Loading...
2017-10-25 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 25, 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 Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Lovell asked for more information relative to the Westgate Woods Townhome Project, which was recently recommended for approval by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Chave explained that the project will go before the Hearing Examiner on October 26 h, and the Hearing Examiner will rule on both the ADB's design review and the height variance request at the same time. Board Member Lovell noted that a briefing on the Housing Strategies Update is scheduled on the Board's extended agenda. He said he recently attended another meeting where he learned about a housing strategy in King County that involves a coalition of cities pooling money together to provide partial seed funding for an affordable housing project. He asked if there is a similar program in Snohomish County. Ms. Hope reported that she just attended a meeting to discuss a similar program in Snohomish County, which would be headed up by the Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA). Although the program is not yet in place, the intent of the AHA is to provide technical assistance and outreach, and be a resource of information regarding affordable housing issues. The hope is to put some money towards actual housing project, but the details still need to be worked out. A proposal will likely come forward in early 2018, and Edmonds intends to participate. The idea is that if each jurisdiction contributes something based on population, it could collectively add up to enough funding to do a real project. Board Member Robles referred to the Westgate Woods Townhome Project, as well, and observed that the intersection of 95tb Place West and SR-104 is already very busy. He anticipates the situation will worsen given the recent zoning changes that support more density. He questioned at what point the City will begin looking at improvements at this intersection. Ms. Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map identify this area for potential redevelopment, and transportation infrastructure is reviewed on a regular basis. In addition, each project proposal requires a traffic impact study, and an impact fee is required. Sometimes, an applicant is required to pay additional fees depending on the impacts related to the particular project. She summarized that infrastructure and level of service are always being looked at. FIVE CORNERS AREA — DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Ms. Hope reviewed that, several years ago, the City undertook a planning process for the Westgate and Five Corners areas, with assistance from the University of Washington's Green Futures Lab. The Westgate Plan was moved forward to completion, but the Five Corners Plan was put on temporary hold while other City projects, including a roundabout for the area, were completed. Now the draft plan and code for Five Corners is being revisited. She referred the Board to the Draft Plan, which was attached to the Staff Report. Ms. Hope advised that the Five Corners Plan started in 2010, when a multi -disciplinary team from the University of Washington conducted field reconnaissance followed by an extensive public process that included a community survey, listening sessions, a design workshop, etc. Core concepts contained in the draft plan include an emphasis on creating a lively pedestrian environment, a requirement for 15% landscaped open space, retaining and infiltrating stormwater on private property, increasing affordable housing and housing options, and providing options for active transportation. Ms. Hope shared a map to illustrate where there is existing development, noting that there hasn't been a lot of change since the 1990s. She advised that the Economic Development Commission sent out a memorandum asking that, if the plan has to be narrowed down, they would like the focus to be on four key sites at the intersection. She explained that draft plan focuses on a form -based zoning approach, and key features of the plan include: Building Types. The plan identifies seven different building types that would be appropriate for the area, such as stacked dwellings, commercial mixed use, live -work units, and rowhouses. Amenity Space Requirements. An amenity space requirement of 15% was proposed in the plan, and the intent was that these spaces would be usable plazas, courtyards, sidewalks, lawns, roof decks, etc. Height Bonus. Building heights were identified as mostly two-story development with areas around the roundabout at three stories. There was discussion about allowing a height bonus (an extra story) if bonus points are achieved. Ms. Hope advised that the first step, before taking on a public process and potential adoption of the draft plan/code, is an assessment on whether development under the draft plan is still feasible at key sites or if changes are needed. The City Council provided direction to proceed with a feasibility study, and the firm, Heartland, has been hired to complete the work. Staff has provided the consultant with a copy of the draft plan, as well as a two -page executive summary of the plan, both of which are attached to the Staff Report. It is anticipated that the consultant will be ready to present a report to the Planning Board on December 13th. The report will be followed with an update to the City Council and the Economic Development Commission in January of 2018. She summarized that the consultant has been asked to evaluate whether or not the draft plan is feasible given the current market conditions. The City is also interested in learning about adjustments that could be made to change the general direction of the plan to make it more feasible. She invited the Board Members to share their thoughts about the feasibility analysis process, recognizing that the Board could have a more in-depth discussion about the details of the plan when the consultant presents the report in December. Chair Rubenkonig said she likes the general approach outlined in the draft plan, which is formatted and written well. It is a good community document that is understandable, and she appreciates the efforts of the community and the University of Washington students and staff to develop the vision. She recalled that when the draft plan was being created, there was Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 2 significant contention because of the roundabout that was proposed. Since that time, the roundabout has been completed and appears to be well accepted. It works well and has become a stronger design element than some in the community had expected it to be. This change presents an opportunity to consider a somewhat different approach for the Five Corners area. Another change since 2011 is the City's strong focus and concern regarding the issue of affordable housing. Hopefully, the Five Corners Plan and the Housing Strategy Update effort can go hand in hand in addressing the City's future housing needs. Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Board now has experience with form -based code, so the learning curve will be much smoother when considering what could take place at Five Corners. Regarding possible change in direction, she noted that the current subarea boundaries are defined by the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning. She suggested that they explore opportunities to expand the boundaries. If the subarea continues to defined by only the business zones, the rest of the neighborhood will not have the opportunity to mature and grow as the City's population continues to grow. Lastly, she suggested that, before the process goes too much further, they should agree on the correct pronunciation of Bowdoin Street. Board Member Robles observed that the Westgate Subarea Planning process went well, but it was not perfect. Lessons learned during that process could be used as an example moving forward with the Five Corners Subarea Plan. He agreed with Chair Rubenkonig that they should consider opportunities to potentially expand the subarea boundaries. The criteria for determining what is and is not included in the boundaries should be very clear to avoid situations where future rezones are requested to benefit one property owner over another. Board Member Robles commented that the density allowed in the Westgate Subarea is high, and the plan is designed to encourage developers to take advantage of all the density allowed. Growth in the area is expected based on the rezone. What has occurred and will occur at Westgate can provide valuable information as the City moves forward with a plan for Five Corners. Board Member Lovell commented that, given the boundaries of the current draft plan, redevelopment opportunities in the Five Corners area will be more limited when compared to Westgate. It is not likely that the existing development will be replaced with new projects for a long time. He said that, in his mind, feasibility includes economic aspects, legal aspects and government constraints or paradigm that allows something to happen. He views the feasibility of redeveloping the church property and the veterinary hospital property as slim. He suggested that the term "feasibility" needs to be further defined to include other factors in addition to economic feasibility. Board Member Lovell suggested that, in order to address the issue of affordable housing as part of the plan, it might be necessary to consider rezoning some single-family properties to multi -family to provide an opportunity for smaller, more affordable units in the Five Corners area. Otherwise, he does not see a lot of change happening in the Five Corners area during his lifetime. Ms. Hope agreed there are several ways to look at feasibility. The consultant will focus primarily from the standpoint of whether or not it would be feasible for a property owner to redevelop his/her property into something that is more consistent with the vision outlined in the plan. Whether or not a property owner chooses to redevelop is something else entirely. She also agreed that it seems unlikely that the church property will be redeveloped in the near future. Ms. Hope said the thought it that it would be worthwhile to go through the feasibility analysis rather than simply adopting the original plan and code and see nothing happen because it is not practical or feasible. The analysis might lead the City to look deeper at some aspects of the plan and perhaps even adjust the boundaries of the subarea. At this time, the City does not know what the right answer is. Currently, there is already a substantial amount of multi -family residential development in the area, but perhaps some areas might be appropriate for options in between such as townhomes, duplexes, etc. This could all be part of the larger discussion moving forward. Board Member Rosen said the plan talks about creating a greater number of units targeted at younger professionals. He asked if the intent is to meet demand or to target a demographic they want more of in Edmonds. Mr. Chave said that discussion was more focused on Westgate than on Five Corners. The general feeling was that Five Corners was more of a neighborhood service area and Westgate more of a destination given the large retail businesses located there. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 3 Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that some churches in the greater Seattle area have partnered with housing groups to develop affordable housing on the pack portions of their properties. While she is not speaking for the church at Five Corners, it is important to recognize that this is happening elsewhere. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that, in the proposed plan, the farmers's market would be located behind the church rather than closer to the street where it is more visible. Mr. Chave said it is located where opportunity and space are available. Chair Rubenkonig said she welcomes the idea of a farmer's market at Five Corners, but she would love to see it located closer to the roundabout. Vice Chair Monroe pointed out that the intent is to move the buildings closer to the street, which means that activities, such as a farmer's market, would be located behind the buildings. Vice Chair Monroe asked if the feasibility analysis would take the bonus point system for height into consideration. Ms. Hope said the consultant will identify some potential scenarios and then make some assumptions based on the proposed zoning outlined in the draft plan relative to height, open space, parking, etc. While the consultant cannot figure out every possibility, the intent is to make some reasonable market assumptions. Vice Chair Monroe reminded the Board that one lesson learned from the Westgate Subarea Plan is that more flexibility is better. The bonus point structure lends itself to that concept. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the feasibility analysis would include approaches to parking. Ms. Hope said it would not address parking in detail, but it would factor in what the draft code language says about parking when analyzing alternatives. Board Member Rosen asked about the touchpoints in which public engagement would occur. Ms. Hope said this would be determined once the feasibility analysis has been completed. Once the consultant's report has been presented to the Planning Board, City Council and Economic Development Commission for feedback, the City Council will be asked to make a decision about whether to go forward with the plan or not. If the plan does move forward, it will require a significant amount of work from the City staff and Board, as well as a lot more public involvement. It is likely it will take a few years to complete the process. Board Member Lovell suggested that the Board Members should document specific areas or items that should be looked at more specifically as part of the feasibility study to enhance the ability for the area to be redeveloped. Ms. Hope pointed out that the feasibility study will be nearly completed when the consultant reports to the Board in December. However, following the consultant's report, the Board could forward supplemental comments for the consultant to pass on to the City Council. For example, the Board could recommend that the subarea boundaries be expanded. Board Member Lovell said the Five Corners Subarea Plan could get to concepts the Board has explored as part of its discussion regarding affordable housing, such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes, that provide better "aging in place" options plus additional small units for affordable housing. Ms. Hope commented that the Housing Strategy will come before the Board as a separate item from the Five Corners Subarea Plan. The Housing Strategy will focus on creating more housing supply and affordable housing for all income levels and special needs. It will involve a broad discussion of what is already available in the City and what will be needed going forward, as well as different housing types to address the needs of the community. It will also involve a discussion of potential development code amendments to remove barriers to affordable housing, as well as opportunities to subsidize and support the development of affordable housing through grants or some combination of funding from cities and non-profit organizations within Snohomish County. She emphasized that private developers can seldom, if ever, make this happen without some other resources. They must look for partnerships to help facilitate opportunities. The Board has already provided some input to help shape the Housing Strategy, and the issue will come before them for additional input in early 2018. Chair Rubenkonig suggested the Board could be as bold as to suggest that the boundaries of the Five Corners Subarea be enlarged to enable alternatives for housing to be embraced by the plan. It will be good for the Board to be open to the possibilities, and it sounds like that is the direction the Board is willing to entertain. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that the Board's discussion is moving away from what the Five Corners Feasibility Analysis is intended to accomplish. He suggested that the Board's work on the Five Corners Plan will actually require very little discussion about housing. The Five Corners Plan will focus on creating a form -based zoning code to implement the Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 4 vision outlined in the plan. Form -based codes address the size and placement of buildings, but not what goes on inside them. Also, the Board should recognize that redevelopment at Five Corners is not likely to happen in the near future. While affordable housing is an important topic for the Board to consider, the Five Corners Subarea Plan will not reach that level of detail. Chair Rubenkonig said she understands and appreciates Board Member Cloutier's comments concerning Five Corners and the form -based code. However, in response to Director Hope's request, the Board has identified some strengths and weaknesses of the 2010 draft plan, including: the community's gem of a roundabout; an increased awareness of the provisions of affordable housing; possibly the need to enlarge the area for growth; and changes in ownership of key parcels. These items could be included in the feasibility analysis process of the consultant. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT 2018 — 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Mr. English reminded the Board that staff provided a detailed presentation at their last meeting, so tonight's presentation would be abbreviated. He referred to the three capital facilities plan descriptions that were provided to the Board just prior to the meeting. He explained that the plans were inadvertently left out of the Capital Facilities Plan that was attached to the electronic version provided in the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that the CFP is a long-range planning document related to projects that address growth, and the CIP is a six -year planning document that is coordinated with the City's Budget. The two plans intersect when identifying six -year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. Department heads have been assigned to oversee each of the funds, and most have been assigned to either the Public Works Department or the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. He reviewed some of the highlights of the two plans as follows: • 76`h Avenue and 212`h Street Intersection. This project is in process on the northeast corner of the intersection where curb, gutters and sidewalk are currently being installed. The project is about 70% complete, and it is anticipated to be 90 to 95% complete by the end of year. However, it is likely that the final pavement layer will not be completed until the spring of 2018 when the weather is better. • Bike-2-Health Improvements. This project is being done in conjunction with the 76`h Avenue/212`h Street Intersection Improvements. It is funded by the Verdant Health Commission and includes restriping several roads in Edmonds, primarily 76`h Avenue and 212`h Street to add bike lanes. Some of the work has already been done, but they are waiting to complete the intersection improvements before completing the project. • 236`h Street Walkway. This project provides a walkway to connect SR-104 to the Madrona Elementary School, and it is anticipated the project will be finished in the spring. • 2017 Overlay Program. In 2017 the City was able to do approximately $1.3 million worth of overlay improvements, or about 3.9 lane miles of work. The program if funded with Real Estate Excise Tax, as well as the utility, sewer and stormwater funds. • Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Project. The City was able to secure $1 million of the $10 million needed for the project from the State Legislature. The money will be combined with $300,000 in Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funding to move forward with design work in 2018. • Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector. The City secured $700,000 from the State Legislature to move to the next phase of the project. The additional funding from the State will be combined with $140,000 from an outside agency, and $150,000 from the City and used for pre -design and environmental documentation. The City Council is currently discussing the scope of work for the project, and they are expected to proceed with consultant selection in November. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 5 • Pavement Preservation Program. $1.5 million has been proposed for this program in 2018. This will allow the City to continue to make key infrastructure improvements. • Pedestrian Curb Ramp Program. This is an ongoing program, but the intent is to increase funding to $50,000 in 2018. The City is working to implement an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, which is required when the City receives federal funding. It is estimated that approximately $11 million will be needed to bring all of the curb ramps into ADA compliance. Completing the needed ADA improvements on all infrastructure in the public right-of-way will cost about $151 million. The City's intent is to continue to invest in this program. • Utility Projects. As proposed, 4,000 lineal feet of watermain will be replacement in 2018, as well as 1.1 lane miles of overlay on streets affected by waterline replacement. The plan also indicates 1,800 feet of sewer main replacement and pavement overlay on .7 lane miles affected by sewer main replacement, as well as 3,400 feet of cured -in -place pipe (CIPP) sewer main rehabilitation. Ms. Hite highlighted the following projects that were completed in 2017: • Civic Park Master Plan. This plan was completed in 2017, and the City is in the process of putting together bid documents to demolish the stadium. Tenants were given notice to vacate by December I't. It is anticipated the stadium will be demolished in late 2017 or early 2018. • Frances Anderson Center Bandshell. This project was completed in 2017 and dedicated in 2017. • Meadowdale Playfields. This project is currently underway and is a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District. The City has agreed to contribute $500,000 to a $5 million project budget to develop two multi -use soccer and lacrosse fields and do some turf on the infields of the softball fields to create opportunities for year-round play. They are hoping to complete the soccer fields by the end of 2017 and the softball fields in early 2018. • Fishing Pier Rehabilitation. This project is currently underway and will probably continue into 2018. There were some issues with the center joint repair and the contractor is working to finish the work. • Waterfront Development/Walkway Design and Permitting. This project is being done in coordination with the Waterfront Center, which will replace the Edmonds Senior Center. Most of the environmental permitting has been done, and applications for state permits were turned in last month. The design process has started, and the goal is to construct the two projects at the same time, hopefully breaking ground in May of next year. Because the State Legislature did not pass the Capital Budget in 2017, the grant funding earmarked for the project will not be available until 2018 when the Legislature is back in session. The City will also prepare grant applications for park funding in 2018. • Veteran's Plaza. This project was recently completed. Next, Ms. Hite highlighted some of the projects that are anticipated in 2018 as follows: • Waterfront Development/Walkway Completion. The City is hoping to start construction of this project in 2018. In addition to the walkway in front of the Waterfront Center, the project will extend in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums to complete the walkway connection. The intent is to align the project with the Waterfront Center project, depending on funding and permits. • Civic Park Design Development. The design process for Civic Park is underway, and geotech work has been done. The stadium will be demolished soon. The City will be entering into a contract with Walker Macy, the consultant who did the Master Plan for the park, to start the design/development process. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 6 • Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek. The Parks Department is working jointly with the Stormwater Utility Division to daylight Willow Creek and improve stormwater runoff. The Parks Department's interest is to rehabilitate and create more of a salmon habitat in the marsh, and the stormwater benefit is to remedy the flooding issues. They will continue to work on the design of this project. • Other Projects. Other projects include parklet development, outdoor fitness zones, a new City storage building, a community garden, and new equipment at the Frances Anderson Center Playground. Assuming the Board takes action to move the CIP and CFP forward, Mr. English said the plans will be presented to the City Council in November, with final approval anticipated in December as part of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Board Member Lovell asked if the lift station project in the beach parking lot is the same project as the Dayton Street/SR-104 drainage improvement project. Mr. English answered that the project would be a new pump station at Dayton Street. The project is targeted for 2018, and the City has applied for a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grant of $500,000. However, with the recent hurricanes, the awarding of grants has been pushed back and the City does not know when the funding will be available. If the City is successful in securing the grant, the project will be ready to move forward in 2018. Board Member Lovell asked where the remaining funding for the $1.9 million project would come from. Mr. English answered that the City secured a $500,000 loan from Snohomish County, which will be paid back by stormwater rate fees, and there is $1 million in the capital budget, as well. Board Member Lovell asked if the daylighting project would include both Willow Creek and Shellebarger Creek. Ms. Hite answered that both creeks dump into the marsh, causing flooding during times of heavy rain. The marsh does not currently have the ability to drain or absorb this additional stormwater. The project is intended to increase the marsh's ability to absorb water, and daylighting the creek is intended improve salmon habitat. Vice Chair Monroe referred to the CIP spreadsheets and asked when the 2017 estimates would be updated with actuals. He said he is interested in learning how close the estimates are to actual project costs. Mr. English commented that, while a few projects went over budget due to a variety of factors, many came in well below budget. For the most part, the estimates have been consistent. They have particularly noticed higher prices for projects that involve concrete. For example, the walkway project on 238th Street between SR-104 and Highway 99 came in much higher than anticipated. The City received feedback that the project was bid at the wrong time and concrete was in high demand and the prices increased. Vice Chair Monroe asked if these factors were considered when preparing the CIP, and Mr. English answered that the engineering estimates have been revised accordingly. While he anticipates the prices will still be higher, they are hoping that going out to bid earlier in the year will help. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that at the October llth meeting, a member of the public presented a petition, with about 200 signatures, in support of a sidewalk project on Maplewood Drive. She noted that the project is included on the CIP to start receiving funding in 2021. She asked if it would be possible to move this project up to address this long-standing concern. Mr. English said the project has been identified in both the Transportation Master Plan (TIP) and the CIP for a number of years, and the Transportation Engineer has applied for grants several times for funding to design and construct the sidewalk. However, the project has not scored well in competition with other projects in the region. Staff will continue to pursue grant opportunities. If grant funding is obtained, the project could be moved forward. But at this point, all of the large walkway projects will require grant funding to make them happen. Chair Rubenkonig said she is confident that the Traffic Engineer will do what he can to meet the community needs by applying for grant funding. Chair Rubenkonig opened the public hearing, but there was no one in the audience to participate and the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2018 — 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Lovell commented that the City Council will likely have questions and may even change the priority of the projects listed in the plan. He asked if staff could report back to the Board following the City Council's approval to provide Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 7 an update on any changes that were made to the plan. Mr. English agreed to provide a written report to the Board, but noted that information regarding the City Council's discussion and subsequent action will also be available on line. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board Members to the updated extended agenda through January 2018. Mr. Chave advised that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) has requested a joint meeting with the Planning Board on December 13"'. They are interested in talking about their role in the design review process. He explained that the ADB often feels constrained and frustrated because there is very little discretion in design review. They are seeking feedback from the Board about whether the ADB could have more impact by looking at codes and design standards than trying to apply non-existent standards to projects. They have some ideas about how the ADB's role could change or evolve moving forward. Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to provide a list of the projects the ADB has reviewed in 2017. The Board discussed that the December 13"h agenda is quite full, and it may be necessary to push some of the items to January 2018. Mr. Chave agreed to work with Chair Rubenkonig to adjust the December 13"' agenda as needed. Board Member Robles said he is in favor of giving the ADB adequate time to present their thoughts and receive feedback from the Board. They are very experienced and qualified. He commented that, on several occasions, he has expressed the wish that the ADB could be involved in the process of creating and amending the development code. He is sure there are some intersects that will benefit from the ADB's expertise. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Board Members provided comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2017 Page 8