Loading...
2023-08-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY 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 Page 1 of 6 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. In 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 obj ective 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 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 190t1' 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 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 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 III2: 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 • 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