Loading...
2017-01-11 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 11, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Phil Lovell BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Cary Guenther, Chair, Architectural Design Board (ADB), said he was present to provide an update on the ADB's activities. He advised that, currently, the Board is fully appointed, including four architects, one landscape architect, one contractor and one lay person. At their last meeting, the City Attorney provided a brief presentation on the roles and responsibilities of the ADB, and he was surprised that their responsibilities go far beyond the review of multi -family residential projects. For example, the ADB can provide input on design elements of the code, which is particularly important given that the City is currently rewriting its code. Mr. Chave said the ADB could also provide input on the design review process. Chair Guenther agreed that ADB input into the design review process would be appropriate. For example, while designers appreciate that the ADB's input comes early in the process, it is difficult to ensure that all of the ADB's recommendations are carried through to the final design. Thus, the projects that are built can be dramatically different than what was presented to the ADB. Chair Guenther said the ADB would like to be more active. Although they are scheduled to have regular meetings once each month, they have only been meeting about six times per year because there are no projects up for review. The ADB would like to get involved in the code rewrite work by reviewing the design elements. They would also like to assist the Planning Board in its review of the Five Corners Plan by providing comments relative to design elements. He proposed that the two boards have a joint meeting to discuss the idea further. Board Member Lovell asked Chair Guenther to describe the types of projects that are reviewed by the ADB. Chair Guenther answered that they typically review commercial and multi -family residential projects. Mr. Chave added that projects require ADB review if they exceed the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold. However, Highway 99 would be an exception, as the threshold for ADB review is quite high. Chair Guenther said the ADB also reviews some sign proposals. The Board agreed it would be beneficial to schedule a joint meeting with the ADB. Mr. Chave noted that the consultant has suggested that the City could create some design standards in conjunction with the Highway 99 Plan, and the ADB could provide valuable input to the Planning Board. ADB input would also be helpful with respect to the design elements of the Five Corners Plan. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There was no discussion relative to the report. PRESENTATION ON PLANNING FOR FIVE CORNERS Mr. Chave reviewed that the City worked with University of Washington (UW) students and Forterra on development of a form -based approach to planning for Westgate and Five Corners beginning in the fall of 2010. Presentations on the results of the initial planning work occurred in mid-2011. He explained that the emphasis of traditional zoning is on the perimeter (setbacks, height, bulk, etc.), and form -based zoning addresses the interface between the property and the surrounding public areas. The City proceeded to adopt a final plan and code for Westgate in 2015 that incorporated some elements of traditional zoning, as well as elements of a form -based approach to zoning. The City also began project planning for the Five Corners roundabout at that time, and the Five Corners Plan was put on hold until the roundabout could be completed. The roundabout was finished in 2014 and has received rave reviews. The roundabout will provide the "bones" for the structure of what can happen in the Five Corners area. Mr. Chave referred to the Five Corners Plan (Attachment 2) that was developed by the UW team. He also referred to the presentation (Attachment 1) that was made to the Council on both the Westgate and Five Corners Plans. He explained that the Five Corners Plans had many similarities in approach to the Westgate Plan, but the two plans differed in both scale and details. He said it is important to note that while the UW team developed outlines for the plans and code approach, the City's experience with the similarly -constructed Westgate proposal indicates that substantial review and staff time is needed to further develop and integrate the UW plan into the City's codes. Mr. Chave said the UW's work began with a site analysis, surveys and mapping, and was followed by a series of public workshops. The intent of the ls` workshop as to solicit public feedback about what interested citizens wanted to see. This input was synthesized and followed by design charrettes where people were asked to come up with different design ideas for what both Westgate and Five Corners could look like. There was significant public participation in the charrettes and some very interesting ideas were generated. Mr. Chave said the UW team also considered the types of connections that already existed in the two neighborhoods, and it was noted that Five Corners has more pedestrian connections and more opportunities for pedestrian circulation than Westgate. For example, the roundabout makes it much easier for pedestrians to cross between the different quadrants of Five Corners. It also creates a public art focus for the area. The highway's presence at Westgate is a roadblock to pedestrian connections, and there are significant topographical changes, as well. Neither of these situations are present at Five Corners, so it is fairly easy for nearby residents to walk to a from the businesses there. The UW's report also noted that there are quite a few more residents surrounding Five Corners than there are at Westgate, as Westgate has a significantly larger commercial center. He summarized that there are good opportunities for a pedestrian hub and center at Five Corners. The UW team also concluded that cycling conditions were quite good at Westgate, and there was a good number of connections to parks and green spaces. Mr. Chave explained that a major emphasis of the UW team was to integrate green features into both the Five Corners and Westgate Plans. These elements include stormwater treatment, bio-swales, rainwater harvesting, etc. The goal was to Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 2 integrate these green features into the actual design of the commercial sites and connections to the pedestrian areas. He noted that the current code's traditional approach is very prescriptive, and the UW team's "green features" approach is more holistic. It gives developers a target line that must be achieved, but allows more flexibility as to how the targets are achieved. Mr. Chave advised that the UW Team came up with several different design alternatives for Five Corners. He explained that while Westgate can support more intensive development, development at Five Corners tends to be more focused towards the roundabout area and drops off in scale as you move further away towards the residential areas. Similar to Westgate, one of the hallmarks of the proposed plan was to have the building emphasis at the street edge, around public plazas and public spaces, rather than setback and isolated inside a site. For example, it makes a lot more sense to have the public spaces first and foremost rather than expanses of pavement. Parking will still be important so that it does not overflow into the residential areas, but the buildings and parking spaces would be arranged differently to be much more publicly oriented. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council is very interested in pursuing the Five Corners Plan, particularly since the roundabout has been completed and the Westgate Plan has been adopted. The planning process will involve translating the recommendations made by the UW team into potential plan amendments and very specific code provisions. The Board and staff has some experience with the Westgate Plan, and they are seeing some very good development occur. This experience can be applied to the Five Corners Plan, as well. He said he anticipates the project will take a fair amount of work, and Chair Guenther's earlier suggestion about the Planning Board and ADB working together is a very good idea. Mr. Chave explained that the planning process is straight forward. The Board will need to come up with a set of recommendations for Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments that are necessary to implement the plan. He noted there are already some specific provisions in the Comprehensive Plan relative to Five Corners, but they may need to be adjusted. Following public hearings and a recommendation by the Planning Board to the City Council, the City Council will also conduct public hearings before final approval of the plan. Chair Rubenkonig noted that Board Members Cloutier and Lovell were serving on the Board when the draft Five Corners Plan was last reviewed. This is the first opportunity for the remaining Board Members to review and discuss the plan. Board Member Lovell asked if the intent is for the Board to start with the work that was done by the UW Team to create a draft plan for the City Council's consideration. Mr. Chave said he does not envision starting the process over, since the previous work included a lot of public outreach and input that informed the UW team's work. The challenge will be translating the UW's work into code language that will actually implement the plan. Board Member Lovell recalled that early in the Westgate process, one of the important decisions made by the Planning Board was to look at the area quadrant -by -quadrant rather than the entire area as a whole. Rather than worrying a lot about creating connectivity and walkability between the four quadrants, the goal was to look at circulation, parking development, adjacencies and public spaces in conjunction with each of the quadrants. Mr. Chave agreed and said that will be one of the significant differences between the Westgate and Five Corners Plans. Board Member Lovell said he drives through the Five Corners area fairly frequently, and the roundabout has made a significant difference. He reviewed the existing, proposed, and anticipated development around the Five Corners intersection. Mr. Chave cautioned that the Board should be careful about making assumptions about future redevelopment around the intersection. Board Member Lovell agreed that the Board should approach the task as if there will be a brand-new slate at some point in the future. Given that only two Board Members participated in the initial discussions with the UW Team, Board Member Lovell asked if it would be appropriate for the Board to have an in-depth discussion about the elements that were included in the plan. Mr. Chave agreed that would be appropriate. He noted that the plan is put together in sections to address different elements; and the Board could have a discussion about the general approach of each element. As the Board reviews the document, staff can point out potential changes they might want to consider. The Board could do this initial review first or it could be done in a joint meeting with the ADB. Chair Rubenkonig summarized that, since the Board's last planning effort relative to Five Corners, the roundabout has been installed and some stormwater management measures have been done. Pedestrian improvements have also been made. Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 3 Regardless of the projects that have been proposed for the area, she cautioned that the intent is for the Five Corners Plan to take a different approach that would apply to future development. Board Member Crank agreed with the sentiment of having a somewhat deeper overview of what occurred in the previous process prior to discussing a potential draft proposal. The Westgate experience can give direction for how the Board moves forward with future discussions. Board Member Lovell commented that most of the information presented by the UW team was included in the Staff Report that each Commissioner received. Between the public meetings and the team, some fairly substantive schemes came forward for potential redevelopment of the area. The schemes included a variety of ideas such as denser residential development, slightly taller buildings, more attention to the developments relationship to the surrounding area, etc. He recalled that, last year, the City Council expressed an interest in the Board's pursuing the Five Corners Plan, but he is unsure of the driving criteria behind the City Council's direction. Mr. Chave recalled that the City's overall approach to meeting its Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements is to do infill that is designed to fit within the City rather than expanding the multi- family zoning into established single-family neighborhoods. Opportunities where this could occur include the Highway 99 Corridor, Westgate, and Five Corners. He noted that Five Corners is developed with a very old pattern of strip commercial development. Except for the small-scale buildings, it is not really neighborhood friendly and it does not create gathering places for the neighborhood to congregate. The roundabout has allowed connections around the front of the five corners, making it feasible for people to walk and interact. One of the Council's visions is to encourage more activity and make the area a community focal point. He recalled that UW team already identified a number of potential connections between the Five Corners area and the surrounding residents. Creating spaces that pull people in could result in a huge community asset. At the same time, the potential for additional housing would rise. The goal is to look at places where design and character can be improved for existing residents. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board invite the ADB to participate in the meeting where staff provides a more detailed presentation of the UW team's proposal for Five Corners. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Chair Rubenkonig encouraged the Board Members to forward any questions they want staff to address in the presentation to Mr. Chave as soon as possible. Board Member Lovell commented that, with the completion of the new roundabout, the public may also have some new ideas that could be incorporated into the plan. The Five Corners area presents a greater opportunity than Westgate or Highway 99 for incorporating the new approach of getting buildings, people and public spaces up closer to the street front, with parking behind the buildings. The speed limits are much lower and the area is surrounded by residential development; and this makes it an ideal location for a true pedestrian -oriented environment. Chair Rubenkonig asked if any live/work units have been developed in Edmonds to date. Mr. Chave said some developments have been designed to include live/work units, but he does not know if they are actually occupied that way. There are a few of the units in the development that replaced the old post office. Chair Rubenkonig noted that the UW plan for Five Corners calls for a variety of housing opportunities, similar to Westgate. Mr. Chave said the plan was structured to provide multiple housing options, but it was not intended to mandate a specific type of housing. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that, when the Board recently discussed the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, there was some discussion about the potential for incubator businesses. She noted that this use would be possible at Five Corners, as well, since the live/work option would allow artisans to get started with their businesses. She summarized that the Board is being asked to consider a wide spectrum of housing possibilities. Chair Rubenkonig asked how Mr. Chave would like to guide the Board through its review of the material to date. Mr. Chave said the intent is to help the Board understand the different components that the UW team was trying to get out, and the Board can determine whether or not the components make sense for Five Corners. It would be helpful for the Board to specifically identify components that might raise questions or concerns. For example, the Board may want to take a closer look at the use zones proposed by the UW team. He recalled that, in the Westgate area, the zones were too dialed in and there was not enough choice. Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 4 Vice Chair Monroe asked if the intent is to create a plan that is similar in detail to the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave said that is the ultimate goal. The Comprehensive Plan had to be updated to incorporate additional goals relative to Westgate; but the goals outlined for Five Corners are newer and track better with the plan. The Board can discuss whether any adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan need to be made. Ultimately, the Board must translate the UW's work into a plan that can be understood and implemented. The UW's plan is more general, and the goal is to make it more specific where needed. Mr. Chave said something the Board should look closely at is whether or not the building types proposed by the UW are right for Five Corners. If so, are they in the right places and does the City want to regulate uses that way? He suggested that it makes some sense to go this route. Adjacency (what is next to a particular property) may dictate some of the choices the City makes available to developers. Transitions will be very important at Five Corners because the residential development is close by. The roundabout is a big space, so there is already a lot of separation between buildings. He said he supports pulling buildings closer to the roundabout and putting parking behind, since parking is much easier to buffer than a tall building. The plan has potential to increase building intensity to a moderate scale, but also allow better buffers than what the current buildings have. Vice Chair Monroe summarized that the intent is to translate the plan that was prepared by the UW team into codes. Mr. Chave agreed. He said many of the concepts in the existing plan make good sense, but the Board must evaluate each one and translate them into code language. Chair Rubenkonig asked about the timeline for completing the plan. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it is possible to complete the plan for Five Corners in 2017. The Planning Board's responsibility is to update the plan and translate it into implementable code language. Some tweaks to the Comprehensive Plan may be needed, as well. Following a public process, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public process and make the final decision. Chair Rubenkonig asked what would happen if there is a public outcry to revise the plan significantly. Mr. Chave said these will be identified and addressed as part of the public process. Board Member Crank asked if a potential project at 212th Street and 76t'' Avenue would have any impact on Five Corners. Mr. Chave said he does not think so. Any additional traffic from Five Corners has already been factored into the Transportation Plan. Some of what they are trying to do at 212t'' and 76th is related to what is already happening along the corridor. He explained that roundabouts alleviate a congestion point and push the congestion elsewhere. The intersection of 212th and 76th is a problem that has been waiting for an answer for quite a while. Chair Rubenkonig advised that she and Vice Chair Monroe would work with staff to establish a time to meet with the ADB to review the details of the Five Corners Plan. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave recommended that Chair Rubenkonig and Vice Chair Monroe meet with Ms. Hope soon to review and update the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig welcomed Board Member Crank to the beginning of her four-year term on the Planning Board. Her time as alternate, because it was under two years, does not go towards her term count. She asked her to speak to her experience as an alternate. Board Member Crank said it has been a great learning experience, being an alternate who is allowed to actively participate but not always vote. She enjoyed having access to her fellow Board Members to bounce questions and comments off of. Former Board Member Stewart was integral in having her come on board in the first place, and she was a great sounding board for her. She is excited now to be an official Board Member, and she looks forward to welcoming the new alternate. She thanked the Board Members for making her first year entertaining and educational. Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 5 Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Board benefits from having an alternate position on the Board. It gives a certain peace when other Board Members have been unable to attend a meeting. She said she cannot recall a time when the Board has not had a quorum present at a meeting because the alternate has been able to step up. This has allowed the Board to move through the year quite seamlessly. It has also allowed the alternate to become steeped in how the Board works. Chair Rubenkonig announced that Mayor Earling has nominated Alex Witenberg to serve as an alternate member of the Board, but his confirmation did not take place at the January 10"b City Council Meeting because the vote was removed from the consent agenda. She thanked Mr. Witenberg for attending the meeting and for his interest in serving on the Board. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board recently had a discussion about providing representation on other City Boards and Commissions. She noted that Vice Chair Monroe currently serves as the Board's representative on the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), and Board Member Crank serves on the Senior Center and Chamber Boards. The Board has also entertained the idea of having representation at the ADB, as well. There may also be other commissions/boards that deserve and/or need Planning Board attention. Board Member Lovell suggested that the Board should plan a meeting with the ADB soon. Chair Rubenkonig agreed and said she and Vice Chair Monroe will work with Mr. Chave to schedule the joint meeting. Board Member Lovell recalled that a representative from the CEDC recently approached the Board with the request that they be invited to provide input relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He asked if the joint meeting has been scheduled yet. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the CEDC was encouraged to bring their comments concerning the Highway 99 Subarea Plan directly to the City Council. The Board does not need to be their conduit. Vice Chair Monroe said that his understanding is that the CEDC will prepare a memorandum to the City Council to outline their recommendations relative to Highway 99. Board Member Lovell asked if Vice Chair Monroe wants to continue his interface with the CEDC, and Vice Chair Monroe answered affirmatively. Mr. Chave said a Planning Board representative has not traditionally attended ADB meetings. The ADB's role is very different (quasi-judicial project review) from the Planning Board's. While there is an opportunity for the ADB to come before the Board to talk about design -related issues, but having a Board Member attend ADB meetings simply to listen to their discussions on projects may not be the best use of time. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the best approach would be to focus on a joint meeting, as previously discussed. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that years ago, when she was Chair of the ADB, the chairs of the Planning Board and ADB met jointly with the mayor. She suggested this is an additional option to consider in the future. Chair Rubenkonig commented that it would behoove all of the Board Members to either watch or attend the City Council meetings or read their minutes. This will help them stay apprised of what has taken place. Mr. Chave agreed that it is particularly important because of the Planning Board's role as an advisor to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig announced that it is tradition for the chair and vice chair to meet monthly with the mayor, and this will continue in 2017. Chair Rubenkonig suggested the Board begin thinking about their retreat, which is typically held in the spring. She explained that the retreat allows the Board an opportunity to talk freely about a variety of subjects. She encouraged Board Members to begin thinking about potential topics. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank reported that she attended the presentations done by the Western Washington University Students as part of the Sustainable Communities Partnership. She said she particularly enjoyed the presentation on recycling. She noted that other presentations are scheduled for January 13th from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. Friday's presentations will focus on marsh restoration, stormwater and invasive species. Mr. Chave advised that the groups will make presentations to the City Council within the next month or so. Information about the sustainability projects can also be found on the City's website. As the final reports are issued, they will be posted on the website, as well. Board Member Lovell asked if the dates of the various presentations have been published on the City's website. Mr. Chave answered that there are Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 6 no predetermined dates for the presentations, but the City is doing press releases for each individual presentation as they come up. Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to speak to the most recent letter the City received from the Department of Ecology (DOE) relative to the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). She noted that Board Members received a copy of the City's news release relative to the letter, as well as a copy of the findings that were issued by the Department of Ecology. Mr. Chave said the letter relates to final approval of the SMP. He explained that the City Council adopted what it felt was the final plan and it was forwarded to the DOE. The DOE identified adjustments that needed to be made. The City Council considered the DOE's comments and sent back a response. The most recent letter is the DOE's response to the City's latest response. They are working towards getting a final SMP adopted. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the SMP would return to the Board for further work, and Mr. Chave answered no. Chair Rubenkonig advised that the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council was noted in the DOE's letter and appeared to have significance. Chair Rubenkonig acknowledged that Tom Mesaros is now the President of the City Council, and Mike Nelson is the President Pro Tem. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Planning Board Minutes Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 7