2017-09-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 27, 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
Alicia Crank
Todd Cloutier
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused)
Matthew Cheung (excused)
Phil Lovell (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN 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 Crank requested additional information about the Health Summit that Ms. Hope attended. Ms. Hope said the actual
date of the summit was September 18''. The event covered a broad range of topics related to health, and it was exciting to see
so many different organizations and interests represented. There were a variety of sessions on a wide range of topics, and the
event was well attended. She attended a session that focused on local government policy and what can and has been done to
encourage healthy, active communities. There was also a presentation by the Puget Sound Regional Council about growth
trends in the area and the factors that go into providing for healthy communities. A representative from the City of Seattle
talked about what is being done in Seattle, particularly related to providing walkable and transit -oriented housing. She
presented on things Edmonds is doing, particular in the Highway 99 Subarea to encourage and promote housing
opportunities. Lastly, she said the Mayor of Mukilteo provided a report on what is taking place in his city.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE
MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS — EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW)
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded the
Board and public of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which requires that the hearing be fair in form, substance and
appearance. She asked whether any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents
regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All members answered no. Next, she
asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a
fair and objective manner. All Board Member responded no. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the
Board Members' participation as a decisionmaker in the hearing, and no one in the audience voiced a concern. Lastly, she
asked everyone planning to testify during the hearing to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they would
give would be the truth.
Mr. Lien advised that the applicants, CDA and Pirscher Architects, Inc. have requested a rezone on property located at 9601
Edmonds Way (eastern edge of the WMU zone). As requested, the rezone would change the zoning of the property from
WMU to BC-EW. He noted that the property owner, Columbia State Bank, has signed the land -use application for the
rezone.
Mr. Lien advised that, prior to 2007, the site was zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5), with a density of one dwelling
unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. In 2007, the site was rezoned (along with two properties directly to the east) to
BC-EW zoning, which is intended to recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds
Way entryway to the City and to accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way
Corridor. In 2010, Columbia State Bank received a conditional use permit to construct a bank with a drive -through on the
site. However, the project was never constructed and the building permit has expired.
Mr. Lien further reviewed that in 2015, the property was rezoned to WMU, along with other commercially -zoned properties
in the Westgate area, but the site has remained undeveloped. He explained that the WMU zone has some specific design
standards that, when applied to the subject property, make it extremely challenging to develop. Planning staff has discussed
the subject property with a number of potential developers since the WMU zone was adopted, but the same constraints have
come up with each proposal. The primary issues limiting development are the amenity space requirement and the contour
line that is intended to protect the steep slope.
Mr. Lien reviewed the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing rezone applications as follows:
Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for the subject property is Edmonds Way Corridor. It is the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor
designation that was included in the WMU zoning classification. The majority of the property included in the WMU
zone has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Commercial, while a few parcels on the west end of the
WMU zone have a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Planned Business or Neighborhood Business, which are also in
the Westgate Corridor overlay. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning
classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations, and compatible zoning for the Edmonds Way
Corridor includes Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (NB), Community Business (BC) or similar
commercial and Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones. Staff believes that rezoning the property back to BC-EW is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to assist in
the implementation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City and to protect the
character and social/economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the City. The subject
parcel is located in the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation, and the explicit purpose of the BC-EW
zone is to implement the policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Staff believes
that rezoning the site to BC-EW is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 2
Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and
nearby property. Commercial zoning already exists on the east and west side of the subject property. The two parcels
directly east of the site are zoned BC-EW, and a neighborhood with Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zoning sits above the
site. A Public Utility District (PUD) substation is located south of the site across Edmonds Way, and is zoned RM-1.5. West
of the site is WMU zoning and a variety of commercial developments. The BC-EW zone has specific provisions intended to
minimize impacts to adjacent properties. As per ECDC 16.50.020, properties adjacent to residentially -zoned properties must
be set back 15 feet from the property line and the required setback must be completely landscaped with Type I Landscaping
(the City's most dense of landscaping). Additionally, buildings taller than 25 feet adjacent to single-family zones must
modulate the design to minimize the visual impacts on single-family properties.
Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city
policy to justify the rezone. The primary change in the area and the subject property is the establishment of the WMU
zone in 2015. However, applying WMU zoning to the subject property severely limits its development potential. As per
the guidelines in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 22.110, at least 15% of the site in the WMU zone
must be established as amenity space and an additional 15% for open space. In addition, development beyond the
contour line is prohibited. He provided a map to illustrate the 340-foot contour line for the subject parcel, which
prohibits development on approximately a little more than half of the site. While portions of the site above the 340-foot
contour line can count towards meeting the open space requirements, the area cannot be counted towards meeting the
amenity space requirement. He summarized that once a structure is compliant with setbacks (15 feet from Edmonds
Way) and required parking, as well as access in and out of the site, there is not enough room in the limited developable
footprint to also provide for the 15% amenity space.
The subject property was the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor designation to be included in the WMU zone.
The purposes of the BC zone specifically note that the BC-EW zone is intended to "implement the policies of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor, and staff believes that rezoning the property back to BL-
EW would be more consistent with the City's policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor.
Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning
and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere in the same zone. The BC-EW zone contains many of the
features that were incorporated into the WMU zone. For example, the height limit in the WMU zone is 35 feet, and the
height limit in the BC-EW zone is 25 feet with the potential of up to 40 feet. However, both zones require that
development greater than 25 feet in height must meet the following criteria: include at least three building and site
design techniques of LEED Gold Certification, include affordable housing, provide public amenities of at least 25% of
the length of any required street setback, or include low -impact development (LID) techniques.
Concern has also been expressed about protecting the slope. The WMU zone prohibits development beyond the 340-foot
contour, which further limits the developable area of the site. In the BC-EW zone, the steep slope would be addressed by
the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Any development on the site will be required to prepare a geotechnical
report that makes the finding that development would not affect the slope's stability. It was noted that the applicant
submitted a geotechnical report from a previously considered development on the site, demonstrating that the site could
be safely developed without impacting the slope stability (Attachment 12). However, any new development proposal
would be required to prepare a new geotechnical report specific to the proposed development.
Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value
to the property owners. Given the difficulties of developing the property under the WMU design standards, rezoning the
property back to BC-EW would increase or reestablish the economic value of the site. At the same time, public health,
safety and welfare would not be adversely impacted by rezoning the property back to BC-EW. The CAO will ensure
slope stability is not impacted, development standards specific to the BC-EW zone will minimize impacts to adjacent
residentially -zoned properties, and other development regulations will help protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions in the Staff Report, Mr. Lien proposed that the Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone the subject parcel from WMU to BC-EW.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 3
Board Member Crank asked why the acronyms for business zones are backwards. Mr. Lien said he has wondered this same
thing. His thought is that the acronyms for all business zones start with `B." Board Member Crank asked if the Columbia
State Bank's proposal triggered the rezone request. Mr. Lien responded that Columbia State Bank is the current property
owner, but CDA and Pirscher Architects, Inc. are the applicants. Regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not, any
decision made regarding the zoning will apply to the current and all future property owners.
Carl Pirscher, Pirscher Architects, Inc., Edmonds, noted that his business office is actually located in the WMU zone, so
he is very familiar with the development and design standards for the zone. For the past few years, he has studied the
development limitations associated with the contour lines that were established for the WMU zone. In fact, he has studied
the subject parcel for several different potential owners in the recent past. The site is currently for sale. Although Columbia
State Bank received a permit to develop a bank on the site, it was never built. Columbia State Bank is now looking to
transact a sale, and he is working with potential owners who are interested in developing a project consistent, in large
measure, with the current zoning, with the exception of the 340-foot contour line. After carefully reading the WMU zoning
and development guidelines, it is clear that the contour lines are very restrictive. He advised that the contour lines and
limitations were reviewed at a recent meeting at which adjacent property owners were informed of what the is being
considered for the site.
Mr. Pirscher shared an image to illustrate the contour line. He explained that, not only is the 340-foot contour line difficult to
manage, the site also has other constraints, including a permanent 50-foot easement on the east portion of the site, and a 16-
foot permanent easement on the Edmonds Way frontage. As per the City's code, development of any type is prohibited
beyond the contour line. As indicated in the report, the contour line eliminates approximately 50% of the site from any
further development. When the easements are added, only about 33% of the site is available for development. Again, he said
he has reviewed the development potential of the site with previous clients, but all have abandoned progress because of the
severe limitations imposed by the contour line.
Mr. Pirscher said the applicants would like to construct a project the City can be proud of. However, under the current
zoning, development of the site would be severely limited to uses such as a coffee shop or some other type of drive -through
business. The applicants would like to construct a quality, mixed -use development that is consistent with the BC-EW zoning
standards. He noted that the development standards for the WMU and BC-EW zones are very similar, but the rezone would
allow them to work jointly with planning staff to explore economically feasible options for the property. If the rezone is
approved, a much longer process of evaluating the technical merits of a project could be undertaken. He emphasized that a
lot more work must be done, including soil studies. He referred to the soil study that was done by Columbia State Bank as
part of a previous development proposal that expanded beyond the current 340-foot contour line. There would be numerous
design and technical issues to resolve, and he would like the opportunity to work with the City staff to design a quality
mixed -use project that will be fully -engineered and responsive to protecting the slope and surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Pirscher said he supports the findings of fact, conclusions and analysis provided in the Staff Report, and he asked the
Board to recommend approval of the rezone application as presented.
Board Member Crank asked if the applicant is at liberty to provide details about what is planned for the site. Chair
Rubenkonig cautioned that the issue before them is a rezone request, without an attached development proposal. Mr.
Pirscher agreed that the proposal is for a non -project -specific rezone. He explained that the rezone application is the first step
in the process. Because of significant site constraints, the applicants would like to know they will have an opportunity to
proceed on the basis of the rezone before moving forward into more detailed geotechnical, engineering and design work.
However, given the cost of the subject parcel, some type of mixed -use development with housing and commercial uses will
be the highest and best use of the site.
Board Member Robles commented that it would be helpful to have dimensional information on the possible uses of the site
based on both the current and proposed zoning. Mr. Lien explained that before developers can start planning for site
development, they need to know what regulations the property falls under. A lot of people have looked at the site under the
current WMU zoning, but they all determined they could not fit an economically feasible project on the site. The BC-EW
zone would allow more flexibility. He reminded the Board that the Columbia State Bank project was proposed under the
BC-EW zone, and it is not appropriate to consider a specific development proposal when reviewing a non -project -specific
rezone application.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 4
Rachel Ross, Edmonds, said her property is adjacent to the subject parcel and would be directly impacted. She said she was
interested in learning the differences between the two zones. She was particularly interested in how the rezone would change
the contour line and how the additional height would impact her property. Would people in the new building be able to look
down on her property? She also noted that traffic is already a problem in the area, given the curve in SR-104. There are
frequent accidents, and she would like the Board to consider whether or not the rezone would exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Lien explained that with the BC-EW zone, there would be no contour line. However, any development on the site would
be required to have a geotechnical report. As per the CAO, the geotechnical report would establish the appropriate buffer or
setback for a landslide hazard area, and specific finding must be made that the development would not impact slope stability.
At a minimum, the setback from a residentially -zoned property would be 15 feet, and he doubts that development would get
that close given the slope. Again, he said the CAO would ensure slope stability is maintained. Chair Rubenkonig
commented that, if the rezone is approved, the 340-foot contour line would no longer be a reference for the subject parcel.
This particular requirement, which is intended to protect the steep slope, would no longer apply if the property is rezoned to
BC-EW. She understands that other City and State regulations would still protect the critical area, but that particular criteria
would not.
Mr. Lien said the 35-foot height limit in the WMU zone will accommodate three-story buildings. Height in the WMU zone
is measured from the elevation at Edmonds Way. The base height in the BC-EW zone is 25 feet, but development can go up
to 40 feet if three of the four listed criteria can be met. He summarized that difference in maximum height between the two
zones is five feet.
Chair Rubenkonig referred to the map that was provided to illustrate the 340-foot contour line. She commented that it is easy
to calculate the potential height of development in the WMU zones by adding 35 feet to the elevation measured at Edmonds
Way. She suggested this same calculation could be done to estimate the potential height of a structure in the BC-EW zone.
Mr. Lien explained that height in the BC-EW zone is measured differently. In the BC-EW zone, height is measured by
drawing a rectangle around the proposed building and measuring the elevation at the four corners and dividing by four to get
an average height.
Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that the Staff Report did not address how the difference in height could impact adjacent
residential properties. She felt this should have been addressed as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
review. Mr. Lien responded that, absent a development proposal, it is impossible to predict exactly how tall a proposed new
building would be. Chair Rubenkonig said she would have liked the SEPA Report to address differences between the two
zones as far as height and impacts to adjacent properties. Mr. Lien reminded the Board, that in addition to height, the zoning
code also requires buffers between the BC-EW and RS zones. The 15-foot buffer would have to be fully landscaped with
Type I Landscaping, which is the City's most dense type. Regardless of whether a building is 35 feet (WMU) or 40 feet
(BC-EW), this vegetative barrier would be required to screen the development from the properties on top of the slope.
Board Member Cloutier noted that the elevation at the top of the slope is about 365 feet and the elevation at the bottom is
about 340 feet, which is a difference of about 25 feet. A 35-foot building would be 10 feet above the top of the slope, and a
40-foot building would be 15 feet above the top of the slope. The height of the new building could be no taller than the
height of the existing homes. Again, Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that the SEPA Report did not address how height
could impact the surrounding neighborhood. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that SEPA is intended to protect the
environment and not neighborhood character. Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that simply stating that height would be
addressed as part of a future development proposal for the site is not a sufficient SEPA response. There are still many
unanswered questions.
Board Member Robles asked if the applicant has a business model to illustrate what could potentially be developed on the
subject parcel. If he were a developer, he would want to maximize the amount of building, which means identifying what the
maximum height would be. Mr. Lien commented that maximum height is difficult to calculate without a development
proposal. A geotechnical report will be required to say if, and how far, a building can be located behind the 340-foot contour
line. It is likely that a good portion of the site will be avoided, but this cannot be confirmed without a development proposal.
There are a number of ways to configure development on the site, and without a specific proposal, it is not possible to know
how tall it will be.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 5
Board Member Robles said he remembers going through the process of changing the zoning of the subject parcel to WMU.
There was a finite number of properties included in the WMU zone. He asked if, prior to the rezone, City staff looked
closely at each property to see what the impact of WMU zoning would be. He also asked if current property owners were
notified that their property values could be impacted. Mr. Lien said that a variety of notices were sent to property owners
within the rezoned areas, as well as adjacent property owners. There were also a number of public meetings at which
property owners and the public were invited to comment. While he does not know if representatives from Columbia State
Bank attended any of the public meetings, they were made aware of the proposed zoning changes. He cannot say if the
property owner evaluated what the zoning change would mean for the property. However, it is not unusual to discover issues
that arise after a zoning or code change. People do not really start applying the new zoning to a property until after it has
been formally adopted. That is when you discover unintended consequences.
Board Member Robles recalled that residents living near the Bartell's property were active in talking about the proposed
rezone, and they were able to get concessions to meet their concerns. Both parties were attentive during that process. He
expressed his belief that the subject parcel was zoned to WMU for a reason, following several public meetings. He is
hesitant to change it back to BC-EW without an equally thorough review process. Mr. Lien explained that when the contour
lines were established, a view study was done showing how tall a building could potentially be compared to the properties
above. Buildings on the lower properties would not be able to peer down into adjacent RS neighborhoods.
Board Member Robles said the Walgreen site was cited as a case study on how not to manage a slope. If they leave it to the
market, they may end up with a similar situation on the subject parcel. Mr. Lien noted that, at the Walgreen site, the existing
retaining wall was extended, but the development proposal was reviewed by a geotechnical engineer, who found that slope
stability would not be impacted. Board Member Robles agreed, but commented that the solution does not seem very
"Edmonds."
Board Member Robles pointed out that pedestrian crossings along SR-104 are controlled by the State, and no more additional
crosswalks can be added. Development in this location could add additional strain on an already difficult and dangerous
situation. Mr. Lien commented that there would be no difference in the traffic impacts regardless of whether the property is
zoned WMU or BC-EW. Any development of the site, regardless of the zoning, would require a review by the Engineering
Division to look at traffic impacts. The City will also require a traffic impact fee to help mitigate traffic concerns.
Board Member Robles recalled that the traffic rating for Edmonds Way is already at Level of Service (LOS) D because of
congestion and wait times. He asked if a traffic study would be required as part of the rezone request or if it would wait until
after a development proposal has been submitted. Mr. Lien said a traffic study was done for Edmonds Way at the time of the
WMU zoning, and certain improvements were identified and called out in the City's Transportation Plan. A new traffic
study will be required as part of any development application that triggers SEPA review. He clarified that LOS D still meets
the City's standard. Again, he emphasized that the traffic impacts would be the same regardless of whether the site is zoned
WMU or BC-EW.
Mr. Pirscher added that any project that is proposed subsequent to the zoning decision, even if the decision is to deny the
rezone, would be subject to SEPA review. The SEPA review would include documentation as to the exact building size and
anticipated occupancy, traffic studies, stormwater, etc. The neighborhood and City staff would have another opportunity, via
the SEPA process, to address issues and concerns with a specific design proposal.
Chair Rubenkonig said she can understand how responding to SEPA review as part of a rezone application can be
challenging, but she finds that the SEPA Report presented does not provide her with enough information to support the
request for a rezone.
Board Member Crank asked how the small parcel identified on the map as 9624 is currently developed. Mr. Lien said this is
a vacant parcel that is part of the gas station property. Board Member Crank asked if the proposed rezone would impact this
property, as well. Mr. Lien answered that the rezone would only apply to the 9601 parcel. Board Member Crank asked if the
parcel has been for sale for quite some time, and Mr. Lien replied affirmatively. Mr. Lien noted that the site is difficult to
develop under the WMU zone. Many developers have tried to squeeze something in there, but the WMU guidelines
prevented them from moving forward with a feasible plan.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 6
Chair Rubenkonig noted that, as per the Staff Report, no development proposals have come forward since the property was
rezoned to WMU in 2015 because there is an insufficient amount of developable land due to the 340-foot contour line.
However, a development proposal was submitted prior to 2015 when the property was zoned BC-EW. Mr. Lien clarified that
Columbia State Bank received a development permit to construct a bank on the subject parcel, but the building was never
constructed. Since the property was zoned WMU, at least five developers have tried unsuccessfully to design a project that is
economically feasible based on the WMU zoning requirements because of the 340-foot contour line and the required amenity
space. Again, he reviewed that the contour line results in at least 50% of the property being undevelopable, and the amenity
space requirement is based on the entire parcel. The WMU zone requires 15% open space, which can be easily met by
counting the area above the contour line. However, it is much more difficult to meet the required 15% amenity zone because
the area beyond the contour line cannot be counted. In addition, an applicant must meet the parking and setback
requirements, which further limit the developable land.
Chair Rubenkonig asked what relief an applicant could seek from the amenity space requirement. Mr. Lien answered that
there is no relief. The amenity zone requirement is in the design chapter of the code (ECDC 22.110). While a developer can
request a variance from the zoning requirements, it is not possible to obtain a variance from the design standards. Chair
Rubenkonig voiced concern that this was not made clear in the Staff Report.
Chair Rubenkonig asked why the 13-year-old soil study was attached to the Staff Report. Mr. Lien explained that the report
was provided as information about the geology of the site and slope stability. The geography of the site has not changed
much since the report was prepared. The report was included as part of the applicant's submittal to demonstrate that the site
could be developed to retain the slope stability. It was included in the Staff Report because it was part of the information
submitted by the applicant. Chair Rubenkonig asked how the soil study would impact the proposed rezone. Mr. Lien
recalled that there has been a lot of discussion about slope stability, and the report addressed this issue as part of a previous
development proposal. Any new development would require another geotechnical report. Again, Chair Rubenkonig said she
does not see how the report supports the proposed rezone and why it was included in the Staff Report.
Board Member Cloutier commented that although the applicant has started to think about what might be built on the site, it
has nothing to do with the issue currently before the Board, which is the rezone application. The Board should focus its
deliberations on the criteria that must be considered when reviewing rezone applications. He summarized that the BC-EW
zone is a pre-existing zone and it appears that the property was inappropriately rezoned as part of the Westgate Subarea
Planning process. He expressed his belief that the property belongs under BC-EW zoning. Any development -specific
concerns need to be remembered and brought forward as part of the development permit review and not part of the rezone
review. He does not see any issues with the rezone, as proposed. Board Members Crank and Rosen concurred.
Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern about the quality of the Staff Report. She asked if the Board has the ability to add
additional information to the Staff Report. Mr. Lien said the record is being established during this public hearing, and it is
not possible to add or remove information from the record that goes forward to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig
summarized that the only other option would be for the Board to send the item back to staff to bring back a more complete
packet of information to address their concerns. Mr. Lien commented that he is not sure that the Board's questions can be
adequately addressed because there is not a specific development proposal. Chair Rubenkonig said she found that the SEPA
report was inadequate. Mr. Lien noted that the SEPA determination was issued and there were no appeals. Chair
Rubenkonig said she also does not appreciate that the 13-year-old soil study was attached to the Staff Report. She requested
that it be removed. She also would have liked a more thorough explanation as to why the amenity zone requirement cannot
be altered. Staff provided a clear response, but the information should also have been included in the Staff Report. The Staff
Report made note that the property has remained undeveloped for a number of years. In particular, it makes note that there
have been no development proposals since the property was rezoned to WMU in 2015. This led her to believe that zoning
was the only thing holding the property back from being feasible for development. Without also providing clear information
about the development permit that was approved in 2010, the Staff Report seems to imply that the property was not feasible
for development when it was zoned BC-EW, either. Mr. Lien referred to the I" Paragraph on Page 2 of the Staff Report,
which makes reference to Columbia State Bank receiving a development permit in 2010. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City
received any other development proposals for the property while it was zoned BC-EW, and Mr. Lien answered no. However,
there was a development proposal in 2004 when the property was zoned RM-1.5, and that is when the soils report was done.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 7
Board Member Robles summarized that the City Council will ultimately make the final decision, so he is not so worried
about the content of the Staff Report. However, he recognized that the City Council appreciates that the Board digs into
issues that come before them so that the City Council can make informed decisions. He did not feel it was inappropriate for
the Board to ask what the applicant is proposing to build on the property.
Board Member Robles recalled that the Board considered the same criteria when reviewing rezone proposals associated with
the Westgate Subarea Plan. It was determined, at that time, that WMU zoning was the most appropriate for the subject
parcel. When making its recommendation, the Board trusted the City staff to provide information to address their concerns.
Now the Board is being asked to consider a rezone because of an omission that needs to be corrected. He asked if this would
cause other property owners to seek zoning changes, as well. The decision to rezone the property to WMU was made
following a robust public process, and he felt that a change back to BC-EW should require a rigorous process, as well. He
said he is confident that the City Council will afford the request the study it is due. While he supports and encourages good
development, he is concerned that changing the zoning might allow a bad project to be constructed. He cautioned against
making the zoning code too flexible, leaving the City no recourse to address bad proposals. In particular, he asked if there
are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that traffic issues will be addressed as part of any development proposed for the
site. Mr. Lien answered that there are appropriate constraints in place to address traffic, as well as design issues. He briefly
reviewed the process for reviewing development permit applications, He explained that any future project on the site would
likely trigger a SEPA review to consider the impacts associated with the project. Any project that requires SEPA, also
requires Architectural Design Board review at a public hearing. This would provide another opportunity for the public to
comment on a specific project proposal. The ADB's decision is appealable to the City Council.
Board Member Robles noted that attentive neighbors have participated in the process to voice concern about how
development along Edmonds Way would impact them. However, there is no record that the property owner has been equally
attentive to the process. Because the public has come forward to testify, he asked if their comments would be given more
weight when the final decision is made. Mr. Lien said there will be other opportunities for the public to comment throughout
the process, and adjacent property owners will receive notification of the public hearing. The Architectural Design Board,
like the Planning Board, gives weight to the public comments that come in. Ultimately, a development proposal will be
reviewed as to its consistency with the design and zoning standards, as well as the criteria that needs to be considered. Board
Member Robles suggested that the public's attentiveness should be noted. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Staff
report, as well as minutes from the Planning Board's public hearing will become part of the evident in the record that is sent
to the City Council.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS,
ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE
PROPERTY AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS — EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW) (FILE NUMBER PLN2170034). BOARD MEMBER CRANK
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Rubenkonig commented that she has done what she can to craft her concerns and make them part of the record. It is up
to the City Council to review the minutes and note her concerns. Board Member Robles encouraged members of the public
to hold the City accountable that the facts and opinions discussed during the Board's hearing are included as part of the
record.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH CHAIR RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Chair Rubenkonig closed the public hearing.
HOUSING STRATEGIES UPDATE
Ms. Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the City "develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply
of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. " The goal is to accomplish this task sooner by adopting a housing
strategy by 2018. She summarized that there is significant concern about whether or not there will be sufficient housing in
the City to accommodate all residents, and affordability is also a major concern. Although the Housing Element in the
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 8
Comprehensive Plan provides background information and broad policies related to housing, the Housing Strategy will
provide more detailed information about housing options and actions the City could take to address this complex issue. It
will also provide tools, resources, and potential partnerships that the City might participate in to encourage a better housing
supply that provides more options for people in the future.
Ms. Hope said it is anticipated that the City will continue to grow in population, and there needs to be opportunities for
livable housing that fits with the neighborhoods and continues Edmonds as a great community. She noted that the Planning
Board has already provided some input into development of a housing strategy, and it may continue to do so. The Planning
Board will also review the draft Housing Strategy in detail and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In addition,
Mayor Earling has appointed a Housing Task Force to recommend priority approaches for incorporation into the Housing
Strategy. The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) has also been a significant source of information, and she
introduced Chris Collier, AHA Program Manager, who was present to provide a report to the Board.
Chris Collier, AHA Program Manager, explained that the AHA was formed in 2013 to support affordable housing for all
in Snohomish County. The AHA assists in planning and policy research, education and outreach. It also provides a shared
housing specialist, facilitates discussion forums for all of its members, and serves as a regional response to housing needs.
Membership includes Snohomish County and 13 different cities within the County, including Edmonds. The AHA focuses
on the following three concepts:
• Cost Burden. When more than 30% of a monthly income goes to housing expenses, a person is considered cost
burdened. Housing expenses include mortgage and insurance, rent, utilities, etc. Costs can go well beyond 30% of
income.
• Area Median Income (AMI). Edmonds' AMI was $75,044 in 2015 compared to Snohomish County at $70,722. AMI
is broken down into categories: 0-30%, 30-50%, 50-80% and 80-110%. AMI is used to target and organize housing
affordability based on the categories, and it is adjusted for household size. A single person with no dependents has a
different affordability range than a single -mother with two children. For reference, 30% AMI is about $22,000 annual
income. When focusing on affordable housing, a city must identify what category of income they are really looking at.
Supply and Demand. The AHA has prepared a chart to illustrate the housing surpluses and deficits on an annual and
aggregate basis. It is based on the number of new households in the city compared to the number of new units sitting
vacant that haven't been occupied by households. While there was a surplus of units each year prior to the recession,
there was a deficit during the recession. There was also a surplus between 2011 and 2013, but a deficit since 2014.
Between 2014 and 2016 there were 16,231 new households in Snohomish County and only 10,469 new units. Currently,
there is only 29 days of single-family house supply in Southwest Snohomish County. For reference, a healthy housing
market would have a 6-month supply. All of this points to the fact that when demand outpaces supply, the price of
goods increases. The cost of housing in Snohomish County has increased about 43% since 2007. Before 2015, AMI
rose faster than rent. In 2015, AMI and rent increased in roughly proportionate amounts. In 2016/17 rent has risen at a
dramatic pace, and it unlikely that AMI has kept pace. It is anticipated that this will continue into the future. The
economic impact of continuing the status quo include:
o More people working good, decent jobs will struggle to make ends meet.
o Local employers will have difficulty hiring and retaining workers.
o Commute times and congestion will increase as more people will work but not live in the community.
o Businesses will start to look elsewhere where workers can live for less.
The social impacts of continuing the status quo include:
o Rising level of housing instability, with people living paycheck to paycheck.
o Reduced health as a result of financial stress.
o Lowered education attainment for children.
o Rising homelessness. Many people are just one emergency away from homelessness.
o Higher drug and alcohol use, increased crime, and a greater demand for emergency services.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 9
To illustrate his concern related to housing, Mr. Collier shared how two Edmonds residents have been impacted:
Allison works at a construction company in Snohomish County, making $40,000 a year. She has doubled her income
since she started working for the company. She is a single mother of two teenage children and rents a 3-bedroom house
in Edmonds for $1,900 a month. She initially rented in Lynnwood for $900 a month in 2005. She was enrolled at
Edmonds Community College for a time. When her children become adults, she will be taken off of the Section 8
consideration, and she will lose money she is relying on now to support her. There is a good chance she will have to
move out of the City.
• Samuel is a single, disabled man in his 60s. He has doubled his income since 2003 and is now making $30,000 a year at
a travel company. He was initially homeless before getting assistance. He now rents in Edmonds for $1,000. With
assistance from the County and State, Samuel was able to pull himself out of homelessness, but there is no way for him
to get off the program based on his challenges.
Mr. Collier said there is much that cities can do to improve housing opportunities. At the core of the issue is a shortage of
housing units, which means that more units need to be built. To accomplish more housing, units can be smaller and
development can go vertical. However, that does not mean that development needs to be tall, skyscrapers crammed into
small spaces. People tend to think that the only options are single-family, detached homes and mid -rise condominiums, but
there are a lot of other options in between that increase density but are consistent with what already exists in Edmonds and
Snohomish County. He provided a number of examples that included duplex, tri-plex, four-plex, courtyard apartments,
townhomes, multi-plex and live -work units.
Mr. Collier said that when talking about affordable housing, it is important to keep in mind that different housing types
provide different choices and prices. The middle -range options are great for first-time homebuyers, and they allow for a
place to live at every age and life stage. There are tools available to create affordable housing, including code and zoning
that is more flexibility and offers incentives, such as higher density or impact fee waivers, when affordable housing is
included as part of a project. Other tools include multi -family tax exemptions in exchange for affordability, reduced parking
requirements, and planned neighborhoods or downtown/transit corridor subarea planning.
Mr. Collier reviewed that, currently, the City allows attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), but detached ADUs are
prohibited. He suggested the City could review its ADU provisions and consider allowing detached ADU's, too. This
change would not alter the look and feel of the neighborhoods, but it would allow people to live in smaller, more affordable
units. He referred to the Sightline Institute's ADU Comparison for helpful information to consider when reviewing the
provision. He said the City also has a multi -family tax exemption for projects that include affordable housing. In addition,
the Highway 99 Subarea Plan allows for a mixture of higher -density uses, including housing.
In addition to what the City has already done, Mr. Collier suggested the City could consider creating a pre -approved blueprint
book for residential development. The book would provide pre -approved plans that meet all of the City's code standards.
This will speed up development, but maintain the look and feel of the City by having community engagement. This concept
is used across the country for increasing density in a way that is acceptable and amenable to communities. It also reduces
development costs and risks for developers. Another option is to allow smaller single-family lots. Currently, the minimum
lot size in Edmonds is 6,000 feet, and 77% of the City is zoned single-family. Reducing the lot size requirement would
accommodate cottage housing opportunities. Lastly, the City could consider reducing the parking requirements, particularly
around robust transit corridors.
Mr. Collier summarized that supply and demand are at the core of the issue and will inform the solution, as well. Growth can
happen while still maintaining the City's character, and addressing livability is a critical issue for the City because it affects
everyone.
Board Member Robles suggested that, rather than using supply and demand as a basis, the City has talked about the need to
address opportunities for its residents to "Age in Place." Many people want to continue living on their properties, and ADUs
allow this to happen. He commented that there is a large body of evidence to support ADUs, given the City's more affluent
and aging population. While the community might not respond favorably to the concept of cottage housing, they may be
responsive to ADU opportunities.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 10
Board Member Crank reported that she attended the Housing Task Force's first meeting as a member of the public, and she is
hopeful in what the group has been tasked to do. She requested that the Board Members receive an electronic copy of Mr.
Collier's presentation. It is very user-friendly and provides practical information. As the Board moves forward in its
discussion about affordable housing, she encourage them to frontload the discussion with an explanation of what is affordable
by using specific and tangible examples that will further help the conversation.
Board Member Rosen said he really appreciates the comments from Board Members about the need to keep the values and
humanness part of the effort. Of the new units that are targeted for Edmonds in the future, he asked how many could be
accommodated based on the current zoning. He also asked if there is a percentage for the number of new units that must be
affordable. Ms. Hope said the City has conducted a Buildable Lands Analysis that indicated there is enough capacity to
accommodate all of the additional units. However, affordability will be based, to a great extent, on the market, as long as the
rules allow developers to move forward. It also depends on the level of affordability.
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) CODE UPDATE INTRODUCTION
Ms. McConnell advised that the City of Edmonds is one of 94 cities that has been issued a Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit by the Department of Ecology (DOE). In order to comply with the Permit, the City is required
to review and revise codes, policies and standard details to eliminate barriers that would prevent the incorporation of LID
principles and best management practices (BMPs). She explained that LID in this context can be defined in a few different
ways and is most commonly thought of as a way to manage stormwater. However, it can also have a broader definition when
looking at overall site design, to include preserving natural resources, arranging homes in a way that minimizes grading or
opens up solar opportunities and minimizes impervious areas.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that in an effort to comply with the Department of Ecology Permit Requirements, the City's
stormwater code went through a major overhaul process starting in 2015. The updated code was approved by City Council in
October 2016, and became effective January 1, 2017. The new code requires stormwater runoff to be managed on site where
feasible — essentially putting the stormwater runoff back into the ground. In addition, City needed to review other
development -related codes and staff has been working with a consultant since 2016 to accomplish this. The Staff Report
identifies code sections that the consultant and city staff recommend revisions to in the effort of encouraging LID and
eliminating any potential barriers. She explained that while the City's code was not seen to present any barriers to the
inclusion of LID in a site design, code language was tweaked to better present opportunities for LID and to get permit
applicants thinking about LID on the front end of their projects. She highlighted some of the proposed changes as follows:
• ECDC 9.20.010(A) — Definitions. The definition for "concrete curbs and gutters" was updated to read, "that portion of
the roadway edge constructed to city standards. " The City has a separate manual that deals with specific design
standards. Because there are a variety of curb types, referencing a specific standard is not appropriate. Staff is
proposing that the reference be removed to eliminate a potential barrier when considering LID options.
• ECDC 18.00.010(B)(4) — Application. A site plan is required as part of a development permit application. The
language in this section was changed to include vegetation and LID elements as part of the site plan requirement. This
amendment is intended to bring to light there are other features that need to be considered with development. If possible,
it is desirable for development to work around these features in order to protect and preserve them.
• ECDC 20.11.030(B)(1) — Criteria. This section deals specifically with site treatment and takes into consideration the
character of the site and the nearby area. The current language is vague, and staff is proposing it be amended to read,
"Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural resources, limit
disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. " The proposed language is more specific and
encourages the use of LID and limiting the disturbance of soils.
• ECDC 20.13.020(P) — General Design Standards. This is a new section that recognizes that LID is something that
should be considered throughout the entire design process where feasible. As proposed, the section would read,
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 11
"Stormwater LID BMP integration into overall landscape design is strongly encouraged, where feasible. " Chair
Rubenkonig suggested that the acronym `BMP" should be spelled out (Best Management Practices).
ECDC 20.75.020(B), (C), and (F) — Purposes. These are new sections that provide additional language in the
subdivision code to promote and encourage the use of LID development and encourage site design around LID. The
change includes promoting the preservation of critical areas, encouraging site design that can make the best use of
renewable energy resources, and encouraging LID practices when providing for streets and sidewalks.
• ECDC 20.55(L) — Terms. This amendment would add a definition for Low Impact Development. As proposed, the
definition would read, `A stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision
scale that emphasizes conservation and the use of on -site natural features. "
Chair Rubenkonig asked why the language was not stronger to require rather than simply encourage LID. Ms. McConnell
explained that the current DOE permit requires the City to update the stormwater code with requirement type language, and
the DOE has been working towards that effort for quite some time. The permit no longer encourages, but requires, the
employment of LID where feasible in stormwater design. The DOE is now requiring cities to look at the rest of their codes to
eliminate barriers that may prevent LID from being applied and to encourage people to use LID. It maybe that the DOE will
require the City to make them requirements at some point in the future, but that is not the case now.
Ms. McConnell advised that she would present the proposed amendments at a public hearing on October 1 ltn
Board Member Crank said she assumes that the acronym LID will be clear when the proposed changes are incorporated into
the code. She suggested that a consistent term be used throughout the document. Ms. McConnell answered that the
stormwater code uses the term "LID," and the term is defined in the stormwater code. Rather than providing the definition in
every code section where LID is mentioned, the definition will be added to the general section of the code. The term will be
used consistently throughout the code to correspond with the definition.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Rosen recalled that the Board previously discussed the concept of having joint meetings with other City
boards and commissions. Chair Rubenkonig said the Board anticipates having a joint meeting with the Architectural Design
Board to discuss design issues associated with the Five Corners Subarea Plan, but they are still waiting for the consultant to
finish the feasibility study. The Board also discussed having a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss issues related to
housing affordability, and this meeting will likely occur sometime in the future. They also expressed a desire to meet with
the Economic Development Commission to brainstorm ideas for code development for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, but
that plan already seems to be moving along on its own velocity.
Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the Housing Task Force meeting, where an ambitious, but doable,
timeline was presented. The task force is planning to meet with the Planning Board in early spring of 2018 to present the
draft plan for review and comment. It might be appropriate to have a joint meeting with the City Council at that time.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that information was provided in the script she was given prior to the meeting to help her
move the public hearing along. She suggested it would be helpful for all Board Members to receive a copy of the script. She
said it would also be helpful if staff provided an outline of the Board's choices for acting upon what is in front of them.
Board Member Cloutier reviewed that, in the past, the Board has either forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City
Council as presented in the Staff Report, forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council with changes, sent an
item back to the staff for more information, or continued Board deliberations to a future date. Chair Rubenkonig said she
does not want the Board to feel pressured to make a decision before having all the information needed. She suggested that
the Board's options be provided in writing prior to a public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 12
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Members provided additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 13