2014-04-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 23, 2014
Chair Cloutier 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
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair (excused)
Ian Duncan (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Shane Holt, Development Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION ON LEGAL LOT ISSUES AND POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS
(FILE NUMBER AMD20140001)
Mr. Lien explained that over the last several months, there have been a number of properties where the legal status of the lot
is in question and property owners have not been able to move forward with development proposals. The City's definition of
"lot" does not provide a clear process for determining legal lot status, and staff anticipates that the issue will keep coming up
as the last of the vacant properties in Edmonds are proposed for development or older properties are redeveloped. Staff took
the concern to the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee, and they forwarded the matter to the
Planning Board to work on potential code amendments. Staff s intent is to introduce the topic to the Board and solicit
feedback so that appropriate code amendments can be prepared for the Board's future consideration.
To begin his presentation, Mr. Lien reviewed the following sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC):
• ECDC 21.55.010 defines "lot" as "a single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on
a street or access easement. For purposes of this code, adjoining lots under common ownership, which were
created without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county governments, shall be
considered as one lot and subject to the regulations contained herein. The terms of this section shall apply
regardless of whether the individual adjoining lots meet current zoning requirements. "
ECDC 17.40.030 defines a "nonconforming lot" as "one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to
size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which, due to the
passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the city, no longer conforms
to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not legally created in accordance with the laws
of the local government entity in which it was located at the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be
recognized for development. "
• ECDC 20.75.180 states that "no building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit, shall be issued for
any lot, tract or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter unless the applicant for such a permit has applied
to the hearing examiner and obtained a ruling from the hearing examiner that het public interest will not be
adversely affected thereby; provided, however, the prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to an
innocent purchaser for value without actual notice.
Board Member Ellis asked if a legal lot must be a buildable site. Mr. Lien said the real issue is whether or not a lot is a
legally -created parcel. Board Member Lovell said it is difficult for him to comprehend how someone would purchase a piece
of land without having legal documentation defining how it came to be and how it could be used. Mr. Lien noted that
Snohomish County draws lines through properties for tax purposes, but these lines do not necessarily represent legal lots.
This practice has caused problems for Edmonds.
Mr. Lien said staff is recommending that the definition for "lot" be amended to include just the first sentence of the existing
definition. The remainder of the definition could be moved to the nonconforming chapter of the code. In addition, staff is
proposing to create a handout on "legal lots" similar to the handout prepared by Snohomish County (Attachment 1).
Mr. Lien explained that legal lots are those lots that were created:
• by a recorded subdivision;
• by a deed prior to the City's first zoning and subdivision ordinance in 1956;
• by an unrecorded short plat between 1956 and 1972; or
• via one of the exceptions in the State's subdivision code (RCW 58.17.040)
Mr. Lien provided a time lapse diagram to illustrate how land in Edmonds was divided up over time since 1890. He pointed
out that, over time, the large lots were divided into smaller and smaller lots. Without using street names or property
addresses, he zoomed into several areas on the map to better illustrate how the lots were illegally divided and developed. He
provided specific examples of lots that were illegally created, noting that this becomes a big issue when property owners
come in for building permits to develop or redevelop the properties.
Board Member Lovell asked if the property owners have paperwork to verify their ownership of the land. Mr. Lien explained
that although the property owners have deeds that describe their properties and verify their ownership, a deed does not
necessarily verify whether or not a lot was legally created. He shared examples of different types of legal descriptions on
property deeds. Again he cautioned that just because a person owns a parcel does not mean it is a legally buildable lot.
Mr. Lien said another issue that should be considered as part of the code update is "innocent purchaser." An "innocent
purchaser" is someone who unknowingly purchased an illegal lot. While the City has a provision (ECDC 20.75.180) that
recognizes "innocent purchasers," it does not have a process in place where an "innocent purchaser" can be recognized and
still be allowed to develop the property they purchased if it meets certain criteria. In addition to simplifying the definition for
"lot," staff is also requesting feedback on the appropriate process for making "innocent purchaser" decisions. He suggested
the Board consider the following options and provide feedback:
Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2014 Page 2
Type I — Staff Decision. The property owner could provide documentation and staff could make the decision
without any notice requirement or public process.
Type II — Staff Decision with Notice. The City Attorney has recommended this process, which would require a
notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel. This would allow an opportunity for neighbors to
provide additional information that might help the staff make a decision.
Type III-B — Hearing Examiner Decision. This process would require notice to property owners within 300 feet,
as well as a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Lien explained that most of the legal lots were issued building permits by the City and have been developed. In these
cases, the City has missed its opportunity to require legal status on the lots. The Board may want to consider additional
exceptions to address situations where the property owner of an illegal lot does not qualify as an "innocent purchaser." For
example, the City's code currently includes an exception for several older plats in downtown Edmonds where the lot widths
are shown as being 30 feet. The City Attorney has determined that combining two lots in these plats would be considered a
legal lot, recognizing that in some situations the combination of two lots still falls short of the required lot width of 60 feet.
Other potential exceptions the Board could consider include:
• Properties that meet the current zoning requirements.
• Properties that meet the nonconforming size requirements (ECDC 17.40.030.D. LQ.
• Properties that were previously permitted activities from the City of Edmonds.
• Properties for which the Hearing Examiner has determined that the public interest would not be adversely affected
(ECDC 20.75.180)
Again, Board Member Lovell commented that between the buyer, seller, and the jurisdiction where the land exists, there must
be a legal process to define buildable lots. Mr. Lien said that would be the subdivision process. However, in many cases, the
County drew lines to divide properties for tax purposes. Years later, the parcels were sold as separate lots even though they
were never legally subdivided. An "innocent purchaser" may not know that the lot was not legally correct. He explained that
not every purchaser does due diligence when purchasing a property, and many are not savvy enough to ask the right
questions.
Board Member Lovell shared that the City abandoned a right-of-way adjacent to his property in 1996, and the property was
divided amongst the property owners. His deed was updated to include the additional property in the legal description of his
lot. Mr. Lien advised that the additional land would be considered part of his property, but it could not be declared a legal,
sellable lot.
Board Member Ellis commented that many of the illegal lots are developed with houses that have passed through several
different owners. Mr. Lien agreed and said that many of the owners could be classified as "innocent purchasers." Board
Member Ellis asked if these property owners would be allowed to develop or redevelop their lots. Mr. Lien said development
would be allowed as long as the owners are identified as "innocent purchasers." However, the City must establish a process
for making this determination.
Board Member Ellis asked staff to describe the procedural differences between a Type II and Type III-B decisions. Mr. Lien
said the fee for a Type II decision would be $500 compared to a Type III-B decision that would cost $1,500. Notice to
property owners within 300 feet of the subject property would be required for both, but a Type III-B decision would require a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. He said he would anticipate the timing of each process to be about the same.
The Board indicated support for creating a better definition for "lot," as well as a handout to describe legal lots and how they
are created. Any exceptions could be identified on the handout, too. Mr. Lien said the City Attorney has recommended that
the definition of "lot" be modified to read, "a single tract of land legally created as a separate building site. " The last two
sentences in the existing definition would be moved to the subdivision chapter of the ECDC.
Board Member Ellis asked staff to explain why the City Attorney is proposing to delete the words "with frontage on a street
or access easement" from the definition of "lot." Mr. Lien said this portion of the definition is still under consideration.
However, he pointed out that lot width and access are important elements of a buildable lot. Board Member Stewart said she
Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2014 Page 3
would like the code to allow some flexibility for an owner to provide an access easement to property that is divided off so it
can be deemed a legal, buildable lot.
Board Member Stewart commented that, although a person might have had no intention of dividing his/her lot when it was
originally purchased, changing life circumstances can create situations where subdividing into smaller lots is desirable,
particularly if the zoning has changed to allow denser development. Mr. Lien explained that even if zoning changes have
occurred over time, a property could only be subdivided if all of the parcels created by the subdivision comply with the
zoning requirements.
Board Member Stewart referred to a property near her home in downtown Edmonds that was recently developed. The
neighbors originally thought that just two homes would be developed, but there were actually three. Mr. Lien said this
situation utilized the exception he noted earlier that allowed two narrow lots in downtown Edmonds to aggregate and become
one legal, buildable lot. Because there were six narrow lots, the owner was allowed to create three legal lots that
accommodated three houses. Board Member Stewart said she does not support extending this exception to other areas of the
City. Mr. Lien said this provision is specific to five subdivisions in the downtown area that have very narrow lots.
Board Member Stewart referred to the City's current definition for "lot" in ECDC 21.55.050 and suggested that the code
should specify how far off the mark they will allow properties to be and still be considered legal lots. Mr. Lien said this
would likely be based on a table similar to the table found in the nonconforming code.
Board Member Stewart said the time lapse illustration was very helpful to understand how properties in Edmonds were
divided over time. She suggested that a similar approach would be helpful to illustrate how the tree canopy in Edmonds has
changed over time. She commented that the City must consider the need to protect the existing tree canopy. Greater
densities and taller buildings will be necessary in some locations going forward to protect the City's natural resources.
The Board indicated support for making the "innocent purchaser" process a Type II staff decision. However, they noted that
some cases are clearer than others. They discussed the idea of allowing staff the option of sending the more difficult cases to
the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien pointed out that the code allows staff to send some Type II decisions to the ADB if they are
uncomfortable with making a decision. In addition, the draft Shoreline Master Program has a threshold for review. Projects
that meet the criteria are Type II decisions, and those that do not meet the criteria are Type III-B decisions. He pointed out
that staff could consult with the Hearing Examiner before making a decision, and staff decisions could be appealed to the
Hearing Examiner. He also pointed out that if a property meets one of the other exceptions, then the "innocent purchaser"
provision may not even come into play. He agreed to seek additional input from the City Attorney and report back to the
Commission at their next meeting.
Chair Cloutier suggested that staff prepare a flow chart to illustrate the process for determining whether or not a lot is legal.
For example, if a property was developed previously under a city -issued permit, it would be considered a legal lot. If it meets
the current zoning requirements, the City could look at it as "no harm, no foul" and deem the property a legal lot. If a
property does not meet the zoning requirements and was not developed previously under a city -issued permit, staff could
review the property and make a decision based on certain criteria.
Board Member Ellis cautioned that the process should be structured in a way that does not put the entire burden on the staff.
Some situations could be easy to decide, but others may require more work and information.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cloutier announced that the Board would continue their review of the Westgate Plan and form -based code on May 14th,
with a public hearing to follow on May 28"'.
Board Member Lovell advised that he attended a recent Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where the
Westgate Plan was discussed. The EDC discussed its intention to write a white paper on the Westgate Plan to describe its
purpose and to help the public gain a greater appreciation for what can happen in the area. He recalled that, at the EDC's
March meeting, he provided an update on the Board's work on the Westgate Plan and form -based code. At that time, many
EDC members suggested that more graphics were needed in order to obtain support from both the public and the City
Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2014 Page 4
Council, and Mr. Chave did provide more graphics in his most recent presentation to the City Council. However, the issue
came up again in April, and a member of the EDC agreed to prepare an aerial photograph of the existing development with
superimposed new buildings as per the plan. He said he also contacted representatives from the University of Washington
who indicated they could provide a similar aerial graphic. The EDC is concerned that the Board's work on the Westgate Plan
is getting a head of their white paper.
Chair Cloutier recommended that the Board move forward with their work on the Westgate Plan as planned. The Board has
been working on the issue for quite some time, and they need to finish the plan and move on. He noted that the EDC could
engage in a discussion with the City Council during its review of the plan. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Chair Cloutier advised that, based on comments at the joint City Council/Planning Board meeting of April 22 d, it is clear that
the City Council would like the Board to move forward with the Development Code rewrite. The Council also expressed a
desire for the Board to move forward with potential code amendments related to Highway 99, such as changing the parking
standards and the requirement for commercial space on the second floor. He felt the sooner the Commission can address
these two issues the better, and staff is already prepared to provide the necessary information for the Board's initial
discussions. He suggested the two items be placed on the May 14th or May 28th agendas. He asked staff to provide feedback
for the Board's discussion about the appropriate order for attacking each of the elements in the code rewrite and the Highway
99 amendments. Staff could then seek additional feedback from the City Council before the Board begins each process.
Chair Cloutier recalled that the Board talked previously about looking at metrics to help evaluate how well the City is
performing as a sustainable community. While he feels strongly about this issue, he did not believe it was within the Board's
charter to move forward with this task. He recalled that the Board recommended a set of metrics previously, but they were
never implemented.
191I1►IeI IeLei :117.1;71Z41I /1 I:ZiL1]u I I noeI I[:
Chair Cloutier announced that Sustainable Edmonds will host a meeting with City officials and other elected representatives
on April 30th at the South County Senior Center from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. The discussion will focus on climate action in
Edmonds. He noted that the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee wrote a Climate Action Plan that contained a series of
very specific and measurable actions, and they would like to review how well they are being implemented. The goal is to get
community buy in moving forward. Board Member Stewart announced that she would attend the next Mayor's Climate
Protection Committee meeting. She commented that anything that can be done to move the plan forward in a practical way
would be helpful.
19W.110 110011.187:1;7QurIBOUT 1:3of:ZKlIuMu1oleo V
Board Member Stewart observed that after working on the City's Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program,
she realized that she needed to learn more about what is going on with the watershed, what is being done to prepare for
climate change, etc. She announced that she has enrolled in a Citizens Action Training School sponsored by the Mid Sound
Fisheries Enhancement Group, which is funded by the Puget Sound Partnership. The group will meet once or twice a week
to listen to experts in various fields, and they will actually visit sites where restoration has or is taking place. The class will
culminate with each participant doing a project that benefits the community.
Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the April 16th Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting,
specifically highlighting the following:
Mayor Earling provided an introduction at the meeting, lending support and complementing the work of the EDC.
It was announced that EDC Member, Kevin Garrett, has been hired by the City on a temporary basis to fill in for a
planner who is on maternity leave.
The new Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, Kyle Vixie, was introduced. He provided a
brief explanation of the Chamber's priorities and current projects and stressed the need for the Chamber to focus on
all neighborhoods in Edmonds and not just those in the downtown. He has agreed to participate on the Highway 99
Task Force, and he would like to create a stronger partnership with arts and cultural groups in the City. He is also
interested in participating in the process of implementing the City's Strategic Action Plan.
Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2014 Page 5
The City's new Development Services Director, Shane Hope, was introduced. She indicated that her main concerns
are related to the environment and economic sustainability within the City. Her early goal is to set up a green room
on the second floor of City Hall where developers and residents can learn more about green building programs. She
also supports moving forward with the code rewrite as soon as possible. In addition to serving as the Development
Services Director, Ms. Hope will also assume some responsibilities related to economic development.
A subcommittee of the EDC presented its findings on the feasibility of a year-round farmers market in Edmonds.
They noted several challenges, including funding and location. It was suggested that the first step should be to
organize a few events around the holidays.
Another subcommittee of the EDC discussed the idea of branding, and a flow chart was provided to illustrate the
responses that were received as the result of a web survey of young people. The EDC was surprised to learn that
many people did not even pay attention to Edmonds when they passed through on their way somewhere else. In
addition, many respondents indicated that they did not view Edmonds as being a center for arts. It was discussed
that branding should be a grass -roots effort rather than a City project.
Board Member Lovell advised that the City recently hired a facilitator to help move the Strategic Action Plan forward, and
the City is in the process of forming an Oversight Committee to work with the facilitator. It is anticipated the committee will
consist of two City Council Members, the Chamber Executive Director, the City's Development Services Director, and
representatives from the Port of Edmonds, the Economic Development Commission, the Planning Board, and the senior
center. He announced his plan to attend the first Oversight Committee meeting on April 24t" and report back to the Board,
but his schedule does not allow him to accept this assignment on a permanent basis. The Board agreed to appoint a
representative for the committee at their next meeting.
Board Member Ellis said he participated on the original Strategic Action Plan Committee, which had an entirely different
function than what is envisioned for the Oversight Committee. The original committee's responsibility was to sift through
the public input and work with the consultant to come up with a plan that addressed all of the issues. Their discussion had
nothing to do with implementation of the plan. He suggested the City should start from scratch and appoint an entirely new
body of committee members. He is not sure the original committee would be suitable or even willing to take on this task.
I"Lf11J"11lu 10401"
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2014 Page 6