Loading...
2023-09-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting September 13, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Richard Kuehn Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Emily Nutsch (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent None Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Amber Brokenshire, Planner Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 6-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER KUEHN ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Larry Williamson made comments about the tree code. He has lived on a large lot with about half a dozen very large trees for 45 years; some of them are landmark trees. If he is allowed to take down two landmark trees a year as proposed he would be able to basically strip his property of trees in about three years. He expressed concern that the tree code isn't really protecting trees that much. Even though this would be simple to understand and easy to administer, are they really protecting trees? Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 1 of 9 Debora Ashland expressed support for the tree code, particularly regulations regarding the removal of trees in Edmonds. She noted that she has only seen regulations related to single family tree removals but she is also interested in regulations for all developed properties. She stated she supported regulations that limit tree removal much like Kirkland. She thinks people should be able to remove nuisance or hazardous trees but there needs to be a definition of those. She encouraged the Planning Board to work jointly with the Tree Board in these efforts. Bill Phipps commented in the online chat that he had submitted written comments already and agrees with the comments of Larry Williamson. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004) Senior Planner Mike Clugston noted that the hearing has been continued a couple times. Staff found out in the last week or so that they need to do some more work on the draft CARA regulations, especially as it relates to the Stormwater Code. Staff's recommendation is to close the current public hearing, and when the draft is ready, staff can notice a new public hearing. He asked if the Board would want another work session to go over those things before holding another public hearing. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the Board's purview as it relates to the stormwater code. Mr. Clugston explained that staff is now leaning toward putting the stormwater language in the CARA chapter. If so, it would be something the Planning Board would look at. Board Member Golembiewski spoke in support of having a work session on the draft code. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell concurred. Chair Gladstone also expressed support noting that the stormwater code is the critical piece for the CARA for the aquifer protection. She is pleased that it will be in the CARA code because it makes it easier for developers to sort out what is required. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CARA CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE THE WORK AND REQUEST THAT STAFF BRINGS THE DRAFT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A WORK SESSION PRIOR TO A NEW PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Mitchell asked about a timeline. Mr. Clugston said they hope to bring it back to a work session in October and a public hearing soon after that. He noted, however, that there have been some staff changes that will impact this. B. Continued Public Hearing for Rezone Proposal at 9530/9620 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Planner Amber Brokenshire pointed out the inclusion of noticing 300 feet around both parcels. She reviewed the proposed project to rezone two parcels along Edmonds Way to BC-EW Community Business. The adjacent PUD substation was added to the proposal. The site to the east is still undeveloped even after being rezoned last year from RM-1.5 to RM-EW. Upon a request by the Planning Board, staff had reached out to the PUD about including the property as part of the rezone proposal. The PUD had no objections to the proposed zoning change. The proposal boundaries have been expanded to include both properties. She reviewed the surrounding area, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning analysis, public benefits of BC-EW zoning, public notice, and public comments. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the rezone. Chair Gladstone commented that they had had a pretty thorough discussion at the last hearing; the only issue was the noticing of 300 feet around both parcels. Staff had re -noticed this and received no additional public comments. She asked if there were any other questions. Public Testimony: Shaun Leiser, 2024 NW 190th Street, Shoreline, WA, applicant, said he was available to answer any questions. Seeing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Deliberation: MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. AMD2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers shared public testimony on the tree code amendments since the last meeting and continued the discussion from the last meeting on property owner tree removals. She shared the following verbiage as a starting point for discussions and stated they would need to determine the number, tree size, and timeframe metrics to fill in the gaps in the draft code. X. Tree removal allowance 4. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to [number] [tree size] within [timeframe] with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Ms. Powers explained that they had discussed having mandatory minimums so that when a property owner gets to a certain number of trees left on a lot or if they started with a low number of trees, it could trigger tree replacement requirements. She reminded the Board that the tree removal allowance is meant to be an extremely easy process that does not require extensive review. Staff believes it will still slow the loss of canopy as well as Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 3 of 9 provide a way to track tree removals over time. Prior Planning Board considerations for property owner tree removals are to keep it simple, prohibit tree removal in critical areas, and limit larger tree removals. Board Member Mitchell asked if they are tracking by neighborhood or area. Ms. Powers explained that the TRAKit software tracks permit activity by parcel and would need to check if it can be queried for removal information by area. Ms. Powers reviewed the Planning Board's previous leaning toward allowing two landmark trees (24" DBH or larger) per 12-months. Replacement trees could be triggered when the property owner has the last two or three trees on the property. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she strongly supports requiring a permit and replacement (3:1) for removal of any landmark trees. She does not want landmark trees under the allowance. She feels this is where there is consensus with public comments they have heard. Chair Gladstone agreed and asked if there is a way to incentivize the replacement of the types of trees they want to see. Maybe have a 2:1 replacement? Staff replied that 3:1 replacement requirements are consistent with the current development code. Board Member Martini asked who pays for the replacement. Staff replied that the property owner pays for the removal and the replacement. What happens if it's a hazard tree that needs to come down and somebody can't afford the 3:1 replacement. Ms. Powers explained that under the current code, hazardous or a nuisance tree removal outside critical areas do not have replacement requirements. Under the proposed allowance approach, there is no permit or arborist report cost but under a hazard or nuisance tree removal permit, documentation by a certified arborist is required and is subject to staff review. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell clarified that she thought anything that is hazardous or nuisance should not require a permit or replacements. Staff clarified that a permit would be required for hazard or nuisance tree removals over and above the allowance. For trees removed under the allowance, no permit would be involved, and the board has considered mandatory minimums to address replacements. Board Member Golembiewski said her concern about requiring a permit for landmark trees is that it would take away the opportunity for someone to remove a hazard tree without the expense to do so. She thought if they could allow removal of one landmark tree every three or five years as part of the tree allowance it could help with the equity and affordability issue. Board Member Maxwell agreed and added that his understanding of a reason to have an allowance is that it would allow low-income families to remove nuisance and hazard trees without any costs as long as they are within the allowance. On top of that he is concerned that they have a $325 fee for a permit because it involves some sort of evaluation, but what is the evaluation in this situation? Board Member Kuehn suggested they could possibly make it more economically feasible for low-income families if that is something they want to do, but he had concerns about making it easier to remove landmark trees unless they are hazardous or nuisance. Chair Gladstone noted that equity can be achieved in different ways than just code. She suggested that the City could have a fund that pays for permits for low-income residents. She was concerned about just allowing landmark trees to be included in the allowance because of equity because they then forego the balance of taking Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 4 of 9 care of the canopy. Maybe they need to be more creative about how they accomplish the equity and allow for ease of removal of the hazard trees since that is what they are really concerned about. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell agreed with Chair Gladstone. She wondered about having the permit for hazardous trees potentially be free so you have to go through the process but there is no charge for it. The hazard/nuisance tree is a different topic to her than the healthy landmark tree. She asked the Board's thoughts on healthy landmark trees. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE TREE CODE IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ANY TREES OF 24" DBH OR GREATER ARE NOT INCLUDED IN TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES AND WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REPLACEMENTS IN ORDER TO BE REMOVED. Board Member Maxwell spoke against the motion and said he was in support of having different allowances for the larger trees than they have for the smaller trees. To him, this hasn't dealt with the problems that were brought up about equity. MOTION FAILED. Board Member Golembiewski suggested having an allowance to remove one landmark tree every three years. Board Member Maxwell referred to public comments by Larry Williamson and Bill Phipps and suggested an allowance of three trees that are 12" or larger every 36 months. For larger trees such as landmark trees and up, the allowance would be one tree per 36 months. The landmark tree would count toward the total of three per 36 months. Ms. Powers spoke to the decrease in code effectiveness and difficulty in administration when there are multiple timeframes for different sized trees and when timeframes are over 12 months. She discussed the Shoreline code as an example how 4 trees on an 8,000 square foot lot could be removed all at the same time, even with a 36 month timeframe and discussed various ways to look at this. Board Member Mitchell recommended just starting somewhere, tracking tree removals, and looking at this again in the near future to evaluate how it is working. Board Member Maxwell said it was his understanding that was what they were doing. Board Member Golembiewski recommended allowing three "regulated" trees over 12" DBH every three years or one landmark tree over 24" DBH every three years. There was further discussion about the complexities of having an extended timeline applied to different tree sizes. Would it be a rolling three years or a set three years? Chair Gladstone asked about the tradeoff from a canopy management standpoint of protecting the 6" and above trees versus starting at the 12" and up trees. Ms. Powers explained that Edmonds canopy data wasn't that detailed yet and spoke to the importance of getting something on the books so they can begin to track this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the 12-month allowance as opposed to the 36-month allowance. She pointed out you are far more likely to see a change in ownership in a 36-month period versus a Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 5 of 9 one-year period. She thinks a 12-month timeframe would be easier for both the consumer and the City. Ms. Powers noted that the removals, whether as allowance or permit are tied to the parcel and not necessarily the property owner. Board Member Kuehn also was in favor of the 12-month time period. He asked if the system would allow one tree removal per 12-months, but if it's a landmark tree, you can't take another one out for a certain period of time. Ms. Powers noted that could work under a 1-per 12 month allowance that applies to trees at least 6" DBH, without a permit or replacements and that additional landmark tree removals would require a permit with an extended time and replacement requirements. Mr. Clugston thought they could make that work. Board Member Golembiewski suggested increasing the size of landmark trees to something bigger than 24" and still making them permit required. This might be a good compromise. She also asked that the size of landmark trees in the definition be based on a single trunk. She suggested that they also clarify the definition to reflect what they are really concerned about. Do they want to protect conifers? Native trees? Ms. Powers noted that the current DBH definition for multiple-trunked trees is already a proposed code change to follow industry standards. She thought that regulating tree removals based on retaining desired species would increase code complexity and its administration. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO DEFINE LANDMARK TREES AS 28 INCHES OR GREATER WITHIN A SINGLE TRUNK, THAT THOSE TREES WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REQUIRE REPLACEMENTS, AND THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR FINANCIAL EQUITY TO DEAL WITH THE VARIETY OF ISSUES SUCH AS PERMIT FEES AND REPLACEMENTS. Board Member Maxwell recommended that the permit fee should be used for inspecting the replacement trees. Chair Gladstone did not think the Board had the authority to specify what the City should be charging fees for. Board Member Kuehn thought this was getting closer. Taking care of the landmark trees is a huge issue for the residents of Edmonds. Chair Gladstone said she was weighing the public education needs that would be required with changing the size from 24 to 28 inches and other implications of the size of the tree that may affect the loss of canopy cover. She wondered about including landmark trees in the allowance but only allowing one tree above significant per year. Student Representative Distelhorst asked about the rationale for making the size bigger since it counteracts the goal of trying to prevent people from cutting down larger trees. She thought they should keep the size for landmark trees the same and noted that people are already familiar with this size. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell explained that she agrees that 24 inches is an appropriate size, but her rationale for changing the definition of landmark trees to a larger size is to make it more palatable to everybody. Board Member Kuehn asked how the permit process works. Ms. Powers explained the main difference from the allowance process is that the permit requires staff review and a site visit, which is why a permit fee is charged and that the timeframe can be different from the allowance and it ensures that the replacements happen. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Currently, permits for tree removal in critical areas, street trees, commercial, multifamily properties and vacant lots all require a site visit. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented on some quick research she had just done that a 24-inch DBH Douglas Fir would be about 120 years old based on a standard growth factor. She commented that there would not be many trees bigger than that since most of Edmonds is second growth forest. In order to get closer to a decision, Chair Gladstone asked if the Board would rather have one tree allowance that allows the landmark trees or have them permitted. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of two trees per year with a permit required for landmark trees. A big concern she had about landmark trees is adding the multiple trunks together. If that is rectified, she feels better about permitting landmark trees. She thinks a good definition of what they are trying to protect is important. Board Member Nutsch said she really likes separating out the landmark trees into a permit, noting that there are not many of them left. She thinks having landmark trees included in the allowance is inviting people to try to sneak it in. Chair Gladstone recommended concluding the discussion for tonight and asking staff to come back with a definition of landmark trees and the revised development code language regarding measuring multiple trunks. Board Member Maxwell commented that for critical areas if the slope is less than 25% you can cut the trees down, and he doesn't think that is a good idea. Also, in section 23.10.040 it appears to say that the limit for the allowance doesn't apply to invasive trees, and people are welcome to cut down invasive trees as much as they like. He doesn't approve of that either. Ms. Powers explained that "invasive" is defined by Washington State and county noxious weed boards for different levels of control. Board Member Maxwell said he was comfortable with allowing compliance with what is required to be cut down but he is not comfortable cutting down something that is stabilizing landscape and providing canopy just because it is invasive. Chair Gladstone recommended adding this to a list of things to discuss in the future. Board Member Golembiewski asked the difference between developed properties and improved properties. She asked for clarification about if this code applies to property that has a house on it but could be subdividable. Ms. Powers explained the current definitions for improved lot and developable site and noted that we may need a new definition for a property of any size regardless of the presence of critical areas. Board Member Golembiewski said the way she was reading it was if you could subdivide your lot then you don't get an allowance. Ms. Powers noted that is why we need to define "developed property" . Board Member Golembiewski requested clarity on which properties this applies to and how the changing state regulations affect any of it. Are they addressing only what the situation is today or are they thinking about what the changing regulations will mean for developable lots? VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL RETRACTED HER MOTION. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell offered to chat with Board Member Maxwell offline about his invasive species management concerns. She noted that the way the code is written, it excludes sections of property containing critical areas. She added she has a lot of materials she can share with him on this topic. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 7 of 9 The discussion was continued to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston informed the Board they have lost two staff members in the last two weeks — Planning Manager David Levitan and Associate Planner Michele Szafran - so they will need to make some changes in the upcoming schedules. He discussed the impact this will have on topics coming up. September 27 was supposed to be a discussion about the development tree code, but now it will be another discussion about property owner tree removals. The public hearing that was scheduled for October 25 will have to be bumped out. Chair Gladstone recommended trying to wrap up the property owner tree code on September 27 and starting the discussion on the development tree code on October 11. Mr. Clugston thought that would work. Chair Gladstone commented that Councilmember Olsen asked her about trying to have the Planning Board consider the vision statement. She asked Mr. Clugston about the status of that. He was not sure but indicated he could check on it. Mr. Clugston said he would try to adjust the schedule for the next meeting and bring it back with consideration of staffing challenges and all the projects they are juggling. He will be staffing the Planning Board for now. Chair Gladstone said she had been meeting with David Levitan every other week to discuss the upcoming agenda and extended agenda. Mr. Clugston indicated he could continue those meetings with her for now. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Distelhorst discussed a scholarship program she did over the summer with Puget Sound Regional Council. Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation to David Levitan and Michele Szafran and wished them the best in their new positions. Board Member Golembiewski concurred. Board Member Martini also wished David Levitan well. She said she appreciated that the Board had more time for discussion at this meeting. Board Member Maxwell said he appreciated how well they were able to work with people on Zoom tonight. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell welcomed Mr. Clugston back to the Planning Board and thanked him for filling in as staff liaison again. Best of luck to David Levitan. She thanked Ms. Powers for continuing to come back and give them as much information as she can. She felt like this was a really good meeting. She appreciates the Planning Board's patience with her as she tries to move them closer to a determination. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Chair Gladstone said she would be out of town on October 11 and joining the meeting remotely. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell will be leading the meeting in person. She agreed with comments already stated tonight. She appreciated David Levitan's presence. He brought a lot of knowledge, was a good listener, and added a lot to the group. He will be missed, but thanks to Mr. Clugston for stepping in. She also appreciates Ms. Power's persistence with them knowing that it can't be easy for her with as long as the deliberations are taking. She knows this is an important and sensitive issue. It may make Council's job a little easier if they have a recommendation that is solid and well thought through. Thanks to everyone for the engagement. I\ DIJ111i1 sofa 1011a W The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 9 of 9