovell recalled a survey that was conducted by the University of Washington regarding rising sea levels and how they will impact the entire perimeter of Puget Sound. They intend to publish a report of their findings, which could be useful to the City at some point in the future. He suggested that the City should stay apprised of what is happening in this arena. Mr. Lien reported that the University of Washington Survey was discussed at a conference he recently attended regarding rising sea levels. It was noted that by 2050, sea levels along Puget Sound are expected to rise between 3 and 22 inches. He reminded the Board that new information is becoming available all the time. Vice Chair Stewart commented that a jurisdiction near Tacoma used technology to create a visual depiction of sea level rise. She hopes the University of Washington will also utilize this technology to illustrate the impacts of rising sea levels. This would allow jurisdictions to have a clear understanding of what could happen if sea levels rise as anticipated. She agreed to send staff links to this information. Mr. Lien explained that the only area in Edmonds that is susceptible to sea level rise is the eastern boundary of the marsh. The City is currently conducting a study of this area to identify what the potential impacts might be. At the request of Board Member Clarke, Mr. Lien responded to each of the issues raised in the letter that was submitted by Mr. Bernhoft on behalf of the Browns Bay Perrinville Creek Foundation as follows: • He would have to research the ell grass maps further to determine whether they are accurate or not. The Inventory and Characterization Study was completed by a consultant. He agreed to study the issue further and report back to the Board. • Only the portion of Perrinville Creek that is located within the shoreline jurisdiction would be addressed by the SMP. The remainder of the creek would be addressed by the City's CAO, particularly if it is a salmon spawning stream. • Talbot Road is outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. There is currently a project taking place in the Perrinville Creek area, but it is located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, as well. The project is identified in the City's Stormwater Master Plan as a stormwater project. Vice Chair Stewart said she assumes the eel grass beds referred to by Mr. Bernhoft are located at the mouth of Perrinville Creek where it meets Puget Sound. It is likely the eel grass beds and the riparian area are located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. It is important to recognize that the eel grass map may be out of date and remedy the inaccuracies. Eel grass is an important habitat for marine life to provide shelter, and food. They are losing more and more of the eel grass beds because of impacts associated with development. It is important to make all the maps up to date. Mr. Lien pointed out that Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 8 the eel grass map is Figure 12 in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Attachment 8). Again, he agreed to review the map for accuracy and update it as appropriate. In answer to Mr. Reidy's question, Mr. Lien said the Army Corps of Engineers would not have any jurisdiction under the SMP, but the SMP must be approved by the DOE to make sure it is consistent with their guidelines. The Corp has jurisdiction with regard to wetlands as a portion of the Clean Water Act, which they are responsible to enforce. They also have a big role in what is allowed to happen in Puget Sound navigable waters. There is a layer of permits required for development within the shoreline jurisdiction, and applicants are responsible to ensure they get all the local, state and federal permits required. Chair Lovell referred to a hand-written note the Board received from Mr. Bernhoft regarding the aquatic corridor. Mr. Lien said Mr. Bernhoft expressed concern that his current aquaculture activity on Perrinville Creek would no longer be allowed as per the draft SMP. He reminded the Board that when they last discussed the issue of aquaculture, they determined that aquaculture did not really fit in Edmonds. However, they agreed that the current fish hatchery on Willow Creek should be allowed to continue, but the use should be prohibited in other areas of the shoreline jurisdiction. He said the current SMP does not address aquaculture at all. However, the nonconforming regulations would come into play for any current use that becomes nonconforming as a result of the SMP update. If Mr. Bernhoft's use is a legal use before the SMP is updated, it would become a legal nonconforming use after adoption of the new SMP. The activity would be allowed to continue. Board Member Tibbott asked if there would be any reason to expand the areas where aquaculture is allowed to occur, or should they just let the existing legal nonconforming uses continue and prohibit any new aquaculture uses. Mr. Lien explained that when the SMP Update was originally drafted, the Planning Board was inclined to prohibit aquaculture in all environments. However, they later learned that the DOE may not allow them to take that approach. In further discussions with the DOE, the DOE agreed that Edmonds was different that many other jurisdictions and could restrict the use within their shoreline jurisdictions. The Board agreed that a minimum amount of aquaculture would be appropriate to allow the existing Willow Creek Hatchery to continue to operate. Again, he emphasized that existing legal nonconforming aquaculture uses would be allowed to continue after the SMP is adopted. Board Member Tibbott asked staff to clarify the concept of "no net loss" and explain how it is determined. Mr. Lien explained that the concept means "no net loss" from this point forward; but it does not mean the City has to make up for the sins of the past. The development regulations within the SMP are supposed to protect the shoreline's natural environment and ensure there is "no net loss" of ecological function. A Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Attachment 10) was done to evaluate whether or not the SMP meets this requirement, and the DOE has given a verbal indication that the proposed regulations meet the "no net loss" standard. However, official acceptance will not come until the City Council forwards the SMP to the DOE for review. Mr. Lien said the last outstanding issue for the Board to decide is what the setbacks should be in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment. He referred to the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table (ECDC 24.40.090). The current draft identifies a shore setback of 25 feet for all structures in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment, which applies to the Harbor Square site and the Unocal property to the south. He noted that the table was drafted before the Harbor Square Master Plan was presented to the Board. As part of a later discussion, Vice Chair Stewart recommended that the setbacks be increased to 50 feet, and other Board members indicated their support for that option. Chair Lovell asked staff to explain how the edge of the marsh would be delineated for setback purposes. Mr. Lien answered that the wetland boundaries would be determined by the wetland designation criteria: there must be hydraulic soils, wetland hydrology and a predominance of wetland plants. Board Member Clarke asked if the boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh have already been delineated. Mr. Lean answered that there is no official determination, but WSDOT attempted to delineate the edge of the marsh. The wetland boundaries can be easily identified by a wetland biologist after taking samples of the soil, etc. Board Member Duncan asked why staff originally recommended a 25-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment, when the Department of Ecology recommends a 150-foot buffer for wetlands. Mr. Lien explained that staff proposed a 25-foot setback because that is the approximately distance that current development at Harbor Square is setback from the marsh. He reminded the Board that although the buffer for the marsh may extend into the Harbor Square property, the DOE has agreed to allow the City to include an exception in the SMP that allows redevelopment to occur within the areas where development currently exists as long as it does not further encroach into the buffer area. He advised that the DOE's Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 9 recommendation for buffers assumes a pristine rather than built -out environment, which is the case for the shoreline jurisdictions in Edmonds. Board Member Reed noted that the current draft calls for a 25-foot setback for both structures and parking. Board Member Duncan asked if any development would be allowed within the setback. Mr. Lien said that, as currently written, recreational trails, observations platforms, etc. would be allowed within the setback area to provide access to the marsh, which is an important aspect of the SMP. Board Member Clarke commented that as per the existing contract rezone there are two zoning designations for Harbor Square: General Commercial (CG) and Open Space (OS). The OS zoning is measured 25 feet from the OHWM and is intended to remain undeveloped. It is clear that there is currently a non -conforming gravel parking lot located within the OS zone. The asphalt parking area is located at the 25-foot line, and the circulation road and gravel parking area at the south end of Harbor Square extend into the 25-foot setback in the area zoned OS. In addition, the parking stall dimensional standards are not met because cars extend into the circulation road. Cars currently park illegally in an area that is designed to be a natural buffer. The developer who leased the land from the Port never built the required natural buffer area to protect the marsh, and the SMP must acknowledge that this entire 25-foot strip is zoned OS and does not allow parking. He encouraged staff to review the existing binding site plan, which requires that parking be in designated lots only. The gravel lot is not identified as a parking area on the binding site plan; it is designated as an Edmonds Marsh preservation area. The Board must acknowledge that this use is illegal and nonconforming. Mr. Chave explained that a legal, nonconforming use is something that was created legally at a point in time, but regulation changes rendered it nonconforming in terms of the current regulations. The use had to be created legally in order to become a legal, nonconforming use. In the case of the parking lot, it would simply be an illegal use. Now that the City has been advised of the situation, they will have to follow up with a code enforcement action. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that the parking would be allowed to remain in the setback at the time of redevelopment because the use already exists. Mr. Lien emphasized that, with the exception of limited recreational development, no development would be allowed to occur within the setback area, which would be measured from the edge of the marsh. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that their charge is to establish appropriate setbacks and buffers for this area of the marsh within the SMP. The matter of existing parking being nonconforming and/or illegal is not part of the Board's responsibility to deal with. The parking issue must be addressed as a code enforcement situation. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that if the parking is considered to be a legal nonconforming use, it would be grandfathered in. Mr. Lien explained that while legal conforming uses would be allowed to continue, any redevelopment at Harbor Square would be required to meet the bulk and dimensional standards established in the SMP. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the contract rezone intended the OS zone to be a buffer, and the contract rezone predates the SMP. The OS zone was never intended to be used for parking. The City recognizes this through a parking agreement that specifically references where parking is allowed within Harbor Square. He emphasized that the OS zone was intended to be a buffer and not a setback. It was designed to protect the marsh. Board Member Ellis commented that if the OS zone was not supposed to be developed, the fact that it is would not give Harbor Square vested rights to continue to use the space for parking in the future. Mr. Chave agreed that if the parking was not permitted to occur, the fact that it is there should be a matter of enforcement. Setting a 25-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment would not make the parking use legal. Board Member Ellis agreed that setting a setback would not make the use legal; it would still be just as illegal as it was before. Board Member Clarke said it is important to establish for the record that the use is, in fact, illegal. Board Member Clarke reminded the Commission that the Port would likely propose zoning changes as part of a future development agreement. He would like the SMP to recognize the OS zone and require that it be maintained in the future. Mr. Lien recalled that, as part of their recommendation regarding the HSMP, the Board directed staff to propose additional language for inclusion in the HSMP to protect the open space property identified in contract Rezone 1979-4 into perpetuity. Staff incorporated language into the recommendation that would require any future development proposal to clearly demark the OS zone located landward from the Edmonds Marsh and ensure that any redevelopment preserves and improves the buffer area. This recommendation was intended to specifically address the issue raised by Board Member Clarke about the open space area. Board Member Clarke suggested that this language should also be incorporated into the SMP. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that the OS area would be defined in the SMP as a setback. Board Member Clarke noted that it is also possible to have a buffer within the setback area, which is the intent of the original contract rezone. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Lien provided an image showing the proposed setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction related to Harbor Square. He explained that if previously developed, the wetland buffer outside of the setback could be redeveloped. However, no development (structures of parking) would be allowed to occur within the setback area regardless of whether or not there is current development. Any redevelopment at Harbor Square would have to comply with the setbacks established in the Bulk and Dimensional Table in the SMP. Vice Chair Stewart said she appreciates Board Member Clarke's concern. It is important to understand what a buffer of the marsh is and where the OHWM is relative to the marsh. She asked if the buffer is supposed to be a certain width around the marsh. Mr. Lien explained that where the salinity reaches a certain level, that is the extent of the tidally influenced portion of the marsh. Regardless of the tides, this line has been established. The edge of the marsh is easily identified and would not change based on the ebb and flow of the tide. Vice Chair Stewart asked how wide the wetland buffers are supposed to be. Mr. Lien referred to the table in ECDC 24.40.020, which outlines the buffer requirements for the various types of wetlands. He advised that the Edmonds Marsh is an estuarine marsh with a standard buffer width of 150 feet. Board Member Clarke asked what could be constructed within a buffer area. Mr. Lien replied that the CAO outlines the activities allowed within a wetland buffer. Buffer areas that have been previously developed can be redeveloped, but redevelopment must meet the setback requirements identified in the SMP. No development would be allowed to occur in the 150-foot buffer area on the south side of the Edmonds Marsh because there is no existing development. He explained that setbacks are directly a function of the SMP, and separates uses from the OHWM. Buffers are a function of the CAO. Setbacks are more rigid from a shoreline standpoint and provide more guidance. They specifically talk about both current and future uses. CAO buffers have some allowances for current development. However, neither setbacks nor buffers are relevant to something that is there illegally. Board Member Duncan asked if recreational uses would include such things as private hot tubs and swimming pools. Mr. Lien answered that recreational uses are intended to be public rather than private recreational areas associated with single- family development. Board Member Duncan asked if fences would be allowed within the 25-foot setback area. Mr. Lien answered that fences could extend into a setback area. Once again, Board Member Duncan asked why staff is proposing a 25-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment rather than the 150-foot wetland buffer required by the CAO. Chair Lovell explained that the Board's task is to recognize what is there now. With the exception of the illegal gravel parking lot, redevelopment can occur in areas where there is existing development. The Board's charge is to establish the dimensions of the setback area. Board Member Duncan questioned why a 25-foot setback would be adequate when a 150-foot buffer would be required if the property were pristine and undeveloped. Mr. Lien cautioned that, in this instance, the City is not starting from scratch. When best available science was developed for buffers and streams, it was related to pristine environments, and Edmonds is a built -out community. The SMA requires "no net loss" from this point going forward. The City is not required to bring buffer areas back to pre - development condition. They must look at the current environment at Harbor Square. Board Member Duncan said he does not see a reason to allow development to occur within 25-feet of a shoreline, especially since fences are allowed within the 25-foot setback. Since most of the current development at Harbor Square is located more than 25 feet from the shoreline, he suggested it would be appropriate to establish a larger setback requirement. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Port previously indicated a 50-foot setback requirement would be acceptable. Board Member Reed recalled that the last time the Board discussed this issue, a setback of 50 feet was recommended. At that time, he asked Mr. McChesney, Port Executive Director, if a 50-foot setback would be acceptable, and he indicated he wanted to discuss the issue with his team. Mr. McChesney announced that the team took the 50-foot setback proposal under advisement. From what they know, they can make the HSMP work with a 50-foot setback requirement for buildings. Vice Chair Stewart advised that the City of Bainbridge Island's SMP requires that all future shoreline development be carried out in a manner that limits further degradation of the shoreline environment. One of the requirements was specific buffers and setback with vegetation. To her, this language suggest that buffers and setbacks are additive. She said that when creating their SMP, the City of Bainbridge Island reviewed the buffers established by other jurisdictions. For example, Jefferson County set SMP buffers for the marine shorelines at 150 feet for Natural and Conservancy designated areas and 50 feet for Residential and High Intensity Shoreline designated areas. In King County, buffers vary by the type of development surrounding the shoreline (e.g., high intensity, moderate and low intensity). Buffers for high intensity development areas are 150 feet for shorelines within the urban growth area. Lower Kitsap County is proposing to adopt a 150-foot marine shore Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 11 buffer in certain shoreline environment designations as a result of a decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which found that a 35-foot buffer width on shorelines considered urban, rural and semi -rural under the Kitsap County Shoreline Management Plan was insufficient. Mr. Chave cautioned against comparing the City's proposed SMP with SMP's from other jurisdictions. Because jurisdictions can use different approaches to incorporate their CAO's into their SMP's, the terminology and standards are not transferrable. Jurisdictions address setbacks and buffers differently. For example, in the City's SMP, the buffer is different than a shore setback, but they should work together and match up in a lot of cases. Board Member Ellis asked if redevelopment within the 150-foot buffer area would be required to use the exact same footprint as the existing development. Mr. Lien answered that the structures would not be required to go in the exact same location, but the impervious surface area could not increase. Board Member Ellis summarized that the current development within the buffer areas represents the maximum level of development that would be allowed to occur within the buffer areas. He reminded the Board that the Harbor Square Master Plan calls for restoring and enhancing the buffers along the Edmonds Marsh. Board Member Clarke asked if it would be possible to craft a setback line that mirrors the existing south building elevations. This approach would result in no net loss of the current open space where there are no structures. Mr. Lien cautioned that variable setbacks would be difficult to establish in the SMP since it would basically require the incorporation of a site plan. Board Member Clarke reviewed the location of existing structures and parking on the south side of the Harbor Square property. He particularly noted that the athletic club and tennis center are located at or near the 25-foot setback line. He expressed concern that allowing development to occur too close to the marsh could create a canyon affect. Chair Lovell said that is one reason why the Board is discussing the option of a 50-foot setback as opposed to 25 feet. Board Member Reed said he would be in favor a 50-foot setback requirement for structures and parking, topped with a 50- foot buffer that does not allow any development, including decks, fences, etc. From a practical standpoint, a 50-foot setback/buffer would provide for a protected area between the edge of the marsh and the nearest development. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that buffers are established by the CAO to be 150 feet from the edge of the marsh. However, the CAO also includes a provision that allows redevelopment to occur within the previously developed areas of the buffer. Again, he reminded the Board that while the SMP requires "no net loss," it does not require the City to correct the sins of the past. The area was filled in long before the CAO was adopted. VICE CHAIR STEWART MOVED THAT THE SHORELINE BULK AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE (ECDC 24.40.090) BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR "OTHER COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT" FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Duncan suggested that the building setback should be 75 feet, with a 50-foot setback requirement for roads. This would push the buildings further away from the marsh and encourage access around the perimeter of the site. After discussing the best approach for making changes to the setback for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment, Vice Chair Stewart withdrew her motion. Board Member Clarke questioned where the Edmonds Marsh Park begins and ends. He noted there is a sign for the park near Building 5 at Harbor Square, which is west of the illegal gravel parking area. Although not part of the Harbor Square master parking plan, there are two parking spaces within the 25-foot setback area to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to the marsh. Chair Lovell pointed out that the zoning map does not designate the marsh as a park. Board Member Clarke countered that the marsh is listed in the City's park inventory. Mr. Lien said that the Edmonds Marsh Walkway is referred to in the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, but it is not delineated as an actual park. He noted that the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director reviewed the HSMP and did not voice any concerns. Board Member Clarke said he thought the Port was the legal owner of the property where the marsh walkway is located. Mr. McChesney said he cannot confirm ownership, but he assumes the walkway belongs to the City and it is maintained by the City. Board Member Clarke suggested it is important for the City to clearly understand who is responsible for this property. Mr. McChesney advised that the Port would be very comfortable with a 50-foot setback. However, a 75-foot setback, as proposed by Board Member Duncan, would be overly restrictive and would not allow the Port to accomplish the concepts Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 12 outlined in the HSMP. Board Member Duncan questioned why his proposal would be overly restrictive if the Port must provide circulation on the site anyway. His concept would push the road to the outside rather than inside of the site. The building envelope would remain the same. It is a matter of how the buildings and roadway are arranged. Board Member Reed reminded the Board that the HSMP calls for mixed -use residential development on the south side of the Harbor Square site near the marsh. He said that, as a resident, he would not want to look out at a roadway from his backyard. Board Member Duncan said the issue to consider is whether or not the private and public spaces should be separated by a roadway. He questioned if the setback area is intended to serve as a residential backyard or a public amenity. As a public amenity, park visitors might appreciate the separation. Chair Lovell cautioned the Board against over engineering the SMP. Trying to project what can and cannot or should and should not be built at Harbor Square is not the charge of the SMP. The SMP should establish a reasonable seatback for a building from the marsh where no development or uses can occur. IIM01g10971;7071C9Z9l W.11099/.'11.004IL'Xhyaul■1001:089:1401 ►A/11►l001111351111 Ns014f:1l1L'A19498I Mr. McChesney expressed concern about Board Member Duncan's recommendation for a 75-foot building setback that would accommodate a perimeter road between the building footprint and the marsh. He said the Port believes this would be too restrictive to accommodate the type of development anticipated in the HSMP. He noted that in the basic site plan contained in the HSMP, the roadway would be internal to the development. Again, he said a 50-foot setback would be doable for the Port and an improvement upon what is there now. A 75-foot setback would be overly restrictive. Board Member Duncan asked if private pools, fences, dining terraces, etc. would be allowed in the setback areas. Mr. Lien said the definition for "shore setback" is the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM. That means that, with the exception of some types of recreational uses, no private structures or uses would be allowed within the 50-foot setback. Board Member Ellis asked if ADA parking spaces would be allowed within the 50-foot setback area to provide access to the marsh. Mr. Lien answered that, as per the definition for "shore setback" no parking, including ADA parking, would be allowed within the setback area. Mr. Chave explained that best available science would still come into play over critical areas. It is typical that a fence could delineate the critical areas with some public purpose associated with it, but a fence to wall off a portion of the setback for private use would not be approved. Board Member Clarke said he cannot support anything that detracts from what is at the Edmonds Marsh now. He said the 25-foot open space zone was intended to provide a buffer to protect the marsh from development, and this area needs to be preserved. He expressed his belief that ADA parking should be provided near the marsh. However, allowing buildings to be developed within 50 feet from the edge of the marsh would create a canyon feel. Board Member Ellis pointed out that a 50-foot setback would be an improvement over what currently exists. He noted that the tennis courts and athletic club are currently located closer than 50 feet from the marsh. Board Member Clarke pointed out that some buildings are currently set back more than 50 feet from the edge of the marsh, and a 50-foot setback would allow them to move closer to the marsh. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that, in terms of natural area, the net result of a 50-foot setback requirement would be an overall improvement. Mr. Lien pointed out that the Urban Mixed Use I and Urban Mixed Use II Environments have a standard setback requirement of 60 feet for parking. However, the standard can be reduced if certain amenities such as boardwalks are provided. He suggested that Board Member Clarke's concern about ADA parking could be addressed by establishing a 50-foot standard setback for parking in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment, but allowing an exception for a public amenity such as ADA parking. Another option would be to establish a standard parking setback, but include a provision that allows parking to be closer to the marsh access point if certain amenities are provided. Rather than an exception to the parking requirement to allow ADA parking closer to the marsh, Board Member Clarke said he would like the Harbor Square development agreement to include a requirement that two or three parking stalls be provided specifically for the Edmonds Marsh. This could be done by adding a footnote below the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Table. BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE SHORELINE BULK AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE (ECDC 24.40.090) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: • CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR OTHER COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 13 • CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. • CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR UNCOVERED PARKING IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. • CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR STRUCTURED PARKING IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. • CHANGE THE SHORE SETBACK FOR ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT FROM 25 FEET TO 50 FEET. 1:3171;711UINu1:301:4;7010I=DrKl]�Ia04l IYll06UVDII10)7 F The Board discussed whether fences should be allowed in the setback area. They expressed concern that a fence located 25 feet from a building would create separate areas for public and private uses. Mr. Lien suggested that a footnote could be added to indicate that fences in the setback are not appropriate in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADD A FOOTNOTE TO THE SMP TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT UNCOVERED PARKING IN THE URBAN MIXED USE III ENVIRONMENT WOULD REQUIRE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ADA PARKING, PARTICULARLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC VIEWING AREA AT THE EDMONDS MARSH. Mr. Lien explained that there are a number of provisions in the draft SMP that would require public access. There is already existing public access along the marsh, and any redevelopment at Harbor Square would be required to provide public access to the shoreline. Vice Chair Stewart questioned if it is necessary to provide ADA parking in the setback if there is ADA access from the parking area to the trail. As long as there are designated spaces, then locating them 50 feet away should not be a problem. The Board generally agreed with Vice Chair Stewart that ADA parking does not need to be provided within the setback, as long as there is ADA accessibility from the parking area to the marsh walkway. Board Member Reed pointed out that Vice Chair Stewart's motion did not change the setback requirement for recreational use in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment, which is currently proposed at 15 feet. Mr. Lien referred to ECDEC 24.60.060, which provides additional provisions and regulations related to recreational development. He explained that recreational development includes facilities for passive recreational activities such as hiking, photography, viewing, and fishing. It also includes facilities for active or more intensive uses such as parks, campgrounds and golf courses. Chair Lovell particularly referenced ECDC 24.60.060.C.2.f which states recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for "screening, buffer strips, fences and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private properties." The Board agreed that a 15-foot setback for recreational uses would be adequate, and Board Member Reed withdrew his motion. The Commission once again discussed whether fences should be allowed in the setback area. Mr. Chave suggested that fences could be addressed as part of a development agreement for Harbor Square. The Board agreed. Once again, Mr. Lien agreed to research and make appropriate adjustments to the eel grass map. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that the 35-foot building height limit identified in the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment is based on current zoning. The HSMP plan suggests the Port will request a greater height limit. Mr. Lien referred to Footnote 16, which states that "the maximum height limit shall be determined by the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation. Height limits greater than 35 feet shall be supported by view analysis and structure designed to minimize impacts on public views." Mr. Chave added that Footnote 16 would encompass the Port's HSMP and any subsequent development agreement related to zoning. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 14 CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS AMENDED WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE SMP AND HSMP DOCUMENT BE REVIEWED CONCURRENTLY. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Lovell noted that the Board could make this recommendation to the City Council, but the City Council sets their own agenda. Board Member Clarke said the motion was intended to address the concern raised earlier by Mr. Hertrich. Mr. Lien said the City Council will begin their review of the HSMP on November 20th, and their remaining agendas through the end of the year are quite full. However, he has informed the City Council that it is the Board's intent to have the two documents before them at the same time. Mr. Chave said the overall intent was for the two to be consistent. Board Member Clarke withdrew his motion. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that when putting documents forward to the City Council, it would be helpful to color code each evolution of change so they can see how the Board progressed through their review process. Mr. Chave said this would be beyond the staff s capability to do for the SMP. However, all of the changes made by the Board will be identified when the SMP is forwarded to the City Council for review. In the future, Vice Chair Stewart recommended that staff color code the changes that are made by the Board to each draft of a proposal. .K1]eMYIe1110177�1+/I�►+.+1$7+.+/�f.�ICe'I:11YDow 1/:10/\eM7aCo77uC:31iT. 1Z 1 Mr. Chave said this item was scheduled on the agenda to remind the Board Members to forward their comments regarding the Westgate Plan and form -based code as soon as possible in preparation for their continued discussion on December 12th The draft document presented to the Board for review on December 121h would identify the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning code amendments necessary to implement the plan. He asked that the Board Members submit their comments no later than November 30`h. Board Member Reed pointed out that Pages 76 and 77 of the Comprehensive Plan contain specific comments about the Westgate Corridor and SR-104 that relate to the plan. Mr. Chave cautioned that that the Westgate Corridor is different than the Westgate Commercial Center. The commercial development section of the Comprehensive Plan contains a short policy discussion about the Westgate Commercial Center. The Westgate Corridor stretches between the Westgate Commercial Center and Highway 99, but it was never intended to include the Westgate Commercial Center. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not review their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell announced that on November 20th, the City Council would begin their review of the Port of Edmonds' proposal to incorporate their HSMP into the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said he would address the City Council to express appreciation to the Board Members for their hard work in reviewing and finalizing the recommendation. He would also thank the public and staff for their hard work. In addition, he would provide a basic summary of the process and ask the City Council to review the minutes in detail because they contain a lot of information that exhibits the depth and breadth of the Board's review. Chair Lovell thanked the Board Members for the hard work they did while he was away, particularly on the HSMP. They did an outstanding job of getting through the proposal, and the voting that occurred was appropriate and provided a good representation of where the Board stands on the matter. He said he is hopeful the City Council will appreciate the Board's work. He said he appreciates the Port's hard work throughout the process, as well as members of the public who weighed in on the proposal for more than two years. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the November 28th Planning Board meeting was cancelled. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 15 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Reed reported that he attended the presentation by Roger Brooks of Destination Development International. The event was sponsored by the City of Edmonds Economic Development Department, and the title of the presentation was "Ingredients for an Outstanding Destination: Things You Can Do Today to Make a Difference Tomorrow." He noted that the presentation was recorded and would be shown on Channel 21. He encouraged the Board Members who were unable to attend to watch the recording. Board Member Reed reported that he attended the last Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where they once again discussed uses in the BD1 zone. He said he encouraged the EDC to take advantage of the Board's discussions regarding the matter. He said he provided the EDC with a list of the Planning Board Meetings at which the BD1 zone was discussed, and the EDC will continue their discussion on November 26th. Board Member Reed expressed concern that the City Council has scheduled a public hearing on the HSMP for December 41" leaving just one meeting (November 20th) for them to review the Port's proposal. Board Member Clarke said he has appreciates the opportunity he has had to work on the Board and his association with Board Members. Vice Chair Stewart reported that the Board's student representative, Shukri Farey, attended a previous Planning Board meeting as a member of the audience, but her work schedule has made it hard for her to attend subsequent meetings. She said she spoke with Ms. Farey and the assistant principal at Edmonds Woodway High School and learned that she is serving as student representative for her senior project. Ms. Farey asked if it would be possible to commit to attend at least one meeting per month. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart felt this arrangement would benefit the Board because she would present a report to her peer group and faculty as a student project. This would help the Board get the word out for potential student representatives next year. Vice Chair Stewart said she reviewed the audio recording of the October 1 Oh meeting and found that she did say if the Board were to vote on the HSMP that night, she would vote no. However, she missed this when the final vote was taken later in the evening. While she had intended to vote against the motion to recommend approval of the HSMP, she did not. Board Member Ellis echoed Board Member Clarke's thoughts regarding the opportunity to work on the Board. Although he sometimes gets testy, particularly when it gets late at night, he appreciates all the Board Members do. They make better informed decisions because of it. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 16