2013-03-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 27, 2013
Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
John Reed, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Ian Duncan (excused)
Neil Tibbott (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
OTHERS PRESENT
Kristiana Johnson, Edmonds City Council Member
BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2013 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Council Member Johnson expressed appreciation to the Planning Board for all the thoughtful work they have been doing,
especially with regard to the Shoreline Management Program and Harbor Square Master Plan. She also acknowledged the
communication that has been going on between the Planning Board and the City Council. The Planning Board's quarterly
reports have been very effective in identifying all the issues the Board has been working on and acknowledging the work they
do. She said she would continue to attend Planning Board meetings to further improve communications and listen to the
Board's discussions. She advised that the next meeting of the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
is scheduled for April 81 at 4:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room.
Gary Porter, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for ten years. He thanked the Board Members for their service to the
citizens of Edmonds. He asked what relevant information the Planning Board could provide regarding the apartment
complex that is proposed at 50 Pine Street. Board Member Lovell advised that this project is part of the Point Edwards
development. He explained that review of the proposal is outside of the Planning Board's purview, and citizens should
contact the Development Services Department for more information. Mr. Lien added that the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) conducted a public hearing on the project in December. At that time, the ADB directed the developer to redesign the
building to be more consistent with the existing development at Point Edwards. Due to some procedural issues, the
application has been withdrawn, and the applicant has reapplied with a redesigned building that incorporates the guidance
provided by the ADB. A new process will start and there will likely be another public hearing before the ADB in May. He
emphasized that the project has not been approved.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPSAL TO REZONE ONE PARCEL (22133 — 76TH AVENUE WEST) FROM
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG2) AND A PORTION OF ANOTHER
PARCEL (22121 — 76TH AVENUE WEST) FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4) TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (CG2) (FILE NUMBER PLN20130008)
Chair Reed advised that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to rezone one parcel (22133 — 761 Avenue
West) from contract General Commercial (CG) to General Commercial (CG2) and a portion of another parcel (22121 — 761
Avenue West) from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to General Commercial (CG2) in order to correct two errors on the
official zoning map. The subject parcels were inadvertently left out of an area -wide CG2 rezone in 1995 due to a mapping
mistake, and the proposed rezone will bring the parcels into better alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and the CG2
zoning that has surrounded the parcels since 1995.
Mr. Clugston said the proposal is a City -sponsored rezone of two parcels. He provided an aerial photograph of the vicinity,
noting that both parcels are located behind Doug's Mazda, which fronts on Highway 99. The large site (Parcel A) is actually
a portion of the Doug's Mazda car dealership. The smaller site (Parcel B) is a portion of the backyard of a single-family
residence that was built in 1954. He explained that the current zoning map shows Parcel A as being zoned contract CG2, and
it should be contract CG. Parcel B is shown as CG2 and it should be RM-2.4. While the mapping error could be corrected
administratively without rezoning the properties, this approach would not address the larger issue that the parcels were
clearly left out of a 1995 area -wide rezone due to a mapping error that existed at that time.
Mr. Clugston advised that Parcel A was rezoned from RM-2.4 to contract CG in 1988 (see Attachment 5), but Parcel B was
not included in that rezone or any another rezone. Therefore, it should have remained RM-2.4. For some reason, the official
zoning map was updated incorrectly in the early 1990s. He referred to a 1992 zoning map (Attachment 6), which showed
both parcels as CG2 as opposed to CG and RM-2.4. In 1995, the City reviewed and approved an area -wide rezone that was
intended to zone all parcels between 220r' and 224' Streets and 76r' Avenue and Highway 199 as CG2 (see Attachment 7).
Unfortunately, due to the mapping error in the early 1990s, Parcels A and B were left out of the 1995 rezone because it was
incorrectly assumed that they were already CG2.
Mr. Clugston said the purpose of the current rezone proposal is to correct mapping mistakes that were made previously. One
option would be to administratively change the map to what it should be (contract CG2 for Parcel A and RM-2.4 for Parcel
B). However, staff believes it was the City Council's intent in 1995 that all of the properties between 2201 and 2241 Streets
and 761 Avenue and Highway 99 should be zoned CG2. Staff believes the best approach would be to rezone Parcel A from
CG to CG2 and Parcel B from RM-2.4 to CG2. Staff recommends approval of the rezone as proposed in the Staff Report.
Board Member Ellis asked if the City has received comments from the owner of the subject property or from surrounding
property owners. Mr. Clugston answered no. Board Member Ellis asked if the two properties are owned by the same person.
Mr. Clugston answered that both parcels are owned by Doug Ikegami. He said staff has advised Mr. Ikegami of the rezone
proposal and he indicated his support.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. AS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE INDICATED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS
THE BOARD, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Lovell recalled that at their February 271 study session, the Board discussed that the rezone proposal is
straight forward.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD
MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FOREWARD FILE NUMBER PLN20130008 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATON OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. VICE CHAIR
STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE TIME FRAME FOR
VALIDITY OF PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL AS ESTABLISHED IN ECDC 20.75.100 (FILE
NUMBER AMD20130002)
Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning Board discussed this item on February 27r' and requested that staff return for a public
hearing with a proposal that would extend the time frame for preliminary short plat approval to be consistent with the State's
time frame for formal subdivision approval. They also asked that the amendment include a provision to address applications
that have already expired.
Mr. Lien explained that the State Legislature recently established a seven-year time frame for final approval of formal
subdivisions (subdivisions into five or more lots) if preliminary approval is issued on or before December 31, 2014.
However, this time frame does not apply to short plats. Instead, State law (RCW 58.17.060) leaves it up to cities to
determine the time within which a short plat must be recorded before it expires. Based on the City's current code,
preliminary approval of short plats expires after five years, but the City has the ability to make the time frame shorter or
longer.
Mr. Lien reported that in January, a citizen approached the City Council with the concern that the current five-year validity of
preliminary short plat approval was not long enough, given the recent recession. The citizen asked that the City revise its
code requirements to allow seven years for preliminary short plat approval to be consistent with the change in state law
related to formal plats. This item was discussed by the Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on February
llr'', and the committee felt it would be appropriate to increase the current time frame. They forwarded the issue to the
Planning Board for discussion and a public hearing.
Mr. Lien reviewed the draft code language (Attachment 1), which reflects the Planning Board's direction from February 271:
ECDC 20.75.100.A was changed to reference the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.140, which is the state's
current time frame for preliminary approval of formal subdivisions. By simply referencing the RCW, the City's code
will not have to be changed if and when the legislature adopts changes to state law.
ECDC 20.75.100.B was added to outline the time frame for preliminary approval of short plats. As proposed,
preliminary short plat approval would expire at the end of seven years if issued on or before December 31, 2013 and at
the end of five years if issued on or after January 1, 2014. This mirrors the state provisions for formal plats. However,
staff is recommending that the time frame switch back to five years at the beginning of 2014, which is one year sooner
than what the state regulations afford to formal subdivisions.
ECDC 20.75.107 was added to include a provision for extending the time limit for preliminary short plats that would
have expired within the past couple of years, giving them two additional years from the effective date of the ordinance to
obtain final approval.
Ms. McConnell explained that the time frame proposed for short plat preliminary approval is slightly different than the time
frame outlined in RCW 58.17.140 for formal subdivision preliminary approval. She explained that the City will need to
make changes to their stormwater regulations by 2015 in order to meet the Department of Ecology's new permit
requirements. Staff is proposing that the extended time frame for short plat preliminary approval should sunset on December
31, 2013 rather than December 31, 2014 so that new applications can be designed and vested in the updated stormwater code
when it becomes effective.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that the main purpose of the proposed amendment is to help with those applications that were put
on hold due to the economic downturn. She noted that several applications expired over the past two years, many of which
had already submitted civil construction plans and were being actively reviewed. However, with the downturn in the
economy, some applicants were unable to move forward with the subdivision improvements and their applications expired.
The proposed amendment would allow a seven-year timeframe for current preliminary short plat approvals. It would also
grant an additional two years to preliminary approval that expired in 2011 and 2012.
Ms. McConnell reminded the Board that the Engineering and Planning Departments are working on changes to the
subdivision regulations, and the City Council recently directed staff to reorganize the entire Edmonds Community
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 3
Development Code over the next few years. Another reason for establishing a sunset date of December 31, 2013 is to avoid
establishing regulations now that will contradict future proposed changes to the code.
Board Member Ellis asked if the extension for expired applications was put forward by the City or if it was the result of a
citizen request. Mr. Lien answered that, at the February 27t' Planning Board Meeting, a citizen suggested that the extension
should also apply to applications that expired in 2011 and 2012. As currently proposed, the amendment would give these
applicants an additional two years to complete the short plat improvements. The Board directed staff to include this change
in the draft amendment.
Board Member Ellis asked how individuals with expired applications would learn about the extension. Mr. Lien advised that
the Planning staff would notify all individuals with expired applications if and when the amendment to extend the time frame
is adopted. He emphasized that extending the time frame would not require an application to move an expired application
forward. Board Member Ellis asked if staff envisions any legal problems associated with reactivating expired preliminary
approvals. Mr. Lien advised that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed language and did not identify any legal
concerns.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if the proposed sunset date would cover all of the current applicants who have been waiting for the
economy to improve before continuing their project. Ms. McConnell said the proposed seven-year extension would be
applicable to all current applications. It would also allow a two-year time frame for all applications that expired in 2011 and
2012. She said the purpose of the revised sunset date is to limit the number of applications that would vest to the existing
stormwater code, which will revised in the near future as required by the Department of Ecology.
Steve Miles, Edmonds, said he attended the Board's February 271 meeting and was encouraged by their suggestion that
Edmonds code should be changed to treat short plats like formal subdivisions and that the time frame for preliminary short
plat approval should be extended from five to seven years. He was even more encouraged by the Board's suggestion that the
extension could be offered to projects where approval had already expired.
Mr. Miles explained that his preliminary approval for a four -lot short plat expired on January 17, 2013. His proposal would
have created four lots from two existing lots. Although he partnered with his neighbor to submit the application, he acted as
the lead. He said their first application was submitted in November of 2006, and they received preliminary approval in
January 2008 and plan approval in mid September 2011. However, the September 2011 approval was too late to start in that
construction season, and they were left with only 2012 to build prior to expiration. By that time, the economy had
completely tanked and the proposed project was worth less than half what it was at the time of application.
Thinking that his situation was not unique, Mr. Miles said he started looking for governmental decisions that might allow
them to receive an extension. He was excited to find House Bill 2152, which was unanimously approved by both houses of
the Washington State Legislature. The bill extended plat approval to seven years. He said he immediately sent the
information to the City and requested an extension. However, he was soon notified that the City's interpretation of House
Bill 2152 was that it was not applicable to short plats. While he was devastated and angry, he continued his research by
contacting the co-author of the bill, Representative Jan Angel, telling her of the City's denial and the distinction between
formal subdivisions and short plats. She offered to write another bill pertaining to short plats, but it would not be done in
time to fix his problem.
Mr. Miles said he contacted other local jurisdictions and learned that most had applied the extension to both formal
subdivisions and short plats. He wrote to Council Member Buckshnis, hoping she would intervene. He said he could not
understand why Edmonds had decided not to include short plats when so many others had. Council Member Buckshnis made
several inquiries but ultimately responded with disappointing news. He said he spoke with an attorney who assured him that
the distinction between short plats and formal subdivisions had been court tested and he should not challenge the City's
decision.
Mr. Miles said he met once more with City staff prior to the expiration date, asking if they would ask a senior person about
House Bill 2152, but this effort was unsuccessful, as well. Staff suggested that he submit a performance bond in lieu of
completing the improvements in exchange for a one-year extension. However, the bond cost was twice the cost of
resubmitting plans and he knew he would not be ready to build this season. Reapplying and repaying would restart the five -
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 4
year cycle again, and that is what they planned to do until introduced to Donna Breske. She was able to get the City's
attention regarding the issue at hand.
Mr. Miles summarized that he and his neighbor have lived in Edmonds for more than 30 years. They are homeowners, not
developers. Their investments in their properties represent a major portion of their assets and long-term security. He said he
knows the legislature wrote the new law with no intent to exclude short plats and to provide relief to people exactly like him.
He asked the Planning Board to consider a change to the City code that would extend the short plat expiration to seven years
and make the extension retroactive for those applications that have already expired. While the economy may not recover in
time for him to take advantage of the extension, he asked that they give him the chance the legislature thought they had
provided.
Donna Breske, Snohomish, said she is a licensed civil engineer working as a private consultant for the past 12 years. She
said she first approached the City Council regarding the time frame for preliminary short plat approval on January 22,
knowing there other individuals like her client whose approval had expired or would expire soon. She pointed out that the
RCW 58.17.140 allows for an extension of up to seven years for formal subdivisions. The RCW also allows local
jurisdictions to set time frames for short plats. She expressed her belief that the proposed amendment is consistent with what
other jurisdictions are doing, as well. She said she is pleased with the process and the quick time frame the City has followed
to move the amendment forward.
Ms. Breske said she recently had a discussion with Ms. McConnell regarding the proposed language for ECDC 20.75.107,
which extends the time frame an additional two years for applications that expired in 2011 and 2012. She pointed out that
RCW 58.17.130 also has a provision for bonding in lieu of improvements, and the concept is allowed in the City's current
code, as well. She explained that this provision is particularly important for individuals who only have two years to complete
the application process and build the improvements. The bonding in lieu of provision allows up to one additional year for the
applicant to complete construction of the project. She suggested that the following language should be added at the end of
ECDC 20.75.107 to help applicants clearly understand the existence of this provision: "... unless the applicant has posted a
bond in lieu of improvements."
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ms. McConnell explained that there is currently a code provision that allows for bonding in lieu of constructing the
improvements so an applicant can move forward with recording the short plat. She expressed her belief that because the
provision is outlined elsewhere in the code, it might not be appropriate to add the provisions into ECDC 20.75.107, as well.
However, staff could solicit input from the City Attorney regarding this option. Again, she reminded the Board that staff will
be working on updates to the subdivision code, recognizing that there are sections of the code that do not flow smoothly.
This will be accomplished as part of the code rewrite that will take place over the next two years.
Vice Chair Stewart agreed with Ms. Breske that language should be added to ECDC 20.75.107 to make it clear that bonding
in lieu of improvements is an option for applicants that are approaching the deadline. Mr. Lien pointed out that bonding in
lieu of improvements is addressed in ECDC 20.75.030. He clarified that the proposed amendment would not prohibit an
applicant from using this provision. Although not specifically called out in ECDC 20.75.107, it would still be one avenue for
final plat approval.
Board Member Lovell asked how an applicant would learn about the bonding in lieu of option. Mr. Lien said that as an
application approaches the deadline, staff informs the applicants about the bonding option. Ms. McConnell added that in
order to post a bond in lieu of improvements, applicants must have approved civil plans in place and activity must be
occurring. Mr. Lien pointed out that Mr. Miles testified that the City offered bonding as one option to continue his
application.
Chair Reed suggested that ECDC 20.75.107 could include a reference to ECDC 20.75.030. While he understands staff s
viewpoint, he is also sympathetic to land owners and the need to help them understand the process. Again, Ms. McConnell
suggested that this issue would be better addressed as part of the City's overall update and reorganization of the development
code to make the processes clearer and more concise. She emphasized that the provision is already available to applicants,
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 5
and staff discusses the option with applicants who are approaching the deadline. Vice Chair Stewart emphasized her desire to
at least include a reference to ECDC 20.75.030 to help citizens who are not knowledgeable about the code.
Board Member Ellis cautioned that changing the proposed language might require an additional public hearing, thus slowing
the process. He suggested the Board move the amendment forward as quickly as possible to give relief to applicants. They
can clean up discrepancies with regards to references at a later time, as long as staff consistently points out the bonding
option when people get close to the deadline. Mr. Lien advised that staff provides a hand out to applicants outlining the bond
in lieu of improvements process. Chair Reed advised that adding a reference to ECDC 20.75.030 in order to provide clarity
would not require an additional hearing before the Board makes a recommendation to the City Council. An additional public
hearing would only be required if the changes are more substantive.
Board Member Lovell said discussions with the staff have satisfied him that most of the code changes associated with the
rewrite will involve reorganization to make the document easier to read. The goal is to make it easier to locate code
provisions related to any given subject. He said he senses staffs hesitance to insert additional language into ECDC
20.75.107 that already exists elsewhere in the code, and he supports their recommendation. He recommended the Board
move forward with a recommendation on the language as currently proposed.
Chair Reed suggested that the Board could forward a recommendation regarding the proposed amendment, with an additional
recommendation that the City Council consider adding a reference to ECDC 20.75.030.
Again, Ms. Breske suggested that additional language could be added to ECDC 20.75.107 to reference the bond in lieu of
improvements provision found in ECDC 20.75.030.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 20.75.100 AND ECDC 20.75.107 (FILE NUMBER AMD20130002) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-1, WITH VICE CHAIR STEWART ABSTAINING.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Reed advised that the April 10' agenda includes a review of Highway 99 initiatives and the status of redevelopment
efforts on Highway 99. He recalled that the Highway 99 Task Force provided a report to the Board in 2009, and the Board
has also received presentations regarding projects that are taking place in the International District.
Chair Reed said the Board was scheduled to continue their discussions about the Westgate Plan and form -based zoning.
However, the discussion was taken off the agenda because an issue was recently raised about whether it would be more
appropriate to address both Five Corners and Westgate at the same time. He said that on April 24r' the Board would continue
their review of the Edmonds Way BC-EW and RM-EW zoning classifications. He reminded the Board they will start
working soon on the code rewrite and they will likely continue their discussions regarding the neighborhood centers, as well.
Chair Reed reported that he and Vice Chair Stewart will meet with Mayor Earling on March 29t' to discuss Planning Board
priorities. City Council Member Petso will be unable to attend, but he will seek input from her in advance. He said the goal
is to schedule a time when all four can meet on a regular basis to discuss agenda priorities and the work the Planning Board is
doing.
Board Member Lovell reported that at their March 20' meeting, the Economic Development Commission voted to send a
proposal to the Planning Board that would essentially make the BD zone primarily retail and restaurant types of uses. They
have prepared a draft ordinance for the Board's consideration. Chair Reed agreed to find out more about the status of the
EDC's draft ordinance.
Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that "development agreements" are not scheduled on the Board's extended agenda or included
in the list of items pending for 2013. She recalled that, at their last meeting, Ron Wambolt suggested that this issue be
revitalized. Chair Reed agreed to clarify the status of this issue with the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works
Committee.
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 6
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Reed advised that he presented the Planning Board's quarterly report to the City Council on March 26t1i, covering
everything the Board has done since September. He said he was surprised at how much the Board accomplished in just five
months.
Chair Reed reported that questions have been raised about the timing of the Westgate and Five Corners redevelopment plans.
He said he would seek input from the City Council to determine the appropriate schedule for the two items.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Stewart referred the Board to several documents that were presented to the City Council by the Edmonds Tree
Board. The materials are informative and intended to educate the City Council and others about the value of trees. She
suggested the Board Members read the documents for their information. She particularly referred to information from
Portland, Oregon, which is a good example of how green infrastructure can relieve aging infrastructures. She summarized
that the Tree Board is doing great work in helping the community recognize the value of trees. They are working to
implement a heritage tree program, and Edmonds has been distinguished as a "Tree City USA" for three years in a row.
Vice Chair Stewart reported that she met with staff and two City Council Members on March 19' to discuss ideas for
encouraging private rain gardens in the City. They particularly discussed the 12,000 Rain Gardens in Puget Sound
Campaign, which is a joint project sponsored by Washington State University and Stewardship Partners. David Hymel, Rain
Dog Designs, was present to share how his business has been successfully installing private rain gardens. Ongoing research
identifies the greening affects associated with rain gardens that are properly installed. There has been success in doing
community projects where six to eight property owners work together to create functioning rain gardens. A project of this
type could become a model for the rest of the City to immolate. She advised that representatives from the campaign will
make a detailed presentation to the City Council regarding the benefits of rain gardens. They will also provide extensive
training for community projects.
Vice Chair Stewart reported that she was invited to participate on the committee that was established to review proposals
from consultants for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan and a companion Community Cultural Plan. The
committee has narrowed the candidates to three. The finalists will be interviewed on March 291, following which the
committee will forward a recommendation to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
March 27, 2013 Page 7