Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2023-09-13 Planning Board Packet
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board V REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 13, 2023, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION: Meeting Link:https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode:007978 This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 23, 2023 Draft Meeting Minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004) B. Continued Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. AMD2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments NEW BUSINESS PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Edmonds Planning Board Agenda September 13, 2023 Page 1 A. September 13 Extended Agenda 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda September 13, 2023 Page 2 3.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2023 August 23, 2023 Draft Meeting Minutes Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Staff Recommendation Approve the draft meeting minutes from the Planning Board's August 23, 2023 regular meeting, which are attached. Attachments: August 23 Draft Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 3.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting August 23, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell (online) Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Lily Distelhorst (student rep) (online) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn (excused) Emily Nutsch (alternate) (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Amber Brokenshire, Planner Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSI, SECONDED BY VICE PRESIDENT TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bill Phipps, Edmonds resident, spoke regarding the Tree Code amendment. He noted he had submitted a letter today. He stressed the importance of the Tree Code for the environment and for the future of Edmonds. He wished the Board luck getting through it. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Pagel of 6 Packet Pg. 4 3.A.a ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (CARA) (AMD2023-0004) Staff Presentation: The hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Planning Manager Levitan reviewed this item. hi the last few weeks, staff has continued to have discussions on the stormwater portion of this, but there is additional work that needs to be done. Staff is continuing to have conversations with Olympic View Water and Sewer District and continuing to have conversations about the integration of the stormwater code into the CARA code. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing to a date certain of September 13. They are confident they will have fully developed draft code language, including the stormwater component, at that time. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone noted that the Department of Ecology has issued its Stormwater Manual and Permits draft for update. It has a lot of new regulations regarding protection of aquifers from stormwater use and underground injection control wells, which is Olympic View's primary concern. Olympic View, and her organization, the Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts, have been actively involved in making this more rigorous. Public Comments: None MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS TO THE DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) The public hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. Chair Gladstone read the script regarding the purpose and procedures of the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All members answered in the negative. She asked if anyone on the Board had a conflict of interest or believed that he or she could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. All members responded in the negative. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to her participation or any other board member's participation as a decision maker in this hearing. There were no responses from the audience in the room or online. She asked everyone planning on testifying to raise their right hand and affirm that their testimony would be truthful. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 5 3.A.a Staff Presentation: Planner Amber Brokenshire made the staff presentation regarding the applicant -requested rezone from Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC- EW) for property at 9530 Edmonds Way. She reviewed the addition of the adjacent PUD substation (zoned RM 1.5) in response to the Board's request and PUD's approval; site context; and rezone review criteria. A rezone to BC-EW would allow for increased densities, reduced setbacks, a smaller floor area ration, and an increased height to 40 feet for buildings fronting Edmonds Way. However, additional/revised site development standards would also apply to the site such as increased street setbacks (to 15 feet) and modulation requirements where adjacent to single-family residential (RS). The rezone appears to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan while helping to achieve a variety of housing types. At least three types of public benefits must be incorporated into the building and/or site design within the BC-EW zone. To date, staff has received one public comment in opposition to the proposal based on concerns about traffic and site access on this portion of Edmonds Way. Traffic impacts will be further reviewed and addressed at the project state. Following public testimony and deliberation, staff is proposing that the Planning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the rezone. City Council would then hold a separate public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance to change the zoning. General clarification questions followed. Chair Gladstone asked if the notice requirements were sufficient since the rezone had added on the PUD property. She thought it should be expanded since they expanded the proposal area. Planning Manager Levitan left the meeting briefly (so he could have internet access) to confirm that adequate noticing was done for the notice of public hearing to include a 300-foot radius from both parcels, not just the original parcel. Applicant Testimony: Shaun Leiser, 2024 NW 190'h Street, Shoreline, WA, said he grew up in Edmonds and is invested in the community. He explained that he has owned the property for 20 years. Regarding why the change to BC now, he said he previously didn't want to deal with the commercial aspect but he has had a change of heart. He explained they are planning on doing underground parking. Regarding the drainage easement, they will work with the Edmonds Engineering Department to work on rerouting that around the buildable area at the appropriate time. Currently the stormwater from the development above his is just dumped onto his property. They will be improving the existing situation with low impact development and creating better water quality with whatever the regulations are. His goal is to build a nice building for the community. Board Member Martini asked what type of building he plans to build. Mr. Leiser replied that the intent is to build an apartment building with a mix of sizes. He noted that with the new development there would be a planting strip and a much larger sidewalk than currently exists. Chair Gladstone said she assumed there was a stormwater line to tap into from his property and that there was just no one there to connect it before. Mr. Leiser was not sure but said he has located the end of the pipe. Mr. Leiser referred to concerns that had been raised about traffic and access. He noted that there are four properties that will be sharing the curb cut to SR 104. They will not be adding an additional curb cut; they will actually be making it better than it is now. The access road currently is gravel. Additionally, because of the PUD substation, his setback will actually be further back than 15 feet because of overhead powerlines. It will likely be closer to 30 feet back. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 6 3.A.a Public Testimony: Larry Williamson commented that there is a group of single-family homes to the immediate east of this parcel. He asked if those would be rezoned as well. Ms. Brokenshire explained that they would not change. They have an access easement to Edmonds Way and will not be directly impacted by this rezone. Mr. Williamson wondered if the increased height, increased density, and commercial activity will be in the interest of the single- family properties adjacent to this property and in the area. He noted that if they rezone this property, they will be creating a commercial parcel in the middle of a residential row of properties. Ms. Brokenshire explained there is a 15-foot required setback from R-zoned properties. They would also have to modulate their height adjacent to those R-zoned properties. Seeing no further comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Board Questions and Deliberation: Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to the three properties immediately adjacent to the subject property. She asked for confirmation that 9516 has already been rezoned to residential multifamily (RM-EW). Staff confirmed this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked about the current zoning of 9520 and 9524. Ms. Brokenshire explained they are zoned RM 1.5. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell summarized that the three properties to the east of the subject property are all zoned multifamily even though they might currently have single-family residences on them. Ms. Brokenshire concurred. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to the properties to the south of 9620, the PUD substation — 2303 and 2301 and asked if they are currently zoned at RS-8. Ms. Brokenshire affirmed that they are. Planning Manager Levitan reported that there was not a 300-foot radius from 9620 (the expanded area) included in the public hearing notice for this application. He recommended not making a final recommendation to Council tonight so staff could re -notice the project to be compliant with noticing requirements. He proposed reopening the public comment period and leaving it open. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS- CAMPBELL, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Testimony: Jake Lam, 9516 property owner/developer directly east of the subject property. He is in favor of the rezone. He spoke to the need to provide more housing in Edmonds. He thinks there are a lot of opportunities along Edmonds Way for both commercial and residential activity. He thinks the characteristics of the project fit in with what he believes the City of Edmonds is trying to do along Edmonds Way. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 13. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 7 3.A.a UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made the presentation on code options related to property owner tree removals. Due to technical difficulties with sharing the PowerPoint, Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that a copy of the presentation be included with the minutes. At the previous meeting there was general agreement to keep the regulations simple, that no healthy trees should be removed in critical areas, and to allow two trees to be removed per 12 months. Does this apply to larger trees? What about replacement requirements? She reviewed public and stakeholder feedback. She stated there was general support for limiting or prohibiting tree removal in critical areas. Additionally, the Tree Board had a strong recommendation to limit landmark tree removals. There was also previously a discussion about allowing a greater number of tree removals on larger properties. She reviewed a table showing options for property sizes with greater numbers of tree removal allowances for larger properties. The Board needs to decide if removal limits based on property size is a preferred approach. She reviewed some draft code options related to tree removal allowances depending on the size of the removed trees and noted that this would also increase the complexity and involvement by both the staff and applicant. Is this consistent with the stated goal of having a simple code? Chair Gladstone asked if there are other jurisdictions that use property size as part of their reporting and notification. Ms. Powers replied that Kirkland, Woodinville, and Bellevue all look at differences in property sizes, but it is up to the community. There was some discussion about the process of code development and how that affects the complexity or simplicity of the resulting code. Chair Gladstone noted it was important to answer the question of which trees to which this would apply. Would they even allow tree removals for trees over 23.9" DBH? Ms. Powers referred to a matrix that showed various code options related to landmark trees available to the Board, staff recommendations and solicited feedback. After landmark trees are defined, that code option is shown under Code Option III, Tree Removal Allowance - applicable tree size, in blue text under number 2. Code Option III.2: Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to one landmark tree within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The Board had expressed support for limiting but not prohibiting landmark tree removals. Ms. Powers explained that rather than create a new size definition for trees in between significant and landmark trees, that the removal allowance just applies to landmark trees. The matrix shows the more complex code options in red text. There was some discussion if the number of allowed landmark tree removals should be one or two per 12 months. A permit would be required to exceed that numerical allowance, as shown under Code Option IV. Code Option IV.1: Tree removal scenarios that require a permit. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements: The proposed removal of • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (new) • Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (new) Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 8 3.A.a • Trees located on commercial and multi family -zoned properties (current) • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (current) • Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the allowance and not having the graduated sizes because of the cleanliness of it. She likes the idea of the graduated sizes but it feels like it will cause more of a burden from an applicant and processing standpoint. She thinks allowing two landmark trees is too much. If they are going to do an across-the-board allowance of two trees, she thinks they should be 20 inches or smaller. Chair Gladstone said she agrees that landmark trees feel different. She realizes this adds complexity to the code but she thinks they need to figure out a way to differentiate them. Ms. Powers explained that Kirkland has two categories — significant and landmark. Significant is defined as trees at least 6 inches in trunk diameter. If they want to regulate trees of a certain size range between significant and landmark trees (such as over 12 inches), they need to define that category though. There was discussion about how these definitions relate to the development code. Vice Chair Campbell expressed an interest in staying consistent with the development code definitions and possibly increasing the allowance for significant trees. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the late hour and recommended they come back to this at the next work session in order to have enough time to get feedback from everyone. She also requested that staff provide a clear staff preferred recommendation for the tree code as a starting point so they can get through it a little quicker. Board Member Golembiewski suggested jumping right back in where they left off at the next meeting and skipping the introduction. NEW BUSINESS None. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was discussion about the extended agenda and agreement to revisit the tree code on September 13 if there is time after the two hearings and then again on September 27. Staff needs to consider how pushing this out impacts everything else on the extended agenda including the Comprehensive Plan, the planned public hearing for the CFP/CIP, and a couple other projects. Staff will review this and come back with a revised schedule on a proposed approach for the tree code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone commented that the earlier staff can provide the CFP/CIP to the Board the better. She urged all board members to review the tree code and submit questions to staff ahead of the meeting in order to save time at the meeting. She asked Planning Manager Levitan to pass along her appreciation to Deb Powers for the format of the information she had provided tonight. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 9 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2023 Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023- 0004) Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History On July 26, 2023, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter 23.60 ECDC, which regulates critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) in the City of Edmonds. The code amendment was introduced to the Planning Board on May 24, 2023, with an additional work session on July 12, 2023. After a brief staff presentation and public testimony, the Planning Board closed the public comment portion of the hearing (which was subsequently reopened to allow for additional comments from Lora Petso) and began deliberating on the draft code. The Planning Board subsequently approved a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of August 23, 2023, to allow for additional work on the draft code. Additional information was not ready for presentation on August 23, and so the Board further continued the hearing to September 13, 2023. As noted in the July 26 staff report, staff has worked collaboratively with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) on a number of sections of the proposed code, including the regulation of uses within CARAs and their buffers. The most prominent remaining items to address are related to stormwater management, including the use of underground injection wells within CARAs. The Public Works Engineering Division has worked with OVWSD staff on options to revise the code related to stormwater management. Based on a meeting between City and OVWSD staff on September 6, it became apparent that while progress has been made on a number of points, there are still technical details to be resolved before returning to the Planning Board. It is uncertain how much more time will be needed to resolve the remaining issues, so rather than continue the current public hearing again, staff recommends closing the current hearing. A new public hearing with notice will be scheduled when the CARA code amendments are ready for Planning Board review. Staff Recommendation Close the July 26, 2023 public hearing and table the discussion. Provide direction to staff about whether another work session is desired to discuss the updated draft code when it is available or whether going straight to another public hearing would be prefered. Packet Pg. 10 7.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2023 Continued Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) Staff Lead: Amber Brokenshire Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Amber Brokenshire Background/History Matt Driscoll of d/Arch LLC (applicant/contact) and Shawn Leiser (owner) applied for a rezone to the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 and 2). The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The property was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022 under PLN2022-0009. Based on feedback provided by the Planning Board during their July 26 introduction to the proposal, City staff contacted Snohomish County PUD about including the adjacent parcel located at 9620 Edmonds Way (which includes a PUD substation and is currently zoned RM-1.5) as part of the rezone, so as to provide a consistent zoning pattern along this portion of Edmonds Way. PUD had no objections to including their property as part of the proposal (Attachment 9), so the boundaries of the proposed rezone have been expanded. At the Planning Board meeting on August 23, it was pointed out that the 300-foot radius map used to generate mailing labels for the notice of public hearing (Attachment 4) did not include the PUD substation property, and as such did not meet the public notice requirements under ECDC 20.03.003. Staff recommended that the Planning Board reopen the public comment period and continue the Public Hearing to allow for proper noticing and additional public comments. The revised notice of public hearing (Attachment 10) was mailed to nearby property owners; posted at the project site, City Hall, the Public Safety Complex, and the city website; and published in the Everett Herald on or around August 29, 2023, with public comments being accepted through September 13 (the date of the continued public hearing). As of the September 8 publication of the Planning Board packet, no additional public comments have been received. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Board find that the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 and make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone of the two parcels located at 9530 and 9620 Edmonds Way from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. Narrative Please see the attached staff report for additional project information and an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the criteria in ECDC 20.40.010. Packet Pg. 11 7.B Attachments: Staff Report - Updated September 8 Attachment 1 - Land Use Application Attachment 2 - Applicant's Narrative Attachment 3 - Zoning & Vicinity Map Attachment 4 - Public Notice Documentation Attachment 5 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Compatible Zoning Attachment 6 - Completeness Letter Attachment 7 - Engineering Division Comments Attachment 8 - Public Comments Attachment 9 - Snohomish County PUD Letter Attachment 10 - Notice of Continued Public Hearing Packet Pg. 12 7.B.a 'Ile. IS9V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION To: Edmonds Planning Board From: Amber M. Brokenshire / Planner Date: September 8, 2023 File: PLN2023-0024 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application Matt Driscoll of d/Arch LLC. (applicant/contact) and Shawn Leiser (owner) have applied for a rezone on the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 - 2). The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The property was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022 under PLN2022-0009. Based on feedback provided by the Planning Board during their July 26 introduction to the proposal, City staff contacted the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) about including the adjacent parcel located at 9620 Edmonds Way (Parcel Number 27033600114000) — which includes a PUD substation- as part of the rezone, so as to provide a consistent zoning pattern along this portion of Edmonds Way. The District had no objections to include their property as part of the proposal, so the boundaries of the rezone have been expanded. (Attachment 9). B. Location The properties subject to the rezone are located at 9530 Edmonds Way (Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600) and 9620 Edmonds Way (Tax Parcel Number 27033600114000). (Attachment 3). C. Review Process A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV" application, per ECDC 20.01.003. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. The application was determined complete on May 30, 2023 (Attachment 6). An initial Packet Pg. 13 7.B.a Notice of Application dated June 13, 2023 with a comment period running through June 27, 2023 was posted at the subject site, mailed to property owners with 300 feet of the site, and published in the Herald Newspaper on June 13, 2023. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the notice requirements of ECDC 20.03 are provided in Attachment 4. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued on August 9 and distributed in the same manner (Attachment 10). However, because the additional PUD parcel was included in the project scope, additional mailed notice was required to property owners within 300 feet of the PUD parcel as well. The public hearing for the proposal that was opened by the Planning Board on August 23 was continued until September 13 to allow time for additional mailed notice to be provided. A Notice of Continued Public hearing was issued on August 29, 2023 to properties within 300 feet both parcels, with a comment period running through September 13, 2023 (Attachment 10). No additional comments were received during this time. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS A. Site Context The subject parcels lie directly south off Edmonds Way with a frontage of approximately 485 feet. The properties are currently zoned RM-EW (Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way, one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area) and RM 1.5 (Multi -family residential, 1500 square foot lot minimum). The RM-EW zone has a height limit of 35 feet with specific conditions. The BC-EW zone contains a floor area ratio (FAR) of three (3) square feet per square foot of lot area and would allow for the maximum height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way to be increased to 40 feet with specific conditions. The Edmonds Way designation to the BC zone and specific regulations that apply to the BC-EW properties were established pursuant to Ordinance No. 3627 in part to recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds Way entryway to the City of Edmonds and accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way Corridor. B. Neighboring Development and Zoning According to city LiDAR data, the single-family (RS-8) neighborhood south of 9530 and 9620 Edmonds Way sits approximately 22 feet higher than the subject parcels, and the elevation increases as you move east. 9620 Edmonds Way contains a PUD substation that is currently zoned RM 1.5. The adjacent properties to the east are developed with a combination of a duplex and single-family housing which are zoned RM-1.5, and these properties could potentially be developed with multi -family housing at some point. The north side of Edmonds Way contains a mix of zoning designations such as WMU, BC- PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 14 7.B.a EW, one RS-8 parcel and RM- 1.5. The WMU zone contains a variety of commercial developments including a gas station, bank, drive -through Starbucks, grocery stores, drug stores and other development. B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) SEPA review for this site -specific rezone is exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(c) because the site is located within an urban growth area, the rezone does not require a comprehensive plan change, and the applicable comprehensive plan was previously subjected to environmental review and analysis. C. Technical Review Committee This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division staff, who determined that the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with future building permit application for development on the site. A transportation analysis is not required at this time and may be deferred to the future development/building permit phase of the project. Traffic studies are typically required for projects that generate at least 25 PM peak hour trips. D. Public Comments To date, one public comment has been submitted on the proposed rezone from Rachel Ross speaking for Brad and Rachel Ross and Colin and Alek Adams (Attachment 8). Ms. Ross is concerned this rezone will increase the volume and frequency of traffic entering and exiting Highway 104. Staff Response: Traffic impact studies are specific to a development application and will be reviewed by the City's Transportation Engineer. Traffic impacts are mitigated through the collection of traffic impact fees in accordance with ECC 3.36.125. At this time, there are no development applications for this property. E. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan map designation for the subject property is "Edmonds Way Corridor" (Attachment 6). The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals listed for the Edmonds Way Corridor as listed below. PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 15 7.B.a Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate S. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small- scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations (Attachment 6). The compatible zoning classifications for the Edmonds Way Corridor are BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone and RM zones. The applicant has referenced additional comprehensive plan goals and policies such as sustainability, residential development, and design objectives which are summarized here and included in the applicant's narrative as Attachment 2. The applicant has noted that a height increase provides an incentive to support and promote sustainability and provide people with a mix of housing types and styles. Additionally, the increased height should not be an impact to the adjacent RS zoned lots which are substantially higher than the subject parcels. The design objectives for site design also encourages the use of a shared access easement. PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 16 7.B.a B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. Finally, the Community Business (BC) zone district has its own purposes as identified in ECDC 16.50.005: A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses; D. To implement the policies of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor; E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the city of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality. The subject properties are located in the Edmonds Way Corridor comprehensive plan designation. An explicit purpose of the BC-EW zone is "to implement the policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor." PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 17 7.B.a The properties are encouraged to utilize a shared or joint use driveway and access points in order to reduce access onto SR-104 and make use of the natural topography of the properties to neighboring single family development. Per the project narrative a shared access would be utilized/provided between 9530 Edmonds Way and the three adjacent parcels to the east (9516, 9520, and 9524 Edmonds Way (Attachment 2). The BC zone specifically notes that its purpose is to reserve areas to allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. The project narrative states a rezone on this site will allow for a mixed -use community within walking distance of existing commercial and service uses (Attachment 2). A rezone from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW has the potential to increase density on the site, but to opt for the increased height it would require the use of sustainability and/or inclusion of affordable housing in its design which can help to achieve a variety of housing types. Rezoning the site to BC-EW is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. A. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; Multi -family zoning exists on the east and west sides of the subject properties. The adjacent properties to the east are developed with a combination of a duplex and single-family housing which are zoned RM-1.5 and RM-EW, and these properties could potentially be developed with multi -family housing at some point. A single-family neighborhood with an RS-8 zoning classification sits south at a higher elevation than the subject parcels. The north side of Edmonds Way contains a mix of zoning designations such as WMU, BC-EW, one RS-8 parcel and RM- 1.5. The WMU zone contains a variety of commercial developments including a gas station, bank, drive -through Starbucks, grocery stores, drug stores and other development. The BC-EW zone allows for increased density, reduced setbacks, and allows for an increased maximum height of any building fronting Edmonds Way from 35 feet to 40 feet, provided that the development includes sustainability, low impact development and/or inclusion of affordable housing pursuant to ECDC 16.30.030.4. D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; The primary change in the area and the subject property is the establishment of the Westgate Mixed Use zone in 2015. Additionally, the parcel located across Edmonds Way from the PUD substation was rezoned to BC-EW in 2017. PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 18 7.B.a The purposes of the zone districts are to implement the policies of the Edmonds comprehensive plan, and the BC zone specifically notes that its purpose is to meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the city of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality. A rezone from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW would require the use of sustainable, low -impact development and/or inclusion of affordable housing in its design for an increased height, which could help promote housing diversity as well as provide ground - floor commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30-feet as measured from the street front of the building. Rezoning the site to RM-EW would be consistent with the City's policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor. E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; There has been interest in 9530 Edmonds Way over the past several years as the property is currently undeveloped. As noted above, the parcel was previously rezoned from RM-1.5 to RM-EW in 2022. The proposed BC-EW zoning designation reduces lot coverage and allows for smaller setbacks while allowing for the developer to opt for an increased building height with the provision of sustainability components and/or inclusion of affordable housing in its design. Given the proximity to Edmonds Way and the elevation change of the RS zoned properties from Edmonds Way the requested rezone is a suitable zone for the subject property. F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. The public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely impacted by rezoning from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. With development of the site, any potential critical area regulations must address the critical area code as necessary The applicant for 9530 Edmonds Way states in part the following: "The developer in opting for the 40' height increase gains flexibility in design at the expense of the optional requirements. The public gains in sustainability and/or affordable housing, which are goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan." Development of either site will require compliance with all development regulations which should provide protection to the public health, safety, and welfare. III.CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 as identified PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 19 7.B.a in the staff report and specifically implements policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor in which the properties are located. B. Design standards within the BC-EW zone and other City of Edmonds development regulations will ensure that public health, safety and welfare is protected. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff proposes that the Planning Board find the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010 and make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the rezone from RM-EW and RM-1.5 to BC-EW. V. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Zoning and Vicinity Map 4. Public Notice Documentation 5. Comprehensive Plan Map & Compatible Zoning Page 6. Letter of Complete Application 7. Engineering Division Comments 8. Public Comments 9. SnoPUD Email VI. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Brad and Rachel Ross 22804 — 96th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98020 d/SnoPUD No. 1 Mark Flury P.O. Box 1107 PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 8 of 9 d/Arch LLC Matt Driscoll 2412— Westlake Ave. N. Ste. 3 Seattle, WA 98109 Colin and Alek Adams 22806 — 96th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 20 7.B.a Everett, WA 98206 PLN2023-0024— Rezone Staff Report Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 21 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS nnyst,ilaingPermit.com Land Use Application #1307425 - 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Matt Driscoll d/Arch LLC Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 2412 Westlake Ave N Ste 3 mattd(c�darchllc.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Seattle WA 98109 (206) 214-8839 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location State Zip License Expiration Date UBI # Number Street 9530 EDMONDS WAY City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98026 27033600117600 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number C Work Location O a+ V Property Owner a Q First Name Last Name or Company Name d to EDMONDS WAY LLC Number Street Apartment or Suite Number fC PO BOX 60216 J r City State Zip a+ SHORELINE WA 98160 E Certification Statement - The applicant states: U M I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and Q authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. a) E t Date Submitted: 5/1/2023 Submitted By: Matt Driscoll Q Packet Pg. 22 Page 1 of 2 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS Mygui[di ngPerrnit.com Land Use Application #1307425 - 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Project Contact Company Name: d/Arch LLC Name: Matt Driscoll Email: mattd@darchllc.com Address: 2412 Westlake Ave N Ste 3 Phone #: (206) 214-8839 Seattle WA 98109 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Rezone Rezone to Any Other Zone Project Name: 9530 Edmonds Way Mixed -Use Description of Work: Rezone parcel from RM-EW to BC-EW Project Details Project Information Zoning - existing Zoning - requested RM-EW BC-EW Packet Pg. 23 Page 2 of 2 I 7.B.b I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. c O M Q CL Q am N c M J c d E t 0 c� Q c m E t 0 M Q Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application A. Land Use application - 9530 Edmonds Way Rezone Pao c 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 24 Attach 28 April 2023 City of Edmonds Permitting and Planning Division 121-5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Rezone Application for 9530 Edmonds Way to BC-EW This application to rezone 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW. We are submitting the following in support of this rezone: A. Land Use Application (attached) B. Narrative describing how rezone satisfies the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development code and Comprehensive Plan (see below) C. Scale Map of 9530 Edmonds Way (attached) D. Vicinity Map of 9530 Edmonds Way (attached) E. Environmental Checklist (SEPA) for 9530 Edmonds Way Rezone Packet Pg. 25 Attach B. REZONE NARRATIVE 9530 Edmonds Way CONTENTS SUMMARY 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2. ZONING ORDINANCE 3. SURROUNDING AREA 4. CHANGE 5. VALUE SUMMARY We're requesting a rezone of one parcel of land at 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW. (Tax Acct #270336001176001) This rezone is in keeping with the policies and goals of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Revision Date: May 18, 2021), which designates the parcel as Edmonds Way Corridor. This rezone is in compliance with the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code (ECDC) which is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. This rezone to BC-EW allows commercial uses (ECDC 16.50.010) which are not allowed in the current RM-EW Zone (ECDC 16.30.010). This rezone to BC-EW modifies the Site Development Standards of the parcel from the RM-EW Standards (ECDC 16.30.030) to the BC-EW Standards (ECDC 16.50.020).t As in the current RM-EW Zone, the rezone to BC-EW allows the developer to opt for a higher height limit. In this case, 40' instead of 25' with conditions as stated in ECDC 16.50.020.Table A. 2 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 26 Attach 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This rezone to BC-EW is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. See below. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Revision Date: May 18, 2021, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Which is indicated for Mixed -Use Development. Tr.. ,ids Woodwa h ${floo! - Farmer I ` ♦ ++ — — woodway O ` �pmgntary Li_ U -� ' 71 T— t� N CL °- N Edmonds Way Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor a� E t COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — PURPOSE AND SCOPE a The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes: E U r r Q 3 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 27 Attach • To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." • To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the community. • To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and enhance the community's assets and natural resources. • To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. • To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. • To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. • To facilitate the provision of sustainable public services consistent with the community's values and needs. Growth Management Goals & Policies A.3. The role of commercial and industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and provision for consumer needs should be considered as a supporting part of achieving a sustainable community. A.4. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: A.4.a Light (including direct sunlight) A.4. b Privacy A.4.c Public views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features. AAA Freedom from air, water, noise, and visual pollution. A.5. Any residential growth should be designed to accommodate and promote a balanced mixture of income and age groups. The rezone from to BC-EW will have a positive effect on the property's tax base, as well as creating more opportunity for diverse housing types. It will not affect any public views. State Framework Goals Urban Growth — Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public services and facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce Sprawl — Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low - density development. Housing — Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. The rezone of this site, which has adequate public services and facilities, will encourage development on this undeveloped site with a density appropriate to its location, as well as creating more opportunity for diverse housing types. Regional Goals Development Patterns — focus growth within already urbanized areas to create walkable, compact and transit -oriented communities. 4 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 28 Attach Housing — The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing for all people. The rezone of this site to BC-EW will encourage development within this already urbanized area and is within walking distance of Westgate Village. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — ELEMENTS Sustainability Goals & Policies Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing. Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies, programs, and regulations designed to support co -location of jobs with housing ... and encourage business activities that supplement traditional businesses and employment concentrations. Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle. The rezone to BC-EW allows an increase in density and the provision of commercial space which supports the goals above. The housing provides an opportunity for more residents to stay in the community. Climate Change Goals and Policies Climate Change Goal E. Encourage Existing land use. Buildings and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. The rezone to BC-EW will allow a higher -density building to be constructed that meets current energy codes, facilitates by location alternative means of transportation, and provides sustainable features yielding a reduction in housing unit carbon footprint. Environmental Quality Goals & Policies Environmental Quality Goal A. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community -based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state, and national environmental standards. The rezone to BC-EW will allow a potentially taller building that provides features enhancing the environmental quality such as Low Impact Development (LID) Residential Development Goal & Policies Residential Goal A. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. A.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction... A.5 Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses... A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible... natural constraints... The rezone to BC-EW will limit building height to an elevation below the living levels of existing single-family residences to the South. Its orientation towards Edmonds Way is not incompatible with those residences that are accessed from 231 st PI. SW. Development on the site will fit and be constrained by the existing natural features. 5 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 29 Attach Residential Goal B. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents. B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage sustainable high -quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2.b.i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. The adjacent RS zoned lots (9529 & 9515-231st PI SW) uphill of the site proposed for rezone are substantially higher than the increased height available through the rezone. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of vegetative growth at the southern portion of 9530 Edmonds Way and the northern side of the closest RS zoned lots. B.2.b.iiiThe design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. A building on the rezoned site will have no visual relationship with the uphill single-family residences. Because of the slope of 9530 Edmonds Way, development would likely be at the bottom of the slope closer to Edmonds Way preserving some trees uphill and fitting into the slope. Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies Commercial Development Goal A. Commercial Development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of unique opportunities while being consistent with and compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor for mixed -use development. The site shares access off Edmonds Way with one curb cut shared with the three parcels to the East. The two parcels directly across Edmonds Way are zoned BC-EW Commercial Development Goal B. The Westgate Commercial area, which is nearby and to the West of this site is intended for commercial development and services. The rezone of this site will support many of the goals identified as being important for the Westgate Commercial Area Commercial Development Goal C. Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to provide a mix. 6 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 30 Attach Rezoning this site will allow a mixed -use project without creating a `strip mall.' It would allow an appealing mixed -use community within walking distance of shopping and service. Commercial Development Goal D. This goal references the Westgate Corridor which starts West at 100th Ave W. Rezoning this site will allow a project that would meet several goals identified in this policy such as shared access. Commercial Development Goal E. This site is in the Edmonds Way Corridor which runs from 1001h Ave W to Highway 99. Concern is expressed that development along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of traffic or intrude into adjoining residential communities. E.1 Minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Encourage shared use of driveways and access points EA Encourage design and use of topography to buffer development with adjacent communities Rezoning this site will allow a mixed -use community within walking distance of shopping and service. Additionally, the shared driveway and the effects of the topography meet these goals. Housing Goals & Policies Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community and is located according to the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element. Rezoning this site is in keeping with the pattern of development in the Edmonds Way Corridor. Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezoning the site to BC-EW will be consistent with this goal. Urban Design Goals & Policies General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the number and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. 9530 Edmonds Way and the three lots to the East share an access easement from Edmonds Way. There will be only one curb cut on Edmonds Way. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Rezoning the site will require buildings on the site to be located close to Edmonds Way. Parking will be garaged and partially underground due to the BC-EW Site Development Standards and the topography. 7 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 31 Attach A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. The common access from Edmonds Way will tie the circulation between the sites creating a pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle linkage to Edmonds Way A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use buildings. The common access from Edmonds Way will create a clear entry and departure point for vehicles and pedestrians. Internal circulation will support the `streetscape' by extending circulation into the project. Sharing the single driveway provides opportunities for seating or shared space. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. The setback on this parcel and 9516 Edmonds Way will match because of the constraint of the overhead power line and the Development Standards. Both will provide a landscape transition to the activity of Edmonds Way. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. The constraints of maximum building size, required parking, vehicular and fire access will work to provide open space. Goals A.7 through A.13 will inform good design on the site. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. The constraints of maximum building size, required parking, vehicular and fire access will work to provide open space. Goals A.7 through A.13, as we'll as the City Code and Design Review, will inform good design on the site. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance s B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 32 Attach with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building fagade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a fagade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in fagade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. The constraints of a mixed -use building with its requirements for light and air to the residential units and visibility and openness for the commercial space will direct adherence to these goals. The varying uses will structure the building masses both vertically and horizontally and direct fagade differences that meet goals A.14 through A.20. Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas Streetscape and Street Trees Goals & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. Through the development of this parcel and 9516 Edmonds Way to the East, the streetscape will be improved. Storm & Surface Water System Goals & Policies Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to: • Provide for public safety; • Minimize property damage; • Preserve and enhance critical areas; • Promote sustainability; • Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations. 9 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 33 Attach The term low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. This rezone to BC-EW will encourage Low Impact Development through the allowable height provisions of the BC-EW Zoning. 10 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 34 Attach 2. ZONING ORDINANCE This rezone to BC-EW is consistent with the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. See below. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4294, passed February 28, 2022. The City of Edmonds Zoning Plan Map, Revision Date: August 3, 2022, designates 9530 Edmonds Way as RM-EW RS-8 _ RS-8 e _ ri{rK s? svr M U 3 s RS-8 RS-8 j xadway d Madrana K-R Srhnnl Multi Family RM-3 Multi Family, 3,000 w. ft, of lot area per unit RM-2A Muld FoMMA 2,4W sq. ft. of lot prep per unit _ RM• 1-5 Muld Family; 1, 500 s4. ft- of lot area per unit - RM•LW Moo ti Fomily, RM•Edmonds Way Commercial WASU We Wte Mixed Use BP Planned Business BN Neighborhood Business ® FVMU Fuddle ylllage Mixed Use _ 6C Community Business - BC-EW Communi ty Business, BC-Edmvnds Way C{i General Commercial J j_ Z r Y i 9530 Edmonds Ways-"'" !�w 0 RIu. 11 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 35 Attach Title 16 ZONE DISTRICTS 16.00.010 Purposes states that in addition to the purposes stated in the city's comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance shall have the purpose to assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future. It further states that the zoning ordinance's purpose is to protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS 16.50.005 Purposes The BC and BC -Edmonds Way zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones: A. To reserve areas for... offices... which offer... services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling units that support business uses: D. To implement the policies of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor; E. To meet the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality This rezone to BC-EW is fully in keeping with each of the above stated purposes. 16.50.010 Uses Permitted Primary Uses include offices and multiple dwelling units (except on ground floor per ECDC 16.50.020(B). Permitted Secondary Uses include off-street parking and loading to serve a permitted use. 12 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 36 Attach 16.50.020 Site Development Standards A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Height Area BC None None None None' None' 25'2 3 sq.ft. persq. ftof lot area BC — None None 10, None' None' 256 3sq.ft. per sq. Edmonds ft of lot area Way r The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely belowthe surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet fromthe lot line adjacentto residentially (R)zoned properly. The required setback shall be completely landscaped with Type I landscaping permanenty maintained by the owner ofthe BC -zoned lot. ' Roof only may extend fr a feet above the slated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roofform (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls orflat roofswith a pitch of less than three-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unlessthey are part ofan approved modulated design. Examples of Modulated Roof Dealgnr �u '� ■ . ■ Idf15 .. •wF11 - Iwo Fit .Ilk 1 III i Elm ��r� Er'"'Ififfila r �I�!!I �!9!. iNiM �� a The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet. provided, that: (a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 15 feet in depth. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback. (b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential IRS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a) of this footnote, the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property; (c) At least three of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: (1) Achievement of least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification, (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at lowimoderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent ofthe gross number of units proposed, (3) Public amenities within an area comprising at least 25 percent of the length of any required street setback such as outdoor seating, plazas, walkways or other usable open space. The remainder ofthe setback area will be landscaped with Type III landscaping; (4) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to. bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. (d) Severity five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass_ Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicatethe appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. 13 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 37 Attach B. Ground Floor. Development on the ground floor shall consist of only uses to a minimum of 30' measured from the street front of the building C. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to buildings within the BC-EW zone: 1. Massing and Articulation a. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings and articulate the building from a pedestrian perspective b. Standards. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. 2. Ground Level Details. a. Intent. To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing Edmonds Way b. Standards. Ground -floor street -facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements: lighting or hanging baskets; medallions; belt courses; plinths for columns; bulkhead for storefront window; projecting sills; tile work; transom or clerestory windows; planter box; an element not listed here that meets the intent as approved by the Architectural Design Review Board 3. Treating Blank Walls a. Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls b. Standards. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment. At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into such walls: Masonry (except flat, nondecorative block); concrete or masonry plinth at bas of wall; belt course of a different texture and color; projecting cornice; decorative tile work; medallions; opaque or translucent glass; artwork or wall graphics; lighting fixture; green walls; an element not listed here that meets the intent as approved by the Architectural Design Review Board 16.50.030 Operating Restrictions A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried out entirely within a completely enclosed building B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Property Performance Standard 1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. 14 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 38 Attach Title 17 GENERAL ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 17.50 OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS 17.50.020 Parking Space Requirements A. Residential. 1. Single-family and multifamily. a. Single-family dwellings: two spaces per dwelling unit, except: b. Multiple residential according to the following table: Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per dwelling unit Studio 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 2 bedrooms 1.8 3 or more bedrooms 2.0 B. Commercial 4. Medical/Dental offices: one space per 200 sf 5. Business and professional offices with on -site customer service: one space per 400 sf 6. Offices not providing on -site customer service: one space per 800 sf Chapter 17.115 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE 17.115.040 Required Facilities Table 17.115.040. Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure Requirements Number of EV Capable Number of EV Ready Number of EV Installed Type of Use Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Single-family dwelling N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A unitst Multiple dwelling unitsl 40% of parking spaces 40h of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Nonresidential uses 40% of parking spaces 0% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Chapter 17.120 BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES 17.115.040 Required Facilities Table 17.120-1, Short -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units 1 per 14 dwelling units; not less than 2 spaces Nonresidential uses 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces 15 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 39 Attach Table 17.120-2, Long -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Minimum Number of Spaces Number of E-bike Installed Type of Use Required Spaces Multiple dwelling units' 0.75 per unit 40 percent of spaces Nonresidential uses 2 per 25,000 square feet of floor 10 percent of spaces area; not less than 3 spaces Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW 20.10.010 Types of Design Review The project will be subject to General Design Review per the ECDC. Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE The project will be subject to the Sign Code per the ECDC. Title 23 NATURAL RESOURCES Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS 20.10.010 Administrative Authority The Development Services Director or a designee shall have the authority and rersponsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter 20.10.060 Tree Retention Associate with Development Activity The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan. 16 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 40 Attach 3. SURROUNDING AREA The City of Edmonds Zoning Plan Map, Revision Date: August 3, 2022, designates 9530 Edmonds Way as RM-EW PL SW 11 Y 150 300ft sr SW 6r W 4 Cr r L L Z cu 2 a a a Zoning N r The proposed rezone of the site to BC-EW will be compatible with the existing zoning and land use of adjacent sites. To the West, the RM-1.5 parcel is a PUD Substation and will not change in the foreseeable future. To the south, the RS-8 zone is up a steep slope and about 30'-40' higher than 9530 Edmonds Way. To the East of the site in the RM-1.5 Zone, there are currently Q two houses. Access to 9530 Edmonds Way will come from the shared easement with 9516 Edmonds Way and turn West on to 9530 Edmonds Way. This will create further separation E r r a 17 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 41 Attach between a project on the site and those two houses. The RM-EW parcel to the East at 9516 Edmonds Way is being developed as eight townhouse units. SW MI kKK � • �oe� . � r.r - • � RI � 22804 n cro 9715 )ZB 2302d 1 23030 1 ,2315T RL eX i 962 0 - i�l 23QQ3J34a1 ... 23009 1 r 9621 �27 7 23109 Addresses/Vehicular Circulation 9530 Edmonds Way 1231 C no fl% There are no direct vehicle connections from 9530 Edmonds Way to the residential neighborhood to the South. The rezone to BC-EW will not change this. r Q B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way 18 Packet Pg. 42 Attach El. 338' per ++ survey ,+ + • ,• �9530 Edmonds Way ♦ At P� 3.40' Nay El. 334' per •• �� J` survey :q4� ■ M a 1 • ,�' El.3-4-9 per ms sEul.ry`< surveil—_ ♦+! �_� '3003 027 9601 ` 609 5 lV� 0 50 100ft I I500�] Topography Assuming an approximate average grade for a project on 9530 Edmonds Way of el. 340'. A 40' high building, allowed under the proposed BC-EW Zone, will only be as high as the top of slope on the adjacent single-family properties to the South. It would be approximately 65' away from the houses and separated by trees and other vegetation. z Y) a a Q N r C N E L V Q r Q 19 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 43 P0,15- :T ON�S 20' PUD Easement wOIL t �. —,.od* 9530 Edmonds Way 20' Shared Access ' i = Easement 9620 ■ Approximate center �............ location of 10' Edmonds + i stormwater drainage I i easement 3027 ^fii I � Is... Y, o ,k6-90i Stormwater & Easements Attach 9 N N N d F O,, Stormwater from the uphill residential lots to the South apparently flows through the 9530 Edmonds Way site in a City of Edmonds 10' Easement. Development on 9530 Edmonds Way will have to relocate this easement and, in the process, improve the drainage. This is a benefit to the uphill neighbors and the city by creating a more controlled flow. Access to 9530 Edmonds Way will be in the shared access easement on the west side of 9516 Edmonds Way. 9520 and 9524 Edmonds Way will benefit from the improvement of this single access point. 20 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 44 Attach •-, r p • M 9530 Edmonds V' ay p`� • �, • +�00� • • 9620 water Service , . , 0( mpli4 View Water �............. s 23003 • 23111001 • • 23 0(j • 23017 23047 nds„ • 909 xel— 0 50 100ft Water Service Water service connects the uphill residential lots to Edmonds Way through an easement to the East of 9530 Edmonds Way. The rezone to BC-EW will not affect this. 21 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 45 Attach I 2011 PL SW + s 9530 Edmonds Way, ............. - — Mapped Critical , Areas (colored areas) �- 0 150 300ft Critical Areas 2Z8TH S SM .� . I \1 Department of Natural Resources (DNF There are a few minor mapped critical areas on the 9530 Edmonds Way site. Uphill to the South of the site there are more substantial steep slopes and slide hazard areas mapped on the single-family lots. Development on the 9530 Edmonds Way site through this rezone may help to stabilize the uphill properties. r Q 22 B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 46 Attach 4. CHANGE The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Revision Date: May 18, 2021, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Which is indicated for Mixed -Use Development. This rezone of 9530 Edmonds Way will allow the site to build a mixed -use project in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Property across Edmonds Way is currently zoned BC-EW. 5. SUITABILITY The property is economically and physically suitable for mixed -use under the proposed BC-EW Zone. Its size of 36,375 sf (0.835 acres) is large enough to develop an economically feasible mixed -use project. It is topographically separated and screened by vegetation from adjacent RS zones. The site is on Edmonds Way keeping the mixed -use traffic out of the RS neighborhoods. The site is proximate to the Westgate Commercial Center. 232NU ST SW 3 a Commercial WMU Westgate Mixed Use 13P Planned Business 13N Nelyhbarhoad Business FVMU Flydote Mope Mixed Use _ BC Cammunity8usiness BC-EW Commum ty Business, BC -Edmunds Way (.6 General Commerriai B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way I Packet Pg. 47 Attach 6. VALUE The relative gain to the public interest value is commensurate with the relative gain to the developer. The mixed -use development allowed by this rezone will provide development in an area designated by the city for this type of development. There is an increase in the density for the developer. The developer, if opting for the increase to 40' height gains flexibility in design by providing the optional requirements. The infill development resulting from this rezone will increase housing diversity in the community and raise the site's tax basis.The public gains in sustainability and housing, which are goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezone Narrative — 9530 Edmonds Way I Packet Pg. 48 �n . ,ra city of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 REZONE IRM 'i . 5 Cola- BC-EW *: BC-EW, 0 126.30 252.6 Feet 188.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site an, 2,257 p B p pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be acc WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise re © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUC Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 N BD2 N BD3 N BD4 BD5 N OR ® WMU ® BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes ZONING MAP Attachment 3 7.B.d Packet Pg. 49 0 Q M r C 06 Q1 C O N M C d E L 0 R r Q Attach I 7.B.d I i City of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 REZONE 'LAP 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 4,514 P B P pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION O 0. O L a C O Legend m ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN 0 <all other values> 4- 1 � 2 L M = 5; 4 V 9;71;7;8 -0 7 State Highways d <all other values> 7 1 a+ C O 2 U Sections Boundary O- M Sections Edmonds Boundary C ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIF C1 ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN > <all other values> aI Interstate Principal Arterial N Minor Arterial; Collector M Local Street; On Ramp C d State Highways E <all other values> V R -- 0 r Q 1 2 N E Notes crs VICINITY MAP Q Packet Pg. 50 1 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION & COMMENT PERIOD FILE NUMBER PLN2023-0024 f 12c, l Sy\3 Attach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. — Matt Driscoll FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 2, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 13, 2023 REQUESTED PERMIT: Rezone OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA Determination EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 27, 2023 (A Future Hearing Date and Notice will be Provided) Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at httr)s://www.edmondswa.Rov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner /425-771-0220/ amber.brokenshire(@edmondswa..Qov Packet Pg. 51 Attach FILE NO.: PLN2023-0024 Applicant: Matt Driscoll, d/Arch I.I.C. DECLARATION OF POSTING On June 13, 2023, the attached Notice of Public Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library, and the Public Safety buildings. I, Amber M. Brokenshire, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 13th day of June, 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: i't'z i {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 52 2 �3 _ Attac� 7.B.e CI S 3 D �cLam one E'vei -Itt Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as it daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH978696 PLN20234-0024 as it was publisled in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 06/13/2023 and ending on 06/13/2023 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount IF the fee for licit publication is $65.36. Subscribed and sworn fore me on this Aday of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City• of E&x,,, s D—I.pnion S—i-186031703 MICIIEUE MARL IN Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 8/29/2025 Commission Number 4417 Packet Pg. 53 Classified Proof T� i\,12 C 23- Attach FTqT71 Wz � CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION R COMMENT PERIOD FILE NUMBER PLN2023-0024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property front Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27033600117600 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. — Matt Driscoll FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 2, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 13, 2023 REQUESTED PERMIT: Rezone OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA Determinatlon EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 27, 2023 (A Future Hearing Dale and Notice will be Provided) Any person has the right to comment on this appBcalion during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application, The city may accept public comments at any lime prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the protect permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20-06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/servicesipubllc_involvenient/publlc_n otices/development_ notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all Inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner /425-771-0220/ amber.brokenshire@edmondswa.gov Published: June 13, 2023. EDH978696 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/15/2023 10:00:20 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment 4 Click2Mail MOL Pro Tracing Data Page 1 of 3 For Click2Mail Order #21064513 Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Scan Address/Standard Type Location Address (ZipCode 00270200802188147923 FARMER DANIEL T & GASIMOVA DUNYA 437 NE 72nd St Apt 321 Seattle WA 98115-1406 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147923 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147945 BEAUCHENE JASON D & HOLLY L 12050 15th Ave NE Apt 401 Seattle WA 98125-5065 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147945 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147924 CASCARA LLC 9516 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147924 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147946 SNOHOMISH CO PROP MGMT 3000 Rockefeller Ave # 404 M/S Everett WA 98201 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147946 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147925 CALDERA GUILLERMO 9512 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147925 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147947 BARNES RICHARD M & MAURENE 23022 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147947 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147926 GETACHEW DESTA & SOLOMON GENET 20204 37th Ave W Lynnwood WA 98036-9192 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147926 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147941 MURRAY JASON & ELIZABETH 9609 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5023 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147941 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147920 WZL ENTERPRISES LLC 2800 Western Ave Apt 112 Seattle WA 98121-1154 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147920 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147942 9611 EDMONDS LLC 14150 NE 20th St Ste F1307 Bellevue WA 98007 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147942 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147921 PUBLIC UTILITY DIST 1 SNO CO 2320 California St Everett WA 98201-3750 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147921 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147943 NGUYEN KEVIN DUY/LE LISA MINH NGOC 9520 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147943 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147922 MANTOOTH JENNIFER RAE PO Box 462 Edmonds WA 98020-0462 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147922 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147944 MENCKE CHARLES & MARY 857 NE 67th St Apt 201 Seattle WA 98115-5552 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147944 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147927 COMMERS TESSA\SARTHY JAY 9504 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147927 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 7 13 e Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Scan Address/Standard Type Location Address (ZipCode) 00270200802188147928 DOYLE TIMOTHY P / MCCLOSKEY MARY E 9529 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147928 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147929 HARDIN WILLIAM C 9511 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147929 Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147934 EDMONDS WAY LLC PO Box 60216 Seattle WA 98160-0216 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147934 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147913 MOORE GARY B & SHARENE D 424 Lakeview Rd Lynnwood WA 98087-2140 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147913 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147935 HOVLAND MARK A 23014 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147935 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147914 CONNELL MARISA 23003 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147914 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147936 LINNANE SCOTT G/LINNANE RONNE M & SHARON 23006 94th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-5004 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147936 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147915 FOSTER JOHN THOMAS & KIMBERLY JUNE 23027 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147915 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147937 THE CASCADIAN IN EDMONDS LLC 901 Westminster Cir Everett WA 98203-3204 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147937 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147930 KORN JOSEPH & MELISSA 9524 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147930 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147931 DUBBELAAR DIRK 9520 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020-5936 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147931 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147932 DANBERG JENNIFER M & KEVIN 9515 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147932 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147933 SANCHEZ GEORGE A & KISSKEYS-SANCHEZ RAND 9521 231st PI SW Edmonds WA 98020-5022 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147933 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147916 LINDENSTEIN EDMUND H & JENNIFER L 22808 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147916 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147938 LONG JEFFREY J 4826 45th Ave SW Seattle WA 98116-4417 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147938 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147917 ADAMS COLIN M & ALEXANDRA 22806 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES Attachment 4 Page 3 of 3 7 13 e Tracking Number Mailing Address Scan Status Scan Date Address/Standard Type Address Scan Location (ZipCode 00270200802188147917 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147939 HUGHES PATRICIA A 23001 97th Ave W Edmonds WA 98020-5009 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147939 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147918 ROSS RACHEL S & BRADLEY T 22804 96th PI W Edmonds WA 98020-4544 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147918 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147919 J ROBERTS PROPERTIES LLC 702 N 90th St Seattle WA 98103-3810 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147919 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility 00270200802188147940 FAIRWAY APARTMENTS LLC PO Box 713 Mercer Island WA 98040-0713 UNITED STATES 00270200802188147940 Standard Provided to Postal 08/08/23 13:44 EDT 485029998 Processing Facility Report Generated on : August 08, 2023 City of Edmonds 2 qjN 2 97f o 911 2 ■ 2271A 9 2jrP 126 2 q �_ , 01�~ m 7- o G$ rn rn rn a ry0 5ba� 9727 910 7 9801 9620 EDMONDS WAY 03 230f JL a� NmPN maa w a ao C 230T4 PLN2023-0024 - Mailing Map 22h1`9 Tr2111 22706 i �� � 2270 CL Ln 9511 � 9721 04 L `3 23 23024 2 1. 0�■ 2 23028 210� i� 104! 215 V 97® ■ '11M 20 a 231 ° o 2311 111g, 2 1%, 97-0 ■ Q25 =231f97 231 o �— a' 9 ! 219 2270 O� AUE P rn --- 8TH5 ______ 830 22901 1: 3,031 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 4,514 P B P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurz WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliat © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI( O sZ O d C L N Legend ,o I) Sections Boundary C Sections d Edmonds Boundary = V ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN a — <all other values> -a d Interstate 3 Principal Arterial + C Minor Arterial; Collector O U Local Street; On Ramp C State Highways r — <all other values> +� C -- 0 d 1 � 2 O County Boundary v Parks O Z ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHII v ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES M ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES d City of Edmonds City of Lynnwood d City of Mountlake Terrace E Unincorporated King Co; Unincor V fC City of Woodway Notes 9530 Edmonds Way RM-EW to BC-EW Site Rezone Packet Pg. 58 �)Yl z 2230014 Attachment 5 7.B.f Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 ............................................................................................ Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space Mix of uses; refer to specific See appropriate category below; plan designations within activity also refer to specific activity center center discussion in plan Mixed use development See appropriate category below; corridor; refer to specific plan also refer to specific corridor designations within corridor discussion in plan Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ compatible with neighborhood. Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 < 4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 ................................................................................................_............................................................................................................_.............................. RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG; may include transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification Land Use 37 Packet Pg. 60 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'Ile. I S9 V May 30, 2023 Matt Driscoll 2412 Westlake Ave. N. Ste. 3 Seattle, WA 98109 mattd(2 darchllc. com Subject: Letter of Completeness Rezone Application Number PLN2023-0024 Mr. Driscoll: On behalf of the City of Edmonds Planning Division, I have reviewed the application for a rezone on the property located at 9530 Edmonds Way from Multiple Residential Edmonds Way (RM EW) to Community Business Edmonds Way (BC-EW) for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if any additional information is necessary. Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks consistent with ECDC 20.03.002. A public hearing before the Planning Board will be scheduled at a later date. The Planning Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. I will work with you on scheduling the meeting before the Planning Board based on your availability. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at amber. brokenshire(&,,edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Amber Brokenshire, Planner Packet Pg. 61 Attach LJ Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM June 21, 2023 Amber Brokenshire, Planning Division Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division PLN2023-0024 — Rezone RM-EW to BC-EW 9530 Edmonds Way Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with any future building permit application for development of the site. The proposed rezone is understood to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Edmonds Way Corridor for Mixed -Use development. Depending on the future use of the site, either a tranpsortation study or an analysis will be required. Please note, the City's GIS utility map indicates stormwater flows through the subject property. Snohomish County records indicate a 4-lot subdivision was recorded in 2003 (AFN 200301175007) which granted a 10-ft drainage easement to the City of Edmonds through the property. While the subject rezone will not impact this easement, future development will need to give consideration to the easement. Any modifications to the easement will need to be addressed with any future development permits for the site. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 62 Attach Brokenshire, Amber From: Rachel Ross <raross1010@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:49 PM To: Brokenshire, Amber Cc: Brad Ross; Alek; cadams05O2@gmail.com Subject: PLN2023-0024 Comment Period Hi Amber - We are writing to oppose the request to rezone the lot at property location 9530 Edmonds Way from RM-EW to BC-EW. We are concerned this change in zoning will increase the volume and frequency of traffic entering and exiting Hwy 104 at a spot in the road where there is increase risk for collision. The following reasons support this conclusion: 1. There have already been multiple accidents along the curve at 95th PI W each year, which this lot is very near to. 2. Cars continue to speed along the highway at this location making it unsafe to enter and exit the highway when not at an intersection. 3. This would cause potential risk for collision for cars heading east and wanting to turn left at 95th PI W, as the turn lane would compete with drivers heading west and looking to turn left into the lot at 9530. The cars paths would cross within the same turn lane. 4. The lot across the street at 9601 is zoned for commercial use and their proposed site plans has the entrance/exit in conflict with this lot (9530), whereby drivers would be crossing the highway within the same turn lane section (also competing with 95th PI W). 5. Having commercial use at both locations (9601 & 9530) would cause a linchpin at a dangerous section of the highway, similar to the challenges of multiple intersections of cross traffic just west of this location - where PCC and the gas station sits. 6. No other commercial property resides east of 97th Ave W along the south side of the road where it is all residential properties. 7. Safety is our biggest concern as we walk along this section of the highway and an increase in cross traffic could pose a risk for pedestrians. As parties of record, we kindly request you consider our concerns when evaluating whether to approve this application to rezone to BC-EW. Thanks, Packet Pg. 63 Attach Brad & Rachel Ross 22804 96th PI W Edmonds, 98020 Colin & Alek Adams 22806 96th PI W Edmonds, 98020 Packet Pg. 64 Attach Brokenshire, Amber From: Levitan, David Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:02 AM To: Brokenshire, Amber Subject: FW: Potential Rezone of PUD substation from Multifamily Residential to Commercial in City of Edmonds Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI From: Flury, Mark <MMFlury@SNOPUD.com> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:43 AM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov> Cc: Zyskowski, Jason <JAZyskowski@SNOPUD.com>; Johnston, Kim <KDJohnston@Snopud.com>; Payne, Guy <GOPayne@Snopud.com>; Oens, Mark <MAOens@snopud.com>; Barnes, Maureen <MLBarnes@Snopud.com> Subject: Potential Rezone of PUD substation from Multifamily Residential to Commercial in City of Edmonds David: Thank you for your time this week to discuss the subject rezone proposal. Thank you also for your e-mail (7/27) and for the opportunity to consider a potential re -zone of parcel no. 27033600114000 from RM-1.5 to BC-EW. Our phone conversation was very helpful and I gained an understanding of the zoning differences between residential and commercial and the City of Edmonds' approach to zoning public facilities such as a substation. The subject parcel is the site of the District owned and operated Westgate Substation. The substation was constructed in 1968 under the jurisdiction of Snohomish County, prior to annexation by the City of Edmonds. The District has no objection to the proposed re -zone from RM-1.5 to BC-EW with the understanding that the re -zone will not result in the requirement to remedy any existing conditions that may be considered non -conforming, such as: • no changes will be required to poles or structures that exceed 25 ft. in height; • no changes will be required to fence height or materials; • no changes will be required to landscaping setbacks or screening; and, • no changes will be required to the driveway or sidewalk. Thank you for your pro -active outreach regarding the proposed re -zone. The District looks forward to working collaboratively with the City of Edmonds on any future improvements to this site. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Regards, Mark Mark Flury, P.E. Senior Manager, Trans. & Distr. System Operations & Engineering Snohomish County PUD No. 1 PH: (425) 783-1722 Cell: (425) 293-6301 mmflury@snopud.com Packet Pg. 65 of EDAI CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 40-�" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 9530 Edmonds Way from Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way to Commercial Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The rezone is being extended to the adjacent parcel at 9620 Edmonds Way. The review criteria for rezones are contained within Chapter 20.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 & 9620 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Numbers 27033600117600, 27033600114000 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. — Matt Driscoll FILE NO.: PLN2023-0024 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 13, 2023 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public_involvement/public_ notices/devel opment_notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023- 0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on September 13, 2023 at 7 p.m. The public hearing was opened at the Planning Board's August 23, 2023 meeting, but not all property owners with 300 feet of 9620 Edmonds Way were notified, so the public hearing was continued to September 13 to allow for re - noticing. The public comment portion of the hearing remains open and public comments will be accepted through the public hearing (September 13). The physical location is at Edmonds City Hall, 1215th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- aov.zoom.us/i/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJ IQmxITG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner/Amber.Brokenshire@edmondswa.gov/425-771-0220 DATE OF NOTICE: August 29, 2023 Packet Pg. 66 . City Of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 - MAILING MAP 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet 4,514 p g p mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION I 7.B.k I O N N L 0 Ilm Legend = ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN — <all other values> M a m 2 M c 5; 4 9;71;7;8 O V State Highways -. <all other values> L - - 0 fC = 1 V 2 7 Sections Boundary d Sections N 7 Edmonds Boundary ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY BUILDIF - C0 O ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLIN - U 4- - <all other values> O N Interstate V a+ Principal Arterial Z Minor Arterial; Collector O Local Street; On Ramp V- a+ C State Highways — <all other values> E V - - 0 fC 1 a+ Q 2 N z Notes U 9530 & 9620 Edmonds Way r RM-EW, RM-1.5 to BC-EW Site Rezone Q 08/28/2023 Packet Pg. 67 I 7.B.k I i City of Edmonds PLN2023-0024 REZONE 0 �N 21 83 22804 f 9>� RS - 8 II& 00 9 ryry pw � ry s iP BC-EW u I II II II NIV WMII 9 P� M-1.5 FpMaNpS ;C111 23 23 23003 23001 23009 23017 23027 9601 S J C r�rJl U� 0 126.30 252.6 Feet 188.1 This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Z,ZrJ7 P B p pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be acCL WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reli (D City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT O N L O ■ Legend = 13 Rezones .2 r PRD d RoW Zoning C RS-6 ++ C RS-8 0 V RS-10 RS-12 �L © RSW-12 RS-20 = RS-MP RM-3 d RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 � s RM-EW C O BD1 L) 4— BD2 O N BD3 V BD4 0 Z BDs ' 0 OR ® WMU d ® BP E BN ® FVMU Q BC Notes z U 9530 & 9620 EDMONDS WAY r Q Packet Pg. 68 7.B.k From: Rothfus, Debbie To: Martin, Michelle Subject: FW: Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:05:06 AM From: Sound Search <Oregon-Washington-Classifieds@clicknbuy.com> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 6:06 AM To: Rothfus, Debbie <debbie.rothfus@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. Ad # 983067 Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. The following represents the current text of your advertisement: CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 9530 Edmonds Way from Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way to Commercial Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The rezone is being extended to the adjacent parcel at 9620 Edmonds Way. The review criteria for rezones are contained within Chapter 20.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. PROJECT LOCATION: 9530 & 9620 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Numbers 27033600117600, 27033600114000 NAME OF APPLICANT: d/Arch LLC. - Matt Driscoll FILE NO.: PLN2023-0024 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 13, 2023 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0024, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on September 13, 2023 at 7 p.m. The public hearing was opened at the Planning Board's August 23, 2023 meeting, but not all property owners with 300 feet of 9620 Edmonds Way were notified, so the public hearing was continued to September 13 to allow for re -noticing. The public comment portion of the hearing remains open and public comments will be accepted through the public hearing (September 13). The physical location is at Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/j/87322872194? pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner Amber. BrokenshirePedmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 DATE OF NOTICE: August 29, 2023 Published: August 29, 2023. EDH983067 Packet Pg. 69 7.B.k You also have the exciting option to enhance your online advertisement with extended text, photos and even multimedia at no additional cost. Enhancing your classified advertisement will give you increased exposure to thousands of online shoppers that visit our classified section every day. You can also choose to add shipping and delivery options for the buyer. Enhancing your advertisement is easy; just follow the online AdWizard to add an expanded description, photos and even video/audio of your item. To log in to the New Ad Wizard use your email address and existing password. Go to: https://secure.adpay.com/adwizard_login.aspx?1=32387714 , if this link is inactive, cut and paste it into your browser address window. If you need any assistance with your advertisement, please contact our classifieds department. Thank you for using Click-N-Buy Classifieds. Packet Pg. 70 7.B.k Brokenshire, Amber From: Martin, Michelle Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:40 PM To: Rothfus, Debbie Cc: Lakefish, Heather; Brokenshire, Amber Subject: FW: click2mail.com: New Order # 14020993232 Hi Debbie, This is for Amber's Renotice Project #PLN2023-0024. Thanks litAI11' Order No.14020993232 Order Total: $54.77 Order DateAug 28, 2023, 9:38:08 PM Accountmmartin Payment Method Credit Card Credit Card Credit Card Type Visa Credit Card Number XXXX-4929 Number of Jobs 1 Billing Address Ms Michelle Martin City of Edmonds - Attn./A. Brokenshire Renotice PLN2023-0024 121 5th Ave N Edmonds Washington 98020-3163 United States Job and Product Information Job ID: 21329565 Letter - Separate Address Page in a #10 Envelope - S sheet max. Product SKU.• LT41-P Job Source: PMUI Product Type: Letter 8.5 X 11, Paper Type: White 24#, Print Color: Black And White, Print Options: Printing Both Sides, Mail Class: First Class, Production Time: Next Day, Com: NO, Base Document Name: PLN2023 0024 Click2mail Renotice 0829202 Job Address List Name: Mailing_List 9 Production Cost for 50 Pieces:$24.00 First Class Automation Letter Postage for 48 Pieces: $26.93 1 Packet Pg. 71 7.B.k First Class Unsorted Letter Postage for 2 Pieces: $1.32 Invoice Subtotal: Tax: Total Invoice: From: Click2Mai1 Customer Support <support@click2mail.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:38 PM To: Martin, Michelle <michelle.martin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: click2mail.com: New Order # 14020993232 Dear Ms Michelle Martin, Thank you for your order from click2mail.com. Below is a copy of your invoice. You can check the status of your order at any time or by logginginto nto your account. Thank you again for your business. Ms Michelle Martin Credit Card City of Edmonds - Attn./A. Brokenshire Credit Card Renotice PLN2023-0024 121 5th Ave N Credit Card Type Visa Edmonds Washington 98020-3163 Credit Card XXXX- United States Number 4929 v Completeln progressAttention 2 Packet Pg. 72 7.B.k Letter - Separate Address Page in a #10 Envelope - 5 sheet max. SKU: LT41-P Job id: 21329565 Document Name: PLN2023 0024 Click2mail Renotice 08292023 1 Mailinglist Name: Mailing_List_9 product type Letter 8.5 x 11 paper type Thanks again! C1ick2Mail Customer Support 2023-08- cn If you have any questions about your account or any other matter, please feel free to contact us at support@click2mail.com or by phone at (866) 665-2787. C1ick2Mail Customer Support is available Monday - Friday from 9am 8pm EST. View our terms and conditions For more details write to us at support@click2mail.com 3 Packet Pg. 73 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2023 AMD2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments Staff Lead: Deb Powers Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Deb Powers Background/History The Planning Board considered new regulatory options for property owner tree removals as amendments to Chapter 23.10 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) at the April 26, 2023 and August 23, 2023 Planning Board meetings, and the June 28, 2023 joint meeting with the Tree Board (Attachment 1 - Minutes). The Decision Matrix (Attachment 2) summarizes the main issues, prior Planning Board discussions and staff recommendations for private property tree removals unrelated to development activity. A September 13, 2023 work session has been scheduled for Planning Board review and direction on the Board's approach to property owner tree removal codes. A September 27, 2023 work session has been scheduled for Planning Board review of the existing code related to tree retention and replacements with development. No public hearings have been scheduled. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that the Board review and discuss the draft code options detailed in Attachment 2 and shown as mark-ups to ECDC Chapter 23.10 in Attachment 3 and provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred approach to proposed Property Owner Tree Removal Code Options I -IV. Narrative Property owner tree removal code options, prior Planning Board direction, public/stakeholder feedback and sample draft code options under considerations are shown in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 shows the proposed options, markups and strikeouts (in text color corresponding to Attachment 2) to help illustrate how the new property owner tree removal options would appear within the framework of the existing tree code. The focus of the September 13 meeting is on property owner tree removal codes; therefore, ECDC 23.10 sections related to tree retention with development have been ghosted out except tree removal replacement requirements in 23.10.080. Attachment 4 describes how the varying levels of proposed code complexity relate to code administration. The Planning Board requested that the August 23, 2023 slide deck be included with the September 13, 2023 meeting materials (attached). Attachments: Staff Memo_4 Decision Matrix_2 ECDC 23.10 Markups_3 PB Minutes Combined_1 09132023 PB Mtg PPT Packet Pg. 74 8.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM/ATTACHMENT 4 To: Edmonds Planning Board From: Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Date: September 13, 2023 Subject: Preliminary Draft Code Options/Property Owner Tree Removals Chapter 23.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code AMD 2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments Staff Recommendation Members are asked to review and discuss the draft code options detailed in Attachment 2 and shown as mark-ups to ECDC Chapter 23.10 in Attachment 3 and provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred approach to Draft Code Options I -IV, including requirement metrics. Narrative A primary objective for the 2022-2023 tree code amendments is an easier -to - understand code with greater efficiency in its application than the existing tree code. The complex submittal requirements and application of the current code may be due to omitting an analysis and test run of proposed code options. In examining new property owner tree removal code options, the Planning Board has discussed code effectiveness in terms of canopy cover, equity issues, property size and other tree removal scenarios that may affect code complexity levels. To provide additional context on how code complexity may affect its application, staff has outlined the current process for tree removal inquiries and indicated below how the code options in Attachment 2 would be administered: Current Dractice for tree removal reauests or inauiries: • Over the phone, email or counter, staff checks the customer's address for critical areas using the City's web -based GIS map and checks if the lot is subdividable using the same platform. • Staff advises if tree removals are unlimited or if a permit is required under the current code (multifamily and commercial properties, subdividable properties, vacant lots, etc. New 2-per 12-months tree removal allowance: Packet Pg. 75 8.A.a • Applicant submits simple notification form showing existing trees and proposed removals. • Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability, confirms receipt of notification in permit database or advises if a permit is required. New tree removal allowance, applicable to specific tree sizes: • Applicant measures trees on property, submits notification form that shows all existing trees by trunk size and proposed removals that fall within DBH range and calculates number of allowed removals. • Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability. • Staff notes tree sizes, total number of trees on property and number of proposed removals in permit database or advises if a permit is required. New tree removal allowance, applicable to graduating lot sizes: • Applicant submits notification form that shows property size in total square feet, all existing trees and proposed removals. • Staff follows current practice to verify critical areas and site developability, verifies lot size, checks proposed number of tree removals compared to lot size. • Staff confirms receipt of notification in permit database, notes total number of trees on property, number of proposed removals per lot size in permit database or advises if a permit is required. • If applicable, staff may need to consider tree sizes as described above. Current and new permit reauirement scenarios: • Current code - To remove trees in multi -family and commercial zoned areas, vacant lots and subdividable properties, applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees and documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. • Proposed code - To exceed the number of allowed tree removals, applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees or documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. • Unclear in current code - To remove trees in critical areas, applicant submits permit application with TRAQ (risk assessment) forms for hazard trees or documentation for nuisance trees, subject to review. Note that a permit process is recommended for any proposed code option where tree replacements would be required, such as the proposed removal of landmark trees. At the September 13, 2023 Planning Board meeting, staff can answer additional questions on the correlation between varying levels of code complexity and its administration, including current database capabilities and staffing resources. Packet Pg. 76 8.A.b Draft Code Options Matrix/Property Owner Tree Removals AM D 2022-0004 CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS I. Tree removal allowance — number of trees and frequency of removals Issues • Current code allows unlimited tree removals on developed SF, MF, Discussion — Number of trees COMM properties (where no critical areas are present). Unlimited number of property owner tree removals at the same time results in • Consider 2 tree removals (versus 3) as a starting point for the number of tree greater incremental canopy cover loss.' removals allowed at one time under a notification process (same as Kirkland pre-2021), or... • Tree replanting does not occur. • Allow a certain number of tree removals per range of property size, shown in • There is no data on property owner tree removals. table format in the code (Redmond, Renton, Kenmore, Kirkland presently), or... • Canopy cover data becomes available with analyses every 5-10 years. Without property owner tree removal data, trends in canopy gain/loss are difficult to understand. Note that between 2015 and 2020, gains in Edmonds' tree canopy outpaced losses by a very small amount.2 • Calculating property size increases staff time in providing over-the- counter approvals. Public/stakeholder feedback • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting — Question: Should property owners be allowed to remove x number of trees (within a certain timeframe)? No decision. Discussion comment: "without requiring a permit, a notification process for tree removal may generally be supported by the community. The concept seems straightforward." • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting — Question: Is 12 months adequate between allowed removals? Response: Not answered/unclear. • Public Survey — Question 4 responses (How should trees be protected in Edmonds?) were generally divided between "limit the number of trees that a property owner can remove at one time" and "it depends on the size of the property and how many trees" (19%), and "people should be able to remove trees on their property if they want or need to" (22%). • Community Conversation Event #1 March 27, 2023: Note that public comments were organized by category, in which private property tree regulations fell under the "Preservation" category. Comments were evenly distributed between Preservation (21 %), Management (21 %), Credential (21 %) and Other (22%), with Planting category lowest (15%). • Community Conversation Event #2 May 15, 2023: The highest number of comments fell in the Preservation category (35%), followed by Management (26%), Planting (19%), with other comment categories less than 10%. Note that individual comments ranged from "the City has no role in limiting property owner tree removals" to "Yes, [limiting tree removal] is standard practice in municipalities, public good, etc." • Note that Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the development code. • Allow a certain number of tree removals per unit lot area, calculated for each property. Example: 2 trees for every 10,000 square feet. • Consider other scales (neighborhood, green factor, etc.) and the preservation of certain tree species when establishing tree removal allowances. Discussion — frequency • Consider tree removal allowance within certain timeframes: o Every 12 months, allow 2 significant* tree removals (Kirkland pre-2021) o Every 3 years, allow 5 significant* tree removals (Bellevue) o Every year, allow 4 significant* tree removals (Sammamish) o Every 12 months, allow 2 significant* tree removals and every 24 months allow 4 significant* tree removals (Woodinville) Discussion — species Consider list of trees where no notification or permit is needed for property owner removals (ie: arborvitae, English holly, English laurel, black locust, etc.). Direction April 26, 2023: It depends on the size and quantity of tree removals. Establish tree removal allowances for (undetermined number) tree removals that may occur at one time, depending on the size of the tree. June 28, 2023: Allow 2 tree removals that may occur at one time, applicable to trees larger than significant trees (see #3 - applicable tree size, below). Some concerns were raised about considering the number of tree removals allowed per property size (equity, greater code complexity, etc.), although there was general agreement to achieve greater code simplicity. General agreement with 12-month interval. Do not "bank" future removals. August 23, 2023: no direction. *Note ECDC 23.10 and other cities define "significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH ATTACHMENT 2 Blue text — simple code option, staff recommendation Red text — code options under consideration with greater code complexity SAMPLE DRAFT CODE OPTIONS 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 [applicable size] within 12 months with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. OR 2. Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of [applicable size] trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sg ft 2 [applicable sizel trees 10,001-20,000 4 [applicable sizel trees 20, 000 sg ft or greater 6 [applicable size) trees No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. OR 3. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to [maximum number] [applicable size] trees per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Staff recommendation: use a simple 2 per 12-month tree removal allowance, applicable to any size property, administered through an over-the-counter notification process that checks for critical areas, tracks removals, and helps to avoid unnecessary code enforcement response. See below for applicable tree size. 1 "The vast majority of tree canopy cover and gains/loss occurred on residential lands." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3. 2 Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3. rn c a� E c a� E Q as 0 U m m t= v 0 0 0 N N 0 N 0 Packet Pg. 77 8.A.b Draft Code Options Matrix/Property Owner Tree Removals AM D 2022-0004 CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS II. Tree removal allowance — applicable tree size Issues • Diverse tree age distribution is a metric for healthy, sustainable urban forests. Without mature tree preservation efforts, neighborhoods and business districts can become devoid of canopy in even -aged tree populations due to senescence, pests/disease, extreme weather events, climate change, etc. • Recent canopy study findings support preservation of existing trees to Discussion address incremental loss of canopy cover and to protect ecological functions on private property.3 • Significant trees* measuring 6-12" DBH seem to be too small to regulate under • Familiarity and ease of application may beget greater code compliance: the tree removal allowance approach. proposed tree size ranges (versus known DBH thresholds) may confuse • Consider defining a "mid -range" tree size that falls between significant and those familiar with the code, asks property owners for more/detailed landmark tree DBH. information and requires additional staff time to provide over-the-counter approvals, defeating the purpose of an allowance. • Define landmark tree size (DBH) and determine appropriate number of landmark tree removals allowed within a given timeframe • Although landmark tree removals were prohibited under a prior moratorium, there is no landmark tree definition or removal restrictions in Limit, but do not prohibit landmark tree removals. the current code. • Prior moratorium defined landmark trees as 24" DBH, which has become familiar to residents (based on current landmark tree removal inquiries). • Landmark tree size definitions and removal frequency varies widely in other jurisdictions (Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Snoqualmie, Redmond). Sizes range from 18" to 30" DBH. Kirkland defines landmark tree as 24" DBH and allows 1 landmark tree removal per 12 months; Seattle prohibits Exceptional tree removal (30" DBH). Public/stakeholder feedback Tree Board Focus Group Meeting — Question: Should "landmark" tree be defined as minimum 24" DBH? Response: Not answered/unclear. Initially agreed yes, but further discussion supports varying tree size thresholds. Question: Should "landmark" tree removals be prohibited (or limited, the same as smaller tree removal allowances)? Response: Yes, landmark tree removals should be limited ... only those that are hazardous should be allowed to be removed. Question: should the time between "landmark" tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? Response: Not answered. Dirprtinn April 26, 2023: Consider trees larger than significant trees* for tree removal allowance. Limit, but do not prohibit landmark tree removals. General support to define landmark trees as 24" DBH. June 28, 2023: Some agreement on applying the 2-per 12 months tree removal allowance to trees 12" DBH up to 23.9" DBH. Some agreement on further restricting landmark tree removals (fewer trees? increase timeframe?) but concerned how options may increase code complexity/implementation. August 23, 2023: no direction. (Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: prohibit Landmark tree removals). • Public Survey — the highest percentage of responses to Question 4 (How should trees be protected in Edmonds?) is "large/mature trees should *ECDC 23.10 currently defines "significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH. have greater levels of protection" (26%). Comments include, "Trees need to be preserved wherever possible, especially large and mature trees," "large trees are priority," and "protect mature trees." • See Community Conversation Event general response categories shown under "Tree Removal Allowance - number of trees." Under the question, "What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related to private property tree removals?" s participant commented: "Protection for larger trees 30" DBH." ATTACHMENT 2 Blue text — simple code option, staff recommendation Red text — code options under consideration with greater code complexity SAMPLE DRAFT CODE OPTIONS 4. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 landmark trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance**. OR 5. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 "regulated" trees on any size property within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form**. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. OR 6. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of "regulated" trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form**: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sq ft 2 "regulated" trees 10, 001-20, 000 4 "regulated" trees 20, 000 sq ft or greater 6 "regulated" trees No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. OR 7. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least 12" DBH, AND Any private property owner of developed property may remove 2 "regulated" trees per 10, 000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form**. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. **AND/OR CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS UNDER OPTIONS /// & IV BELOW (NEW). 3 "Most canopy gains came from incremental growth of existing trees, highlighting the importance of preservation efforts." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3. Packet Pg. 78 8.A.b Draft Code Options Matrix/Property Owner Tree Removals AM D 2022-0004 CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 2 Blue text — simple code option, staff recommendation Red text — code options under consideration with greater code complexity SAMPLE DRAFT CODE OPTIONS • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing development code. Staff recommendation: Define tree removal allowance applicable tree size by an acceptable threshold (over or under specific DBH; do not define by ranges of tree size (in between x and x DBH). Example: significant tree (over 6" DBH), or "regulated" tree over 12" DBH or landmark tree over 24" DBH). Consider landmark tree removal through a permit process instead of/or in addition to "regulated" or "significant" trees. III. Tree removal scenarios that require a permit Discussion: Issues: • Critical area tree removal is directly related to public safety, especially where • Most cities/counties, even those without tree codes require permits for steep slopes are concerned. Preventing landslides and preserving habitat were tree removal in critical areas. considered the primary reasons for prohibiting healthy tree removal in critical • Currently, ECDC 23.10 and 23.40 permit requirements for critical areas areas. 8. The following activities shall require a permit. are unclear, resulting in excessive tree removal code violations in critical • To exceed tree removal allowances in non -critical areas, a permit should be areas. required to review whether additional hazard and nuisance trees fit criteria. • The proposed removal or pruning of street trees and trees located in the right -of- • Tree removal requirements for MF/COMM properties, vacant lots, • Clarify in the current code when a permit is required for MF, COMM properties way pursuant to the requirements of ECC Title 18.85 and the Street Tree Plan. (CLARIFICATION). subdividable properties, etc. are unclear. (for review of landscaping/buffer requirements per ECDC 20.13), vacant and • Canopy study findings show the removal of "forest patches" is negatively subdividable properties. • The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW) impacting critical area ecological functions, water quality and landslide • Limit, but do not prohibit landmark tree removals. • The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams hazards. and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than Public/stakeholder feedback: Direction: 25% critical areas (NEW) • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting —Question: Should a permit be April 26, 2023: prohibit tree removal in critical areas except hazard/nuisance trees; • Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties CURRENT y- p p (CURRENT) required for tree removals in critical areas? Response: Yes, permits require a permit for the removal of hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas. • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT). should be required for tree removal in critical areas. June 28, 2023: require a permit to exceed tree removal allowances with hazard/nuisance trees and for the removal of hazard/nuisance trees in critical AND - CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A • Public Survey — Question: Should the same rules apply to tree removals areas. PERMIT PROCESS (NEW). in critical areas as those not in critical areas? Response: No, there should be stricter rules on tree removals in critical areas (63%). August 23, 2023: No direction. • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing (Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: consider development code. requiring permits for all property owner tree removals and greater restrictions on tree removals in critical areas). Staff recommendation: Require a permit for staff review of hazard or nuisance tree criteria to a) exceed the number of tree removal allowances and b) remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas. Consider landmark tree removal through a permit process instead of/or in addition to "regulated" or "significant" trees. IV. Replacement tree requirements Issues: Discussion: 9. Any private property owner of developed property (define) may remove up to 2 [applicable size] trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal • Currently, no replacements are required for unlimited tree removals on • Consider mandatory minimum for trees removed under the removal allowance. Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the single family properties with no critical areas. For example, replace trees only when the remaining trees reach a certain tree removal allowance (NEVI. threshold, such as 3 trees, to trigger tree replacements (Kirkland pre-2021). AND • Currently, the development code uses various replacement methodologies: • OR use a formula based on replacement trees per increments of removed tree 10. Under draft 23.10.030 Permits (NEW) o Appraised value payment for >24" DBH trees removed with trunk diameter (1 new tree for every removed 6" trunk diameter - Woodinville). development (23.10.080.E.3). • OR require 1-3 new tree replacement trees based on size ranges of removed A. The following activities shall require a permit. 0 1-3 new trees required for <24" DBH trees removed with development trees, as with the existing development code (ECDC 23.10.080), with revisions to account for removed trees over 24" DBH. 1. The proposed removal or pruning of street trees and trees located in the right- (23.10.080.A). of -way pursuant to the requirements of ECC Title 18.85 and the Street Tree Plan Direction: (CLARIFICATION). • Currently, trees removed in critical areas are replaced at a 2:1 ratio (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8). April 26, 2023: undetermined tree replacement requirements. 2. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes Packet Pg. 79 8.A.b Draft Code Options Matrix/Property Owner Tree Removals AM D 2022-0004 CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING BOARD ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 2 Blue text — simple code option, staff recommendation Red text — code options under consideration with greater code complexity SAMPLE DRAFT CODE OPTIONS • Currently, tree replacements on commercial and multifamily -zoned June 28, 2023: divided on the number of replacement trees that should be required greater than 25% critical areas. Replacement trees are required per ECDC properties are determined by landscaping and buffer requirements for smaller trees removed under the allowance, some agreement that landmark 23.40.220.C.8. (CLARIFICATION, consolidated from 23.10.050.D and (ECDC 20.13). tree removals should be replaced. 23.40.220.C.8). • Currently, trees removed on vacant or subdividable properties are August 23, 2023: no direction. 3. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances. replaced under the development code replacement standards (ECDC No replacement trees are required. (NEVI 23.10.060-080) with the assumption that these removals are pre- development/preemptive tree removals. 4. Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties. Replacement tree requirements are determined under the landscaping and buffer requirements per ECDC 20.13. (CURRENT) Public/stakeholder feedback: 5. Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties. Replacement tree • Tree Board Focus Group Meeting —Question: What are appropriate tree requirements are determined by the development code standards per ECDC replacement requirements for property owner tree removals in Edmonds? 23.10.060-080. (CURRENT WITH REVISIONS). Response: Unclear. There was a difference of opinion on whether conifers or certain species should be required to be planted, what the site AND conditions may be, and other issues. 11. Under 23.10.080 Tree replacement. • Public Survey — Question 5: When property owners remove trees, how important do you think it is to plant new trees? Response: On a scale of p y p p A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required 1-10, 10 being extremely important, 63% responded with "10." by ECDC 23.10.030.A t�G"apter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A) Ea^h o gnifiGant tree to he removed • Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing shag he renlaned as follows: development code. 1. For each signifiGant tree between six inches and 4-0 12 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each s1gnffiGan tree between 12 40.1 inches and 23.9 44 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each siga+fisaP tree greater than 1 ^ Wr_,heo and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. (CURRENT CODE WITH REVISIONS) AND 12. Under 23.10.080. E. Tree Replacement Fee in Lieu. 3. Cer P;;rh c nifGapt tree rr eater than J^ inrheq in QQW re .e6 a fee ha @,d en a i4e tree by the city tree trunk formula value protection professional U809 method in the edition of the Q__y. de for Plant Annrai0al shall he required Gurrent Staff recommendation: Revise ECDC 23.10.080.A so that 3 replacement trees are required for the removal of trees at least 24" DBH (landmark trees), where applicable. Replace trees at the same rate as the current code for trees removed in critical areas, vacant lots, etc. Do not require replacement trees for trees removed under tree removal allowance or hazard /nuisance trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances (outside critical areas). Consider landmark tree removal through a permit process instead of/or in addition to "regulated" or "significant" trees. c a� E c a� E Q a� 0 U m m L v 0 0 0 N N 0 N 0 Packet Pg. 80 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Note: blue/red text corresponds to the code options shown in Attachment 2, blue being the least complex code and streamlined application, red being the most complex code options. Grey text is not related to property owner tree removal options. Sections: 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. 23.10.010 Administration authority. 23.10.020 Definitions. 23.10.xxx Tree removal allowances 23.10.030 Permits. 23.10.040 Exemptie-Rs activities 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. 23.10.080 Tree replacement associated with development. 23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title. 23.10.090 Bonding. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 23.10.110 Liability. 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long- term survival; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 81 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural a topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition E (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and E improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment a of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and 0 U K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development a through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds. o 0 0 L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in N which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by o measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, Q undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 01 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.010 Administering authority. The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.020 Definitions. A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DBH. D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 82 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)." F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. E c as I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. E a� J. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which o cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. as L K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm ~ drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a o physical addition to real property. N N O x. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree aRplicable to property owner tree removals at least 24" o DBH (NEVI. a M L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around 01 a tree and the allowable site disturbance. M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 83 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. c X. "Regulated tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at least E twelve inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. E a m R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as o measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been o removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the g tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. N 0 N S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. g T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. V. "Tree removal" means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. W. "Tree topping" means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. X. "Viable tree" means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 84 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS 23.10.xx Tree removal allowance (NEW) Any private property owner of developed property (define) may remove up to 2 "landmark" trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. M Any private property owner of developed property (define) may remove up to 2 "regulated" trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. M Any private property owner of developed property (define) may remove a maximum number of [applicable sizel trees per lot area below within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Property Size Tree Removal Allowance Up to 10,000 sq ft 2 [applicable size] trees 10, 001-20, 000 4 (applicable size] trees 20, 000 sq ft or greater 6 [applicable size] trees No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. W Any private property owner of developed property (define) may remove up to 2 [applicable size] trees per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are reauired for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. AND/OR CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS. 23.10.030 Permits. A. The following activities shall require a permit. c a� E c as E a a� 0 U CD m t= 0 0 0 N N O N 0 a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 85 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS 1. The proposed removal or pruning of street trees and trees located in the right-of-way pursuant to the requirements of ECC Title 18.85 and the Street Tree Plan (CLARIFICATION). 2. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide/erosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas. Replacement trees are required per ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. (CLARIFICATION, consolidated from 23.70.050.D and 23.40.220.C.8). 3. The proposed removal of hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances. No replacement trees are required. (NEW) a� 4. Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties. Replacement tree E requirements are determined under the landscaping and buffer requirements per ECDC 20.13. (CURRENT) a a� 5. Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties. Replacement tree 0 requirements are determined by the development code standards per ECDC 23.10.060- 080. (CURRENT). 0 6-Q Precedural Exemptien. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or g other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require N a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the o standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), a 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. AND/OR - CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS (NEW) B. Permit requirements for the removal of hazard and nuisance trees: 1. Hazard trees with a tree risk assessment form prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree (moved from 23. 70.040 Exemptions). 2. Nuisance trees with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance (moved from 23.10.040 Exemptions). 23.10.040 Exemptkms activities. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter permit: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 86 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS (clarification, moved to 23. 70.030 Permits). A. Emergency tree removal (move from 23.40.220.C.8.b.vi and 23.40.220.C.8.c). B. Public tree and utility maintenance. The maintenance and removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department, and/or franchised utilities for eye of the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. C.9-. Removal and maintenance of trees within city of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the parks department. D €. Pruning, routine landscaping, tree maintenance, of vegetatien and such as planting, and the removal of invasive/exotic species and management of brush and seedling trees are exempt activities except that portion of the property containing a critical areas, er its associated buffers and native growth protection easements. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 - 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees -- the peint where they have been previously tepped is ce—pside—red- Mainte ...... e fe these t.rppr ale -Re, previded pruning wall be i-Indertaken enly te the extent necessary fer public safety Ar +roe hotel+h 1. Nuisance tree with docu.m.e.ntatie—n ef the darriage and any tree werk that has been attempted te rectify the nuisance, and/er a staterne—pt fre—rn the applicant's qualified tr professional explaining why ne arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. (moved to 23.10.030. Permits) hazaFd e (moved to 23.70.030. Permits) a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 87 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS ■ .. 23.70.030. 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B. Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees. c a� C. Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition E except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. a a� D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree 0 removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 0 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. g A. Introduction. The city's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing N site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To 0 that end, the city requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with Q the following applications: 1. Short subdivision; 2. Subdivision; 3. New multifamily development; 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house; and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan. 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 88 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense. 2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; a� E iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); c as E iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, a a� etc.); o U v. Tree type or species. L b. A site plan depicting the following: o 0 0 i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, N utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas N clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree Q retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; a ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; v. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an "X" or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner must be provided. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 89 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); v. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions. a. Phased Review. i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii. A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements. 1. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows: Table 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, 30% of all significant short subdivision, trees in the developable or subdivision site a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 90 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS Development Retention Required Multifamily 25% of all significant development, unit trees in the developable lot short site subdivision, or unit lot subdivision 2. Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 5. For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One. a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 18 inches DBH. 2. Priority Two. a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; g The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 91 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the c selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility E corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. F. Tree Retention Procedures. E a m 1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher L) priority trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: L a. Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and o 0 b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section. N 2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can 0 N demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the Q proposed development infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. 3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained at least to the number of trees required by subsection (C) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. 4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 92 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS G. If a development retains 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; a 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 0 U 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines. o 0 N B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of N any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, 0 placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete Q washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree MI designated for protection. a C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 93 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone. 7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: It; a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical c E root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage a caused by heavy equipment. 0 b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of critical W root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. o c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from 0 N machinery or building activity. N d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. 0 Q D. Grade. 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 94 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees a� E designated for retention. a F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 0 U 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. L 23.10.080 Tree replacement. o A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by g ECDC 23.10.030 this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types N identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A) Each significant tree to be ro.,.,, ved shall be reply as follows: � N 1. For each SigRifiEaRt tree between six inches and 4-9 12 inches DBH removed, one Q replacement tree is required. 2. For each sigRificaRt tree between 12 49.1 inches and 23.9 4-4 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches -a^d less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 95 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to development services that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title. The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.090 Bonding. A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. c a� E c m E a a� 0 U CD L 0 0 0 N N O N 0 a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 96 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15 percent of the performance bond or estimate in subsection (B) of this section. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties. 1. Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(2) of this section. 2. Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 97 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter; d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the appraised value of trees 12 inches or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the city arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions; e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in c conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition a that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s); a� o U f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a L certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to ~ monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. o 0 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified c mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same o from the city. The notice shall describe the violation, the approximate date(s) of violation, Q and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate M cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. U 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.110 Liability. A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.10.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 98 8.A.c ATTACHMENT 3 ECDC 23.10 MARKUPS C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. c a� E c as E a a� 0 U m L le Q 0 O N N O N 0 a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022. Packet Pg. 99 8.A.d Draft August 23, 2023 Planning Board Meeting UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made the presentation on code options related to property owner tree removals. Due to technical difficulties with sharing the PowerPoint, Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that a copy of the presentation be included with the minutes. At the previous meeting there was general agreement to keep the regulations simple, that no healthy trees should be removed in critical areas, and to allow two trees to be removed per 12 months. Does this apply to larger trees? What about replacement requirements? She reviewed public and stakeholder feedback. She stated there was general support for limiting or prohibiting tree removal in critical areas. Additionally, the Tree Board had a strong recommendation to limit landmark tree removals. There was also previously a discussion about allowing a greater number of tree removals on larger properties. She reviewed a table showing options for property sizes with greater numbers of tree removal allowances for larger properties. The Board needs to decide if removal limits based on property size is a preferred approach. She reviewed some draft code options related to tree removal allowances depending on the size of the removed trees and noted that this would also increase the complexity and involvement by both the staff and applicant. Is this consistent with the stated goal of having a simple code? Chair Gladstone asked if there are other jurisdictions that use property size as part of their reporting and notification. Ms. Powers replied that Kirkland, Woodinville, and Bellevue all look at differences in property sizes, but it is up to the community. There was some discussion about the process of code development and how that affects the complexity or simplicity of the resulting code. Chair Gladstone noted it was important to answer the question of which trees to which this would apply. Would they even allow tree removals for trees over 23.9" DBH? Ms. Powers referred to a matrix that showed various code options related to landmark trees available to the Board, staff recommendations and solicited feedback. After landmark trees are defined, that code option is shown under Code Option III, Tree Removal Allowance - applicable tree size, in blue text under number 2. Code Option III.2: Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to one landmark tree within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The Board had expressed support for limiting but not prohibiting landmark tree removals. Ms. Powers explained that rather than create a new size definition for trees in between significant and landmark trees, that the removal allowance just applies to landmark trees. The matrix shows the more complex code options in red text. There was some discussion if the number of allowed landmark tree removals should be one or two per 12 months. A permit would be required to exceed that numerical allowance, as shown under Code Option IV. Code Option IV.1: Tree removal scenarios that require a permit. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements: The proposed removal of.• • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (new) • Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (new) Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 100 8.A.d • Trees located on commercial and multi family -zoned properties (current) • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (current) • Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the allowance and not having the graduated sizes because of the cleanliness of it. She likes the idea of the graduated sizes but it feels like it will cause more of a burden from an applicant and processing standpoint. She thinks allowing two landmark trees is too much. If they are going to do an across-the-board allowance of two trees, she thinks they should be 20 inches or smaller. Chair Gladstone said she agrees that landmark trees feel different. She realizes this adds complexity to the code but she thinks they need to figure out a way to differentiate them. Ms. Powers explained that Kirkland has two c categories — significant and landmark. Significant is defined as trees at least 6 inches in trunk diameter. If they E want to regulate trees of a certain size range between significant and landmark trees (such as over 12 inches), they need to define that category though. There was discussion about how these definitions relate to the E development code. Vice Chair Campbell expressed an interest in staying consistent with the development code a definitions and possibly increasing the allowance for significant trees. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the late c hour and recommended they come back to this at the next work session in order to have enough time to get v feedback from everyone. She also requested that staff provide a clear staff preferred recommendation for the tree code as a starting point so they can get through it a little quicker. Board Member Golembiewski suggested ~ jumping right back in where they left off at the next meeting and skipping the introduction. o 0 N NEW BUSINESS o N None. Q PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was discussion about the extended agenda and agreement to revisit the tree code on September 13 if there is time after the two hearings and then again on September 27. Staff needs to consider how pushing this out impacts everything else on the extended agenda including the Comprehensive Plan, the planned public hearing for the CFP/CIP, and a couple other projects. Staff will review this and come back with a revised schedule on a proposed approach for the tree code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone commented that the earlier staff can provide the CFP/CIP to the Board the better. She urged all board members to review the tree code and submit questions to staff ahead of the meeting in order to save time at the meeting. She asked Planning Manager Levitan to pass along her appreciation to Deb Powers for the format of the information she had provided tonight. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 101 8.A.d June 28, 2023 Planning Board/Joint Tree Board Meeting ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion on the negative effects that some trees have on active or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do so? ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals. Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation. Key concepts for consideration with this code update: • Number of removals • Frequency • Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions) • Landmark trees • Tree removal in critical areas • Replacement requirements Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees would be 24" DBH or greater. Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it would depend on the size and number of trees. Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 102 8.A.d Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees? Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the resources to deal with administering a complex code. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per 12 months rather than three trees. Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements. Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that went into the management plan. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger - sized properties. Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have made it clear they don't want a tree code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 103 8.A.d Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations around those because of landslides. Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact on their neighbors. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral testimony. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. In 2024 there will be a gap analysis of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board, etc. She noted that Goal 1A related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed. Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land. PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN c a� E c a� E a a� 0 U m 0 0 0 N N O N Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 104 8.A.d THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER KUEHN. Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a canopy problem. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they a would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but c those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not v cut them down. a L Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She o believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban N temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to c retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension betweenCN o private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in Q navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan, but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible. Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree canopy is important for helping with climate change. MOTION PASSED 4-2. Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and workable to Council. Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification) not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 105 8.A.d Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of code for both the property owner and for staff. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him. He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Planning Board Member Maxwell said it should change with the size of the lot. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees. Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table. Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept that Kirkland used. Tree Board members departed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 106 8.A.d April 26, 2023 Planning Board Meeting MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase I) to achieve the goal of reducing development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would just be a secondary use. Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12 months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist. Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals if it is evident in a photograph. Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time. Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 107 8.A.d Should tree removal on private property be limited? • Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others. • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees. • There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to remove the last two trees on their property. • Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as c fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction. Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be working in Edmonds for the tree canopy. E • Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about c enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week. c • Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is N happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is N appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover? Q What kind of loss are they trying to avoid? • Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the o same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted v in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method. • Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing m some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH a (diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6" a DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member E Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many 0 landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually Q providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate. • Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden. • Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that. He gave an overview of the process. • Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 108 8.A.d • Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private property. They just don't know what it needs to look like. Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time? • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree they were talking about. Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period. Does the Planning Board feel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance trees) Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size? Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees? Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? • There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees. • Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate. • Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be accepted politically. • Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend. • Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree. • Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are talking about because it is difficult to visualize. • Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities have larger trees designated as heritage trees. • Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy, sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size. • There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native. Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? • Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical areas. The current code is confusing on this topic. • There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 109 8.A.d Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas. • Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas. • Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree removal in critical areas. With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited? c • Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit. • Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A E nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo c of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas. U • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides. She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10" c DBH would be a good starting point. N O N NEW BUSINESS a A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting TBD) PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings proposed in June. Staff is proposing to invite the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree Code. They are also looking at having a joint workshop with the City Council on some of the current housing -related topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14 meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could be too much for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added that Multifamily Design Standards is a potential topic for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board. None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 110 r�rl�'r r'�� r��1 `y-���W�.�T AW / k i+ r , Tree Code Amendment N, Property Owner Tree Remova is � 23 '�.r�` � �t" � x��� '�'-.r ,i'ia. x ems, • , -'��i• �"'Edmonds Planning Board Meeting _ _ - 8.A.e Property Owner Tree Removals III. Tree removal allowance 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 Landmark trees trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements. The proposed removal of: oo Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW) oo Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (NEW) oo Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties (CURRENT) oo Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT). oo Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Packet Pg. 112 8.A.e Property Owner Tree Removals How the current code works... Underlying Fee/Permit Required? Required Criteria Required Documentation Who Reviews? Is Mitigation Code Provision Zoning Required? Depends on critical area determination and/or wetlands mitigation plan from property owner'sGeotech, Yes Single Family, Yes, Type 1" Any trees, subject to critical area determination wetlands s t t pecia is, a t. Planner 2:1, as specified in ECDC 23.40-23.90 y developed ___________ _________________ _ _Site plan w/ required replacements._ _ ________________________ i critics al area report QSubdlvidable Report/TRAQ form from property owner's ISA-or W No Hazardous, threatens public safety, or current or ASCA-certified arborist or registered LA. OF Planner es ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b imminent risk of damage to private property Site plan w/ required replacements. 2.1 QDepends on critical area determination and/or wetlands mitigation plan from property owner's Yes Q Single Family, es, Type 1" Any trees, subject to critical area determination specialist, , etc. Geotech, wetlands s t Planner 2.1 ECDC 23.40-23.90 Udeveloped _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Site plan w/ required replacements_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Not subdividable Arborist's report/TRAQ form. Yes ECDC 23.10.030-050, No Hazard/Nuisance Tree Site plan w/ required replacements. OF Planner 2:1 23.40.220.C.8.b V Any trees, subject to critical area report May require critical area determination. Removal: OF Planner, Ves ECDC 23.40-90, 20.13 Multifamily, Yes, t'scape Modification Type I" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ Site plan w/ requ ied replacements. _ — — Replacements: Per required — — — — — — — developed Hazard/Nuisance Tree Arborist's report or TRAQ form. Planner landscaping, buffers, ECDC 23.10.030-050 Site plan w/re uired replacements. zoning Subject to tree retention/replacement plan, 30% Yes ECDC 23,10.060, Single Family, Yes, Type 1" Any trees retention, appraisals for>24" DBH trees, etc. Planner or OF Planner Same as development ECDC 23.10.080 Qdeveloped — — — — — — — — — — — ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ' ' ' ' requirements ' ' ' ' ' _ _ _ W Subdividable Yes Replacements IXNo Hazard/Nuisance Tree Arborist's report/TRAQ form. OF Planner Depends on removed corded on title as fepratected a trees J Single Family, Q developed No Unlimited tree removals None —unlimited removals No review No ECDC 23.10.030. (� Not subdividable Multifamily es ECDC 23.10.050.A ny tees anner (HQAI, Per required ECDC 20.13 Commercial, Yes, Uscape Modification Type l" —————————— — — — — —— —---------------- Arborist's report or TRAQ form, site plan w/ ------- landscaping, buffers, ------- ECDC 23.10.050.A U developed Hazard/Nuisance Tree required replacements OF Planner zoning ECDC 23,10.030-050 O Z ECDC 23.10.080 ANY VACANT LOT es, type 1" Removals prohibited unless Arborist's report or TRAQform, site plan OF Planner Yes Depends on Replacements Hazard/Nuisance w/ required replacements recorded on title removed DBH as protected trees E E a d 0 U 0 T r N N O N 0 C Q Packet Pg. 113 8.A.e Planning Board Feedback Property owner tree removals • Keep it simple • No healthy tree removal in critical areas • "2-per" removal allowance/ 12 months • Applicable to larger trees • Replacement requirements? a 0 U L 0 0 0 N N O N IL IL a� w m a M N O N M O C E L V R r r Q Packet Pg. 114 8.A.e Planning Board Feedback Other considerations,. • Allow a greater number of tree removals on larger properties? —<10,000 sq ft - 2 trees 10,001-20,000 4 trees >20,000 sq ft 6 trees • Applies to what size tree? o Significant = 6" DBH minimum (currently defined) o "Regulated" = 12" DBH to 23.9" DBH (new) o "Landmark" 24" DBH minimum (new, but familiar) Packet Pg. 115 8.A.e Public & Stakeholder Feedback Property owner tree removals PUBLIC ENCAGEMEN7 � Part °f the tree cone d1knomrnl SufyeY Pr°yld� MoJecL a seNe conyultF n Br°up Pfanl°PPPrtines to l+ear the commuNt Wort f! 0eU Gornto eeKloPa[ qmynlil Bs resultrn fr wts summeryof Public en •^8aerment efl ea8emertteM orts. event ann results from rho Public °rls fno attachrnenl 'U".y brloW; ' PubGc MrYtln(It- 1`4arch27,2023 ' Public Meetrng g2 _ May 15. 2023 • Facus Grow➢Mee tingg[APrg272023 • Faus Group Meetingg2M"-2023 ` Faus Group Meeting a3. • Pubflc S"-YResutrs May]W12, 2023 HOW CAN I GE7 INVOLVED? • Parif[lpale In pProml • Subml ^9Publkmerhn8s, t Your romments rn tree,gM • Email heesg,edttbndssya r�IniWa,gpy. ' Provlde;n-Person comrnen�urinharewest to recnvg➢r4ect upnat g the Reins fr orn thequaler�ce Porrlon at Plannint www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates E a 0 U L 0 O N N O N C� C Q a C� C m d M N Q N M 0 M Q Packet Pg. 116 8.A.e Property Owner Tree Removals III. Tree removal allowance— applicable tree size (with property size considerations) Issues w Diverse tree age distribution is a metric for healthy, sustainable urban forests. Without mature tree preservation efforts, neighborhoods and 1. Anypdvets property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 significant business districts can become devoid of canopy in even -aged tree trees' within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. populations due to senescence, pests/disease, extreme weather events, OR climate change, etc. 2. "Landmark tree" means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at w Recent canopy study findings support preservation of existing trees to least 24- DBH, AND address incremental loss of canopy cover and to protect ecological Discussion Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 1 "landmark free" functions on private property.' within a 12-movithiperkod with the submittal of s Tree Removal Notification form OR w Familiarity and ease of application may beget greater code compliance: m Significant trees' measuring 6-12' DBH Seem to be too small to regulate er CONSIDER LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTS THROUGHA proposed tree size ranges (versus known DBH thresholds) may confuse the tree removal allowance approach. PERMIT PROCESS UNDER OPTIONS IV 8 V BELOW. those familiar with the code, asks property owners far more/detailed w Consider defining a "mitl+ange'tree size that falls between significant and O information and requires additional staff time to provide Over -the -Counter landmark tree DBH. "Regulated approvals, defeating the purpose of an allowance. . Define landmark tree size (DBH) and determine appropriate number of landmark 3. tree offeea ficabi t er tree removals at least 12"DBH up to 23.9"DBH, AND N w Although landmark tree removals were prohibited under a prior tree removals allowed within a given timeframe "Landmark moratorium, there is no landmark tree definition or removal restrictions inp the current code. w Limit, do not prohibit landmark tree removals. tree"means the size of tree applicable fo ro owner tree removals of party least 24- DBH, AND w Prior moratorium defined landmark trees as 24' DBH, which has become Anyprivate property owner ofdeveloped property may remove up to 2 "regulated" familiar to residents (based on current landmark tree removal inquiries). Direction: trees or 1 "landmark free'within a 12-month period with the submittal ofe Tree Removal Notification form. w Landmark tree size definitions and removal fire widely quenoy varies wi y in April 26, 2023: Consider trees larger than significant trees' for tree removal OR otherjurisdictions (Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, allowance. Limit, but do not prohibit landmark tree removals. General support to ). Sizes range from 1 to 30" DBH. Kirkland Snoqualand Redmond). landmark define landmark trees as 24' DBH. 4. "Regulated tree"means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at tree s tree as DBH and allows 1 removal least 12"DBH up to 23.9"DBH, AND ohi removal per 12 months; Seattle prohibits Exceptional tree removal (30" DBH). per 12 months tree removal Juneanc 2023: Some agreement on applying the Some allowance to trees 12° DBH up to 23.9" DBH. Some agreement on further "Landmark tree"means the Size of free applicable to property owner tree removals at restricting landmark tree removals (fewer trees? increase timeframe?) but least 24- DBH, AND Publictstakeholder feedback concerned how options may increase code complexity/implementation. Any private property owner of developed property may remove a maximum number of w Tree Board Focus Group Meeting #2—Question: Should 'landmark' tree "mgulated"or "landmark"trees per lot area below within a 12monthperiod with the be defined as minimum 24" DBH? Response: Not answered/uncleal submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form: Initially agreed yes, but further discussion supports varying tree size thresholds. Question: Should'landirl tree removals be prohibitatl (or (Note fi.1/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: prohibit Derry see limited, the same as smaller tree removal allowances)? Response: Yes, Landmark tree removals). veaaiateu'rreesg 2 landmark tree removals should be limited... only those that are hazardous 1 °lendmark'rreew should be allowed to be removed. Question: should the time between 4 "landmark" tree removals be longerthan what's allowed for smaller f000"Loc0 2 ye2men 11 trees? Response: Not answered. 6%a knid'eeeaor3 m Public Survey —the highest percentage of responses to Question 4 (How oN.. rto.wearer should trees be protecied in Edmonds?) is "large/mature trees should have greater levels of protection" (26% ). Comments include,'Trees need 'ECDC 23.10 currently defines "Significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH. OR to be pre ad wherever passible, especially large and mature trees; 5. "Regulated tree"means the size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at "large Dees are prionty; and "protect mature trees.' least 12" DBH up to 23.9"DBH, AND m See Community Conversation Event general response categories shown "Landmark tree"means the size of free applicable to property owner tree removals at under -Tree Removal Allowance - number of trees." Under the question, "What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related to least 24- DBH, AND private property tree removals?" s participant commented: "Protection for Anyprivate property owner of developed property may remove 2 "regulated" trees or 1 larger trees 30' DBH.' "landmark" free per 10,000 square feet lot area within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. m Note Focus Group Meetings #1 and #3 relate to changes to the existing development code. "Mast canopy gains came from incremental growth of existing trees, highlighting the importance of preservation efforts." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3. E a d O U L 0 N N CD C� C LQ r am a CC0 Cal M N Q N M r 0 Packet Pg. 117 8.A.e Property Owner Tree Removals Code Option V Exceed - Permit required (new) Healthy Tree - Replacements per development code (by size of removal) Removal Allowance - Applicable to 12-23.9" DBH healthy trees (new size definition)? Code Option III 2-per 12 months - Notification requested (new) Removal Allowance - No replacements - Applicable to 12-23.9" DBH healthy trees (new size definition)? Limit Larger Tree Removals Code Option III (allowance), IV (permit), V (replace) - Permit required? - Replacements like development code (3:1) - Applicable to +24" DBH trees (familiar) - Permit required (clarify urrent code) Critical Areas - 2:1 replacements (currecode) - Applicable to hazard/nuisance +6" DBH trees (current code) Packet Pg. 118 8.A.e erty Owner Tree Removals Code Option V Exceed - Permit required (new) Healthy Tree - Replacements per development code (by size of removal) Removal Allowance - Applicable to 12-23.9" DBH healthy trees (new size definition)? Code Option III 2-per 12 months - Notification requested (new) Removal Allowance - No replacements - Applicable to 12-23.9" DBH healthy trees (new size definition)? Limit Larger Tree Removals Code Option III (allowance), IV (permit), V (replace) - Permit required? - Replacements like development code (3:1) - Applicable to +24" DBH trees (familiar) ■ - Permit required (clarify current code) Critical Areas - 2:1 replacements (current code) - Applicable to hazard/nuisance +6" DBH trees (current code) Packet P9. 119 8.A.e perty Owner Tree Removals criti►ca1 are Ss Keep it sirnPteee ren'0 0�e� 12 m°nth healthy 1 ap°vN N2 per, re eoo,argel tre en s4111 P Pp;��ement reQU�rern R Exceed Code Option V - Permit required (new) Landmark Tree - 3:1 replacements (like development code) Removal Allowance - Applicable to healthy +24" DBH trees (familiar) Code Option III, IV, V Landmark Tree - Notification requested (new) - No replacements 1 or 2-per 12 months - Applicable to healthy +24" DBH trees (familiar) Removal Allowance - Permit required (clarify current code) Critical Areas - 2:1 replacements (current code) - Applicable to hazard/nuisance I DBH trees (current code) Packet Pg. 120 8.A.e Property Owner Tree Removals III. Tree removal allowance 1. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 Landmark trees trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements. The proposed removal of: oo Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW) oo Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (NEW) oo Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties (CURRENT) oo Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT). oo Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Packet Pg. 121 8.A.e Planning Board Minor/Current (Development) Code Current (Development) Code Project Update Public Engagement Plar• Cii Proj u I Public Engagement Events Community Workshops x2 Focus Groups x3 CPC presentation Earth Fair Watershed Fun Fair Youth Environment Summit Current (Development) Code Packet Pg. 122 8.A.e Questions? Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner deb, powersgedmondswa.gov c m E c m E Q 0 U CD m L O O O N N O N 0 a IL a m IL M N O N M r O O C N E t V R a+ a+ Q Packet Pg. 123 8.A.e Planning Board - General Approach Existing (deve%pmentJ code • Minor tree code amendments (Dec 2022) • Simplify multiple layers of requirements: • Retention (3) o Replanting (5) o Fees in lieu (4) • Replant removed trees 24" DBH+ • Incentives more visible Packet Pg. 124 10.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2023 September 13 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Staff Recommendation Review and discuss the September 13 version of the Planning Board Extended Agenda (attached). Narrative The continuation of two public hearings from August 23 to September 13 has required several items to be shifted. The September 27 meeting is now proposed to include a final work session on the Tree Code Amendments as well as the public hearing for the CIP/CFP. Attachments: September 13 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 125 10.A.a Planning Board Extended Agenda - September 13, 2023 O 7 00 N N -1 LD N CLO a M Q rM N cn M -1 cn d) c-I cN I-� N o r 1 r-I o Ln N > o zi 00 O z N N O z Dl N N o M ci N 0 r- N BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment) PH Tree Code Update (Code Amendment) D/R D/R* D/R D/R D/R PH Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) I D/R PH PH PH Recommendation on Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy D/R- 6 pm Special Meeting with Council - 2023 Housing Legislation I Comprehensive Plan Discussion I I D/R I I I I I D/R D/R D/R Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment) I Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update D/R D/R Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (^ Biannual presentations) R R^ Capital Improvement Program/Capital Facilties Plan I PH Planning Board update at City Council - Report rather than presentation? September 26 City Council PLN2023-0024 - Rezone Proposal from RM-EW to BC-EW I PH PH Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) I Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment) I Highway 99 Landmark Site Discussion I * Joint Meeting with Tree Board September 19 Joint Special Meeting with Council (5:00 pm) November 29 special meeting in lieu of November 22 KEY I- Introduction & Discussion PH- Public Hearing D/R- Discussion/Recommendation B- Briefing R- Report with no briefing/presentation Future Items Neighborhood Center Plans Additional Code Modernization Projects ADA Transition Plan (Parks) Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review Housing Bills Policy Implementation Packet Pg. 126