Loading...
2017-02-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 8, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Lovell asked if the Board would receive an update on the outcome of the January 25th meeting of the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA). Mr. Chave referred to information provided in the Board's packet for their discussion on the AHA's Work Plan and Budget. Board Member Lovell also requested an update on the City Council's most recent discussion relative to the sign code. Mr. Chave answered that Ms. Hope's presentation to the City Council was regarding the process, and there was no substantive discussion about potential amendments. The City Council also extended its suspension of enforcement of the sign provisions for an additional month. Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board Members of Mayor Earling's 2017 State of the City Address at the Edmonds Theater on February 9th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. DISCUSSION OF MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the potential sign code issues/changes that have come up subsequent to adoption of the updated sign code. The issues were raised by commercial property owners and businesses in the downtown and focus primarily on pedestrian signs. He reviewed the issues/changes and the Board commented as follows: Cost. The current fee for blade signs is $75, and the current fee for pedestrian signs is $125. It has been recommended that the fee for pedestrian signs be reduced to match the fee for blade signs. It has also been recommended that the fee for both blade signs and pedestrian signs be reduced to $50. Recognizing that the Board does not have a role in setting the fee schedule, Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that the fee should be as low as possible. The remainder of the Board appeared to agree. Sign Area. As per the current code, pedestrian signs are now considered "permanent" signage and count against the overall sign area a business is allowed. However, based on the Director's interpretation (Attachment 2), pre-existing signs can be "grandfathered" so that they do not count against allowed sign area. One option to address concern would be to retain the current situation with the grandfathering of pre-existing signs. The second option would be to memorialize the "interpretation" of code. A third option would be to amend the code so that pedestrian signs do not count against sign area. While the latter approach would be consistent with the old code, there are potential implications. If pedestrian signs do not count against the total sign area, there would be incentive for everyone to have one. Currently, the only signs that do not count against the overall sign area are true temporary signs and blade signs. The intent is to encourage businesses to use blade signs, which are very visible, instead of pedestrian signs that can end up impeding pedestrian access. Chair Rubenkonig said she supports the "interpretation" that was issued by the Director. However, she suggested that the "grandfathered" pedestrian signs should be linked to the businesses and locations. If either changes, the condition would no longer exist. Mr. Chave said that as the intent of the interpretation, but he agreed it could be clarified further. Board Member Lovell asked staff to clarify the differences between Option 1 and Option 2. Mr. Chave said Option 1 would simply refer to the interpretation and no amendment would be needed. Option 2 would memorialize the interpretation into the code. Staff prefers Option 2 since it would provide clarifying language in the code rather than relying on a separate interpretation. He explained that the interpretation would only apply to existing businesses, and any new businesses would have to comply with the new sign code requirements. Existing businesses that move to a new location would also have to comply. The Board expressed support for Options 2 and 3 for public hearing purposes. Location. Currently, pedestrian signs must be located within 10 feet of the building entrance and within 2 feet of the building fagade. Deviation from the 2-foot requirement requires Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval at a cost of ($915). The ADB's focus is on architectural design (buildings, site plans, etc.), and it is arguable whether the ADB is the right body to make decisions related to the location of pedestrian signs, particularly if there are no clear criteria in place. These decisions are probably more appropriate as staff decisions, which are lower cost and easier to accomplish. The old code allowed pedestrian signs on the lot rather than being tied to the business location, and off -site pedestrian signs were never allowed. Staff is recommending that ECDC 20.60.055(A)(3) be amended to read: "The sign must be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within two feet of the building. Any deviations from the standard may be approved by the Development Services Director if he/she finds that an alternative location in front of the building or on the property occupied by the business is less restrictive to pedestrian movement or accessibility. " The City Attorney advised that the proposed amendment would address most situations. Mr. Chave advised that the proposed language in ECDC 20.60.055(A)(3) is intended to incorporate both of the options outlined in the staff report. He also noted that ECDC 20.60.0655(A)(5) was amended to change "five feet" Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 2 to "44 inches" to be consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for sidewalks. At the request of Vice Chair Monroe, Mr. Chave agreed to double check to make sure that 44 inches is the right number for ADA requirements. Board Member Robles suggested that the difference between 44 and 48 may be due to the allowance for a handrail to protrude four inches into the walkway. The Board voiced general support for staff s proposed amendment. Out -of -Sight Businesses. Currently, all commercial signage is tied to the business location, which means that off - site commercial signage is not permitted. This has always been the case for legal reasons. If signs are allowed to be placed off -site, the City could end up with a lot of pedestrian signs clustered in highly -visible locations. Discussions with the business community included the concept of having some type of directional signage that would show people there are other businesses off the main streets. The City Attorney drafted language that would clearly provide for public directional signage in the code for purposes of tourism and public information. Up to this time, governmental signs have been exempt from the sign code. The proposed amendment would take them out of the exempt category, but allow them under the following provision (ECDC 20.60.075): "Governmental signs, while exempt from the processes and development regulations required by this Chapter, shall be erected and maintained subject to rules and procedures established by the Development Services director. In all cases, the city retains the right to remove any governmental sign at its sole discretion. " The proposed language would authorize the Director to enter into an agreement with a public agency to provide a directional sign program, without prescribing a specific program at this time. He cautioned against describing the program as part of the code language, since there are a number of issues that still need to be worked out. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, based on a Supreme Court decision, signs cannot be regulated based on content. The assumption is that a pedestrian sign outside of a business is advertising that particular business, but that does not have to be the case. For example, a business could display a pedestrian sign to advertise a different business that is located further down the street. Board Member Lovell recalled that, in earlier discussions, the Board felt there should be some sort of City - sponsored solution, which may involve some type of pole sign with hanging, adjustable, changeable signage on corners to direct people to businesses. However, a lot of work and money will be required to implement the program. The proposed amendment supports the concept, but it has to be done under the auspice of some authority. Vice Chair Monroe asked if the ADB would be involved in the process of creating a directional sign program to ensure that the signs are uniform and attractive. Mr. Chave pointed out that, as currently proposed, the amendment would allow the Director to involve the ADB in the process, if deemed necessary. In the past, directional signage has been worked on with the Arts Coordinator. Chair Rubenkonig said she would like to add language to the proposed amendment to ensure that the sign program is uniform and consistent throughout the downtown. However, the remainder of the Board agreed that the language, as written, implies uniformity. Vice Chair Monroe asked if it would be appropriate to add code language that requires the City to fund the program. Mr. Chave cautioned against adding this specific requirement. However, he acknowledged that, more often than not, governmental signs are paid for by the City. He explained that the proposed amendment is intended to authorize a directional sign program, but the specific details would not be spelled out in the code language. The Board voiced support for the proposed amendment, but agreed that both options (provide or not provide a directional signage program) should be presented for public hearing. Mr. Chave pointed out that staff is proposing an additional amendment in ECDC 20.60.080(A)(2)(b), which strikes out language that was inadvertently included in the last amendment. It would not be practical or feasible to require a permit for all temporary signage. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Board previously reviewed sign code amendments and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. After the code amendments were adopted by the City Council, additional feedback from the business community motivated the City Council to reconsider some of the details. The issues were forwarded to the Planning Board Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 3 for further review. He asked if the business community has been advised of the proposed amendment options. Mr. Chave said the amendments are intended to address the issues raised by the business community. A public hearing has been scheduled for February 22"', at which time the business community can provide input. ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY (AHA) WORK PLAN AND BUDGET Mr. Chave said this item was placed on the agenda for informational purposes. He reviewed that the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA). Each year the AHA comes up with a work program and a budget that each of the participating jurisdictions contribute to. The AHA has also been successful in obtaining grant funding. The information provided in the Staff Report outlines the various cities that are members of the AHA, as well as what and how they contribute. It also provides the draft work plan for the next fiscal year (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018). Board Member Lovell asked if Edmonds is represented on the AHA subcommittee that was established to begin preliminary discussions to strategize how to establish a funding source to assist with the construction of new affordable housing. Mr. Chave said he does not know the makeup of the subcommittee, but Ms. Hope attends the AHA's regular committee meetings. Board Member Lovell pointed out that nearly half of the County's population lives in unincorporated Snohomish County. He asked who represents these residents. Mr. Chave said the County Council is the legislative body that represents the unincorporated areas, and they have a representative on the AHA Board. Board Member Lovell recalled that representatives from the AHA previously made a presentation to the Board. Mr. Chave said the presentation was made by the Program Manager, who is a hired staff member. Chair Rubenkonig noted that the Development Services Director is seeking to secure funding for a consultant to assist the City in updating its Housing Strategy, and the data that is accumulated will impact how the City goes about establishing its own housing approach. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Extended Agenda and invited Board Member input. She noted that many meeting dates are blank at this time, as the Board waits for additional information and further direction. The agenda items will be filled in as time goes on. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City Council indicated a desire to have a joint meeting with the Planning Board. He requested an update on when this meeting might be scheduled. Chair Rubenkonig said the former City Council President indicated an interest in having a joint meeting, but she has not discussed the idea with the current president. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig referred to an email that she asked staff to send to Board Members that provided current references to housing. She felt the information on the three websites could help the Board Members better understand the options for approaching the Housing Strategy Update, as well as the new terminology and concepts available for consideration. She reviewed the three references as follows: The first website references a new phrase called "missing middle housing." The graphic provided shows a spectrum of housing from single-family all the way to high-rise. One could discuss the availability of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, bungalow courtyards, townhouse, multiplex and live/work units. The second website talks about working with small developers to connect developers committed to a small-scale, incremental, infill approach to share expertise and collaborate on new tools. The website looks at a scale of development of 4 to 12 units. The Board has had some discussion about the need to encourage conversation with developers who might do such projects in Edmonds. The third website references a Portland plan that is similar to what is taking place in the City of Seattle. Portland uses the phrase "abundant housing options." The article is part of a series about "legalizing inexpensive housing," which is a term she had not heard before. The term "affordability" is difficult to define, and other terms may be more appropriate. Portland's approach is to allow small duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones without Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 4 letting property owners erect buildings larger than currently zoned. It also explains how that, in a neighborhood, you can convert an existing building into a duplex or triplex. The Board has not yet discussed this concept. Board Member Lovell said it might be helpful for the Board to have graphics and/or photographs of actual buildings that represent the concepts that might be considered as part of the City's Housing Strategy. Chair Rubenkonig agreed that examples would be useful. Vice Chair Monroe suggested that, before the Board gets too far down the road, they should first identify the problems they are trying to address relative to affordable housing. While there are a variety of interesting ideas and concepts for the Board to consider, Board Member Cloutier agreed that the retreat discussion should focus first on clearly identifying the goals and objectives they want the Housing Strategy to address. Having a clear understanding of the problems will help the Board identify the best solutions. Board Member Cloutier suggested that, for the retreat discussion, it would be helpful to invite someone who can address what the metrics should be, where the City stands, where the shortfalls are, and what is achievable in the future. The AHA Program Manager may be able to help the Board frame its approach. Mr. Chave said the AHA is intended to be a resource for all of the member jurisdictions. While the preliminary discussions about the various options are good, the Board should keep in mind that the more detailed discussions will follow as the process moves forward. Board Member Cloutier summarized that, rather than solving problems and writing plans, the retreat discussion should focus on reviewing a range of possible options and solutions. Board Member Cheung asked how the City is doing compared to other nearby jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered that AHA completed a profile for each of the jurisdictions similar to Edmonds. Staff could attempt to compile some comparisons for the Board's information. Board Member Cheung felt this information would help the Board focus on what the actual issues are. Vice Chair Monroe agreed that understanding how Edmonds compares with other jurisdictions would help the Board better understand where the problems lie. Chair Rubenkonig said she attended a workshop sponsored by the University of Washington's Department of Urban Design and Planning where it was suggested that if you want to make housing affordable, you must look at the government cost of regulation. Perhaps the Board needs to look at the code to see if there are regulations that hold the City back from getting development that leads toward affordable housing. Board Member Robles agreed that there are good ideas for addressing affordable housing, such as 3-d printed housing, that would not be allowed with the current codes in place. Perhaps the Board's job is to create paths for the various concepts to be implemented. Chair Rubenkonig noted that the intent is to have the retreat at one of the Board's regular meetings in April PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Planning Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 5