Loading...
2017-04-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 26, 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 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Matthew Cheung Phil Lovell Todd Cloutier Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG 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. There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF TWO PARCELS AT 9111 AND 9107 236TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY COORIDOR (EWC) Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report on the proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for two parcels located on 236t" Street SW (near the Edmonds Woodway Corridor) from Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) to Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC). He provided a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the location of the subject properties, noting that the properties to the west are designated as Single Family Urban 1 (SFUl) and the properties to the north, south and east are designated as EWC. He also provided a Zoning Map, noting that the subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential 8 (RS-8), consistent with the properties to the west. The properties to the north, south and east are currently zoned Multi -Family Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW). The 9701 property is currently developed with a single-family residence; and the 9111 property is currently developed as a legal, non -conforming, multi -family residence. The properties to the west are primarily developed with Single -Family Residential (SR) homes, with a more intense development pattern east of the site ranging from Multi -Family Residential (RM) to commercial (C). Mr. Shipley explained that he application is a Type V Legislative Action, which means that Planning Board must conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. He emphasized that, at this time, there is no proposed change to the zoning designation. However, if the proposed amendment is approved, the owners would be able to seek a rezone of the properties to something compatible with the new designation. He advised that there are three Comprehensive Plan designations consistent with RM zoning: Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC), Multi -Family — High Density (RM-HD), and Multi -Family — Medium Density (RM-MD). The EWC designation would be compatible with the following zones: Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (NB), Community Business (CB) and RM. The RM-MD designation would be compatible with the RM-2.4 and RM-3 zones and the RM-HD designation would be compatible with the RM-1.5 and RM-2.4 zones. Mr. Shipley advised that the applicant has requested that the land use designation be changed to EWC, which is consistent with the designation of properties to the east, north and south. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed as proposed, the applicant has indicated a desire to rezone the properties to RM. The two parcels comprise approximately .75 acres of land. If they were developed under RM-1.5 zoning, a maximum number of 21 units would be allowed. RM-2.4 zoning would allow a maximum of 13 units, and RM-3 would allow a maximum of 10 units. Another alternative would be to designate the property as RM-HD or RM-MD, which would allow for multi -family development, but not commercial development. Mr. Shipley explained that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can only be adopted if the following findings are made: Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? As the cost of housing rises and housing options become more constrained, providing more opportunities for multi -family residential development would be in the public interest. The Comprehensive Plan calls out the need for RM development to blend into the surrounding neighborhood while preserving the natural features of the site. He noted that the subject properties slope slightly to the east, but the RS properties to the west are only about five feet higher in elevation than the subject parcels. Both the RM and RS zones have a height limit of 25 feet, but an additional 5 feet is allowed with a 4-12 pitched roof. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies state that "multi family uses should be located near arterial and collector streets. " Although the subject properties do not abut Edmonds Way, they are in close proximity, and there is easy access to the bus stations and transit service available along the corridor. He acknowledged that 236th Street is already a high -traffic street during specific times of the day due to Madrona School. Therefore, any future small-scale development should be designated to not interfere with congestion along the road. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? This proposal is simply an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Subsequent review of a rezone application would include an analysis of existing land uses and consider economic and physical compatibility. • Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? The EWC zone makes up about 1.3% of the City's land, while SFU1 zoning makes up approximately 43.5%. A shift of a cumulative .75 acres from SFU1 to EWC would not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. • Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use designation, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The subject sites are physically suitable for the proposed designation change. They are adjacent to the border of the more intense EWC designation, and the adjoining land uses are both RS (west) and RM (north and east). It is important to note that in 2011 the City Council approved a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation for property south of the subject parcels from SFUI to RM-MD, and the properties were subsequently Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 2 rezoned to RS-8 and RM-2.4. Other properties situated between the EWC and SFU1, along 238th Street near Edmonds Way, were recently re -designated and rezoned, as well. Board Member Lovell reviewed that the total area of the two properties is about .75 acres. An RS unit is currently located on one of the lots, and the other is developed with legal, non -conforming RM units. Mr. Shipley added that the current structures were developed in the 50s and 70s, and the parcels were annexed into the City in 1997. Board Member Lovell further reviewed that, at this time, the applicant is only proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Subsequent action would need to be taken by the property owner to create an RM zoning designation for the site. He asked if the property owner intends to combine the two lots. Mr. Shipley answered that there is no application to combine the two lots at this time; the proposal before the Board at this time is for a land use designation change. Rezoning the properties would require a separate action. To clarify for Chair Rubenkonig, Mr. Shipley advised that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once each year unless an emergency situation comes up. Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally combined into one package for the City Council's review and approval at the end of the year. Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Shipley to review the process for reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Shipley advised that, once an application is submitted, the Planning Director reviews the application and staff prepares it to come before the Planning Board for review. The Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City received any comments from citizens regarding the proposed application. Mr. Shipley answered that the City received one email from Tammara Bandy, an adjacent property owner at 23507 — 92°d Avenue West, who voiced concern that new high-rise development on the subject properties would look down into your backyard and/or windows and block light access to her property. She also voiced concern about adding more traffic to an area that is already congested due to Madrona School. Chair Rubenkonig asked when the City would consider the balance of land uses. Mr. Shipley explained that .75 acre would have a negligible impact considering the overall scheme of the City. If the proposal involved a larger area, then the balance of land uses would be more of an issue. Because the subject parcels are small, the balance of land uses would remain nearly the same. Martin Reimers, Concept Architecture, Everett, expressed his belief that the Staff Report and Mr. Shipley's presentation were quite thorough, and he was present to answer the Board's questions. Board Member Lovell asked if the property owner intends to redevelop the subject parcels into RM units. Mr. Reimers said that is the ultimate goal. The owners have expressed interest in an RM-1.5 zoning designation, but that is an entirely different action. No work will be done on a preliminary site design until they find out what will be acceptable to the City in a broader sense. Board Member Lovell asked if the property is owned by a developer, and Mr. Reimers answered that the person who wants to improve the property is also the owner, but he is not a developer. Board Member Lovell asked if the applicant has expressed any desire to develop the property with affordable housing. Mr. Reimers again said there is no plan for what would be built on the property at this time, and all ideas would be considered. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that potential impacts to the property at 23507 — 92°d Avenue West would be addressed if and when a rezone application is submitted, and the written comments submitted by the property owner would be included as part of the record for the rezone application. Mr. Reimers reminded the Board that the Development Code already addresses what must happen when an RM development is located adjacent to an RS development, and any new development on the subject parcels would have to meet these requirements. At this time, they are only prepared to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Chair Rubenkonig said she just wants to make sure that the concerns raised by adjacent property owners are addressed as part of the rezone application, too. Prior to the opening of the hearing, Chair Rubenkonig advised that her company, Rubenkonig Planning & Landscape Architecture (RPLA), worked on a mutual client's project with Architect Martin Riemers. RPLA does not work for this client, nor on this project with Mr. Riemers. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 3 Jeff Bandy, 23507 — 92nd Avenue West, said he and his wife own the property adjacent to the subject parcels, and they are concerned about how the proposed change might impact them. He pointed out that the subject parcels are located on a hill where there are already a lot of traffic problems. Developing the property as RM-1.5 would result in a lot of additional traffic. He also voiced concern about the idea of developing the subject parcels as affordable housing. He recalled that when an apartment complex nearby was converted to affordable housing, the neighborhood environment changed drastically for the worse. He and his wife do not support more of this type of development in the neighborhood. Chair Rubenkonig commented that Mr. Bandy's concerns would be added to the record for the subject parcels, and will be more pertinent if and when the applicant comes in with a rezone application. The rezone application will also come before the Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, and the public will be invited to provide comment. Tonight, the Board is just looking at the proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. For the Board's clarification, Mr. Shipley once again reviewed the difference between the EWC and RM-HD/RM-MD designations. Although the applicant has requested that the property be designated EWC, an RM-HD or RM-MD designation would also be acceptable. However, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments in the Staff Report, staff is recommending that the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve a change in designation from SFU1 to EWC. Mr. Bandy pointed out that the subject parcels are bordered on three sides by RM development, yet the proposed land use designation for the properties is EWC. Mr. Shipley explained that each Comprehensive Plan land use designation has certain zones that are compatible. The difference between the EWC and RM-HD designations is that the EWC designation allows for a mixture of both commercial and residential uses, and development in the RM-HD zone is limited to residential. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that if the subject parcels were changed to an RM designation, it would result in an island of RM surrounded by EWC. Mr. Shipley emphasized that another review and public process would be required before the property could be rezoned. The EWC designation would allow for long-term alternatives as the Edmonds Way Corridor changes, but it would not grant the property owner permission to automatically rezone the property to a commercial zone. He does not believe that staff would support a commercial zone at this point in time because the parcels are surrounded by RM and RS development. Mr. Clugston explained that, typically, some sort of transition is created between commercial and RS uses. Regardless of the Comprehensive Plan designation, the intent will be that the property be developed as RM to keep with the character of the northwest corner of the intersection. He pointed out that further to the south is commercial development, which could creep north over the next several decades. Designating the properties as EWC would allow flexibility for changes to occur in the future. He agreed with Mr. Shipley that staff would not likely support a commercial zone for the subject parcels at this time. Board Member Lovell agreed that RM would be the appropriate zoning for the subject parcels. However, if the land use designation is changed to EWC, nothing would prevent the property owner from submitting an application for commercial zoning. Mr. Clugston agreed that all of the parcels with the EWC designation could potentially be rezoned to allow commercial development, but one of the criteria for approving a rezone is that there must be change in the area that supports the request, and they are not quite there yet. Board Member Lovell said he supports the staff s recommendation, which would allow flexibility for the property owner to combine the two lots. It would also allow maximum flexibility for future redevelopment. If someone in the future wants to push for commercial zoning, the proposal could be studied to determine whether or not it is appropriate. If the applicant is interested in rezoning the properties to an RM designation, the request would be consistent with what exists there now and would likely be approved. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9107 AND 9111— 236Tn STREET SOUTHWEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 4 CORRIDOR (EWC). BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003 Mr. Clugston advised that a private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V Legislative Decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposal. The City Council will make the final decision. He reminded the Board that they initially reviewed the proposal at their March 22nd meeting. Mr. Clugston explained that the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multi -family development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision would not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multi -family project. It would simply overlay property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multi -family development or with a new multi -family proposal. The process could be applied in the Multi -family Residential (RM) and General Commercial (CG) zones and portions of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. All of these zones allow for multi -family development on the ground floor of a site, whereas several other zones, such as Community Business (CB), Planned Business (BP) and Neighborhood Business (NB) require that the residential component be above a ground floor commercial use. The unit lot subdivision would not be applicable to residential development located above ground floor commercial space. Mr. Clugston referred to a letter from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County expressing support for the proposed amendment, which would provide an alternative method of lot creation for certain types of RM development. He also referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which inserts the applicant's proposed language into the existing subdivision ordinance, along with additions and clarification made by the City Attorney and staff. Mr. Clugston highlighted that three new definitions were added in ECDC 20.75.030: • "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045, where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. • "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status, which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. • "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston reemphasized that the RM development would look exactly the same, regardless of whether it is subdivided or not. There would be no difference in how the standards are applied for the development of the structures. Only the property lines would be created through the unit lot subdivision process. Mr. Clugston explained that the language proposed in ECDC 20.75.045 was altered by staff and the City Attorney to provide more details and clarify the intent of the unit subdivision process. The changes were not intended to alter the applicant's overall goal. As a result of concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting, Subsection E was added to require that homeowner's associations (HOA) be funded to manage the areas on the parent lot that are common to all unit owners in the development. Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that a unit lot subdivision would be subject to the subdivision regulations, which is no different than any other type of development. Mr. Clugston said all RM development must meet the development standards of the zone, including parking, height, bulk and design. From the sidewalk, the development would not look any different after the separate lot lines are dropped over it. There would be no physical change. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He commended Mr. Clugston for his thorough Staff Report. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board Members raised some concern about why a private property owner was requesting a code amendment. He acknowledged that most code amendments are generated by staff, but the code also allows any citizen to make an application for a code amendment. He Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 5 explained that the proposed change is not controversial. In fact, City staff previously utilized an interpretation to accomplish this same thing and was considering a code amendment at some point in the future to codify the process. However, the applicant did not want to wait for the City to move the amendment forward. Mr. Bissell recalled that, at their last meeting, there were questions about how the unit lot subdivision process would impact a development. When you think of a subdivision, you think of houses with lots that meet the standard size required for the zone. A subdivision is simply a method of dividing property so that someone can have a fee simple deed. In the case of RM development, a unit lot subdivision would simply put lot lines around each of the units. He provided some pictures to illustrate developments both before and after a unit lot subdivision, emphasizing that there is absolutely no difference. The developments do not look or function any differently after a unit lot subdivision has been applied, and the exact same code standards apply. He reiterated that the proposed amendment would not change the built environment in any way. Mr. Bissell commented that, when proposing code language, it is tricky to get it just right. He noted that staff and the City Attorney made some adjustments to the language he initially presented. Subsequently, he also made some changes to the language put forward by the City Attorney and staff in the Staff Report. He advised that staff has reviewed the proposed changes and indicated support. Specifically, he recommended that: The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.A be changed to read, `A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. " The intent of this provision is to allow a unit lot subdivision to separate buildings with multiple units. The proposed change makes it clear that the provision could apply to flats, as long as they are located on a single lot. For example, a property with four buildings, each with six units, could be subdivided into four lots (one for each of the buildings), and it wouldn't matter if the individual units were townhomes or flats. • The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.D be changed to read, `Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. " It doesn't make sense to require authorization from all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot if an external change would not impact the other units. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to require authorization from the owner if the work will impact his/her unit. It is also appropriate to require authorization from the HOA if a change will impact all units within the development. Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she has a background in unit lot subdivisions because she did them for the City of Seattle Department of Transportation for eight years. A lot of questions came up as the process was refined over several years, and attorney's reviewing the applications were not consistent. From her experience, she urged the Board to carefully consider the following: • Who will do the consumer protection review, and how will the City ensure that both sellers and buyers have all the information they need? • Who will review the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the HOA to make sure there is adequate review when documents are filed with the assessor's office? • Are the processes and the decisions that are made transparent? All reviews done by attorneys need to be honest and somewhat independent. • Will the City allow unit lots to be further subdivided? • Is there a definition for the term "flat?" • What are the review standards for unit lot subdivisions, and will fire protection and emergency access be part of the process? • How will the City ensure that there is adequate parking that is easily accessible so that parking for the individual units will not spill out onto the streets? The public portion of the hearing was closed. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 6 Board Member Lovell commented that most of the questions raised by Ms. Payne pertain to legal or building standard matters that will be addressed during the design and permitting phase of the project. He asked Mr. Clugston to explain the review process for a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston said the review process for a unit lot subdivision would be the same as for a short or regular plat subdivision. The development permit review process would also be the same as any other project in a CG or RM zone. Applicants would start by applying for design review and the building permits. As the building permits are moving through the review process, an applicant could apply for a unit lot subdivision. All applications would be reviewed by staff. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit CCRs as part of the application, and they would be reviewed by the City Attorney. This would be similar to the process that is used for planned residential developments. Relative to parking, Mr. Clugston said there would be no specific requirements for parking and ingress/egress attached to a unit lot subdivision. The parking standards would be based on the zone, and would be the same regardless of whether the development is subdivided or not. The same is true for ingress and egress requirements. He noted that the City's current code does not require a lot of guest parking, but this is parking code issue that is unrelated to the unit lot subdivision provision. Mr. Clugston advised that it is not likely that a unit lot subdivision could be further subdivided, however, it might be possible if the initial unit lot subdivision created lots for buildings with multiple units and a subsequent application sought to subdivide each of the individual units in the building. Regarding the concern about lot line adjustments, Mr. Clugston explained that these would be internal to the site and do not need to be addressed in the unit lot subdivision provision. ECDC 20.75.045.I will limit the need for subsequent lot line adjustments by requiring that "an application for a final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. " This provision will require that the foundations be poured and the walls built before a surveyor identifies the lines on the plat. Chair Rubenkonig noted that, generally, there is language included on a final plat that addresses the parent lot. Mr. Clugston referred to ECDC 207.75.045.H, which requires a notice on the final plat that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot. He explained that the unit lot subdivision provision could be used to separate a property into four lots, each with a six -unit townhome development. A subsequent application could subdivide each of the buildings into six separate lots. However, no further subdivision would be allowed beyond that point. Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that language was added to require HOAs and CCRs for maintenance of the common areas. He said he did not feel comfortable with how the Board's last conversation ended relative to this issue, but he is comfortable that the proposed new language would address his concerns. He commented that higher density development tends to bring people closer together and HOAs can provide an internal mitigation system where the community can work out problems. In the absence of this, the City would have to mitigate the problems. That means that the taxpayers would be subsidizing the idea of fee simple lots. He suggested that the wording in ECDC 20.75.045.E could be even more inclusive if it referred to "common issues" in addition to "common properties." Board Member Lovell asked if Mr. Bissell knows of any specific building or parcel in Edmonds where the provision could be applied. Mr. Bissell answered that he knows of several properties where the provision could be applicable. Although the amendment is being proposed by a private property owner, the Board should keep in mind that it could be applied in all other RM and CG zones, as well as the MU zone at Westgate. To further clarify, Mr. Bissell advised that the provision could only be utilized by development that is entirely residential. It would not be applicable to mixed -use development that has commercial space on the ground floor. Board Member Lovell requested clarification for when the provision could be applied to flats. Mr. Bissell answered that the provision could be applied to a subdivision that creates lots that contain entire buildings where flats are located. However, it would not be possible to further subdivide a building with flats into separate lots for each unit. To further clarify, he explained that a subdivision is a two-dimensional projection that draws a line from the center of the earth up to the sky. If units are stacked on top of each other, it would be impossible to do a subdivision because you cannot draw a line through the units below or above. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed language would allow a development that contains flats to be subdivided if the vertical boundaries of the flats coincide with each other. Mr. Bissell said that is definitely one option, but the proposed amendment would not allow this to occur. Board Member Lovell noted that the application materials Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 7 provided a drawing of a building that is divided in half and each half was designated as a lot. Mr. Bissell pointed out that the example was of a townhouse development that had separate entrances for each unit. He advised that the code defines "flats" as units that are stacked on top of each other and "Townhouses" as units that are side -by -side. Board Member Lovell referred to the proposed provision that would allow a developer to sell individual buildings to separate property managers, who would lease out the units within each building. If this were to occur, he asked how a common construction design defect in all of the buildings within the project could be resolved? Would each building owner be on their own? Mr. Bissell answered that the entire development (parent lot) would be governed by a single HOA regardless of how it is subdivided. Board Member Robles asked if the unit lot subdivision provision would relieve a contractor's liability for construction defects in any way. Mr. Clugston answered that a contractor's responsibility would remain the same regardless of whether the lot is subdivided or not. He referred to the last sentence of ECDC 20.75.045.17, which requires all common wall construction to meet the currently adopted building codes, regardless of how the property is subdivided. The proposed amendment is not intended to absolve a developer of any responsibility going forward. Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff and the City Attorney have had an opportunity to review the new language proposed by Mr. Bissell. Mr. Clugston answered that he had a discussion with Mr. Bissell prior to the meeting relative to the proposed changes. He said he does not have a problem with the suggested revisions as they seem to be consistent with the intent of the amendment. He pointed out that the Board could also propose revisions to the draft language as part of its recommendation to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board could table its recommendation to a future meeting if deemed appropriate. Mr. Clugston agreed that is one option. He said staff is recommending that the amendment be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as presented in the Staff Report and with the applicant's proposed revisions. Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that, following the Board's recommendation, the City Council will conduct a separate public hearing prior to making a final decision. The Board's role is to determine if the proposal has enough substance to move it forward to the City Council. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO ECDC 20.75.045.A AND 20.75.045.D. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Lovell asked if staff feels confident that the concerns expressed by Ms. Payne during the public hearing are adequately addressed by the proposed amendment. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and reminded the Board that the amendment would not alter any of the existing development standards that are in place. While issues related to parking and housing affordability are important, they do not have any impact on the current proposal. The parent lot would be developed exactly the same whether or not a unit lot subdivision happens. Board Member Lovell thanked Ms. Payne for sharing her experience working with unit lot subdivisions in Seattle. Her questions were good, and he feels comfortable that they are addressed in the proposed language. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board Members to the extended agenda, but there were no comments. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that their retreat is scheduled for May 24th. There was some discussion about having a potluck dinner prior to the retreat, which would start at 7:00 p.m., but no decision was made. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 8 Chair Rubenkonig expressed appreciation to the Board's Student Representative, Malia Clark, for the insightful comments she provided over the past several months. She noted that Ms. Clark will not be present at the Board's May meetings as she prepares for graduation. However, she may rejoin the Board in June. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the Housing Instability Seminar on April 24th. Between 150 and 200 people were in attendance, including 5 City Council Members, two State representatives, and officers from Snohomish County. The meeting was productive, and there was a lot of enthusiasm about the concept of doing something more in the City to further the matter of affordable housing. He said he sent his notes to Chair Rubenkonig via email, and she should feel free to share them with the rest of the Board. He suggested that the Board needs to have more discussion about the topic at some point in the near future, and there has been some discussion about meeting jointly with the City Council to discuss the matter. Given the results of the meeting, the City Council may want to form an oversight committee to study the issue, maintain the network, write articles and report progress to the City Council and citizens. He suggested that three aspects the City may want to consider are: • Identifying and tracking potential land parcels or properties that may be targeted for this type of development. • Considering adjustments in the land use and zoning codes to facilitate the development of more affordable housing in Edmonds. • Considering the potential of the City, itself, undertaking a project sponsored by the City. That would mean the City would purchase a parcel and obtain funding to construct a project that could become a catalyst for future affordable housing development in the community. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board that the concept of affordable housing is based on income levels. However, due to the significant increase in housing costs, the issue has turned from affordable housing to low-cost housing and homelessness. There needs to be a lot more discussion and planning if the City wants to address these issues, and it will be a big task. One of the final discussions at the meeting was if you do something to provide a place for the homeless now, you may save a lot of money when it comes to addressing future medical and correctional problems. These situations can be countered by providing low-cost housing for the homeless. He summarized that there was no set direction from the meeting, and the City Council and Planning Board should probably join in the discussion at some point. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Board's page on the City's website needs to be updated with the Board's 2017 officers. Mr. Clugston agreed to pursue the update. Chair Rubenkonig asked if any progress has been made in filling the vacant Planning Board position, and Mr. Clugston indicated he did not have any new information to report. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 9