Loading...
2018-02-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 28, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused) Phil Lovell (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER 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 Monroe referred the Board to the written Development Services Director Report that was included in the meeting packet. There were no comments or questions from Board members. PUBLIC HEARING: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for property located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240' Street SW from "Edmonds Way Corridor" (EWC) to "Highway 99 Corridor." The application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Shipley advised that the proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of ten properties located between Highway 99 and Edmonds Way (SR-104), north of the interchange and south of 240r' Street SW. The properties are currently designated as "Edmonds Way Corridor," and the applicant is proposing a change to "Highway 99 Corridor." He emphasized that the proposal before the Board is a land use designation change and not a rezone. Changing the land use designation would not necessarily allow the property owners any other rights than what currently exist. While approval of the proposed change would provide an opportunity to possibly rezone the properties at a later date, the rezone is not the subject of the current application. Mr. Shipley provided a photograph taken in 1964, prior to completion of the Highway 99/SR-104 interchange. He noted that 84t' Avenue was used to connect to what is now SR-104. Up to that point, the subject properties were developed with five single-family homes and mostly forested. However, there were a lot of commercial uses along Highway 99. Next, Mr. Shipley displayed a photograph taken in 1978, after the interchange was completed and one year before the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums were developed. He pointed out that 84t1i Avenue was turned into a cul-de-sac and it remains that way today. Commercial uses continued to exist along Highway 99, as well. Last, Mr. Shipley provided a recent photograph and advised that the subject properties were annexed into the City in 1983. Prior to annexation, the properties were zoned General Commercial (CG), but the City rezoned them to Multi -Family Residential (RM-2.4) at the time of annexation. With the exception of the Jenna Lane Townhomes, all of the existing development was built under the CG zoning and are considered non -conforming under the current RM-2.4 zoning. The existing commercial uses would require a Conditional Use Permit, and only office type commercial uses would be allowed. Mr. Shipley advised that the current development on the subject properties includes a single-family residence built in 1947, two commercial office buildings built in 1952 and 1960, a 38-unit condominium (Edmonds Greenery) built in 1979, and a 5- unit townhome project (Jenna Lane) built in 2015. Outside of Jenna Lane, no major redevelopment has occurred in the area since the City annexed the properties in 1983. The applicant owns three of the four commercially -developed properties, and each of the units in the multi -family developments are under individual ownership. Mr. Shippen explained that the entire area is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor, but there is not really a strong connection to that corridor. Changes in grade make it challenging as does the nearby overpass. It does not appear likely that access will be possible along the Edmonds Way frontage. The intent of the proposal is to enable the properties to have a plan designation that would be more appropriate for the properties and their location. Due to the proximity of Highway 99, a more intensive designation appears to be appropriate, particularly in light of the previous zoning and current development on the property. Shawn Leiser, applicant, pointed out that there is a currently a fence that separates the subject properties from SR-104. Due to the grade change along SR-104, there are also more opportunities to create connections or orientation towards Highway 99. He explained that the cul-de-sac has become a dumping ground for garbage because there is only one single-family home located on that road. In addition, the Washington State Department of Transportation still owns some of the property in the area but does not want to police it. Mr. Shipley referred to the criteria that must be considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. He explained how the proposal meets each of the criteria as follows: • Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The subject properties are adjacent to the Gateway District, which was identified in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as an area to provide an identifying entry point into the City. There has been very little development since the properties were annexed into the City in 1983. If approved, the new designation would allow for parcels to be rezoned in a manner that makes redevelopment economically feasible. In addition, the CG zone has built-in mitigation measures (increased setbacks, building step backs, etc.) for when redevelopment occurs adjacent to Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 2 residential zones. Streetscape improvements would also be required with future redevelopment in an area where no sidewalks currently exist. • Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? At this time, nothing is proposed other than a change in the land use designation. If the request is approved, it is anticipated the property owners would apply for a rezone from RM-2.4 to CG, which would be consistent with the zoning to the east. Currently, the commercial -developed properties are in poor condition and redevelopment would enhance and improve the area, particularly given the stronger development standards that have recently been adopted. • Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? The Edmonds Way Corridor makes up approximately 77 acres and the Highway 99 Corridor about 265 acres. Staff does not believe that shifting a cumulative 2.84 acres from Edmonds Way Corridor to Highway 99 Corridor would 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 development, including, but not limited to, access provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining and uses and absence of physical constraints. The proposal does not require a zoning change at this time, but a traffic analysis will be required with any future rezone. Currently, both access points from Highway 99 and SR-104 are unsignaled. There are already utilities available in the area, but some upgrades may be needed depending on the scale of future development. Ms. Livingston asked if staff anticipates an increase in traffic if the property is redeveloped under the proposed land use designation. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal is a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and would not rezone the property. Until a rezone occurs, it is highly unlikely that anything significant would be developed. A traffic study would be required as part of a rezone application. Lilly Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said she owns one of the commercially -developed properties that is part of the proposal. She currently experiences hardships because the property is not zoned properly. For example, it is difficult for her to get financing to do repairs and remodeling work because the property is considered non -conforming under the current RM-2.4 zoning. Banks do not want to even talk with her because of this issue. The property has been commercially used for almost a half century, and she does not see how the proposed change would result in a negative impact. She also voiced concern that because the property is zoned RM-2.4, more stringent sign restrictions prevent her from getting the exposure she needs to advertise her business. Predrag Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said he shares ownership of the property that is currently being used as a physical therapy office. He said he supports the proposed amendment and asked the Board to recommend approval to the City Council. He expressed his belief that it makes more sense to rezone the commercially -developed properties between Highway 99 and SR-104 to CG. Young Zeon, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1982 and he is against the proposed land use designation change. He agreed that the area has been abandoned, and he and his wife clean 84r' Street on a weekly basis. However, he does not believe that changing the land use designation would make the situation any better. He pointed out that traffic at the intersection of SR-104 and Highway 99 is already congested between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. Unless some type of traffic easement is required, it will continue to get worse. He said he is against any changes that could result in increased population in Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there is potential that an outside developer could come in and change the zoning to develop high -density units on the subject parcels or if the properties would remain an internal community. Mr. Shipley explained that the current land use designation allows low -density type commercial development (Commercial Business, Neighborhood Business, etc.), but these zones have their own issues with setbacks, height limits, etc. It is difficult to make redevelopment pencil out economically under the current land use designation, and only one small development has occurred while the properties have been zoned RM-2.4. Board Member Robles observed that property owners will redevelop properties in their own best interests under the set of rules established by zoning. The proposed change would allow current and future property owners to redevelop to maximize their Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 3 property values. Mr. Shipley agreed that the proposed change would give more opportunity for different types of zoning. Primarily along Highway 99, it is likely that property owners would be interested in rezoning to CG. However, given that a large portion of the area has already been developed as RM-2.4 under fee simple and condominium ownership, there will not likely be a large turnover of property for redevelopment. In addition, the CG zone requires mitigation via step backs, setbacks, etc. when located adjacent to residential development. It is likely that the current multi -family development will remain in place, but the proposed change would give the owners of commercially -developed property a greater opportunity to redevelop. Board Member Robles commented that it appears the impacts would be localized. All property owners would continue to benefit from having services such as police jurisdictions, and residential property owners who do not want large commercial enterprises adjacent to them are assured that any zoning that is put in place would have protections. Mr. Shipley explained that if the commercially -developed properties were eventually rezoned to CG, a number of additional uses would be allowed, but the zoning restrictions would also require buffers, landscaping, setbacks, etc. Board Member Robles said he is concerned that adopting the proposed change could result in additional external investment opportunities, which could take more out of the community than it puts in. However, if redevelopment remains internal so that each property owner optimizes the community, the benefit would stay. He said he is strongly in favor of that, but would like some protection against adverse industries or abuse of location. For example, this is a good location for commuting to Seattle, and he would not be in favor of allowing the property to be redeveloped into a large number of microhomes. He asked if the current code provides sufficient protection against this. Mr. Shipley answered that any development proposal would have to meet the City's design guidelines. The CG zone would allow more flexibility, but it would also require a significant amount of pedestrian infrastructure in an area where no sidewalks currently exist. He summarized that, for a long time, there has been no economic incentive to redevelop the area and many of the buildings are reaching the end of their life. The proposed change offers a great opportunity to build a gateway into Edmonds' Shawn Leiser, applicant, said he was born and raised in Edmonds and recently relocated to Shoreline with his family. He reminded the Board that the current proposal is for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and not a rezone. Any concerns related to zoning would be addressed if and when a rezone application is submitted. He said that if he had been aware of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, he would have participated in the process and suggested that it include the subject parcels. He noted that a fair amount of property along Highway 99 was converted to CG as part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, and all the properties surrounding the subject parcels are now zoned CG. The subject parcels are a stand lone RM-2.4 zone. Mr. Leiser pointed out that the subject parcels are much more oriented towards Highway 99 than SR-104. The properties are located towards Highway 99 and change occurred when the interchange was developed. He said he owns the one single-family home on the cul-de-sac, which is actually oriented towards its backyard because the front door used to access onto SR-104. He said he has owned the property where the home is located for 15 years. It been a rental unit for a fair amount of time and is nearing the end of its lifecycle. He also owns the property where the existing chiropractic office is located. Both properties are ripe for change. Mr. Leiser pointed out that the proposed amendment would not be a drastic change. The likelihood of the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums ever being redeveloped is very slim because each of the 37 units are individually owned. In order to redevelop, someone would have to purchase all of the units. On the other hand, the proposed change would create an opportunity to develop the properties closer to Highway 99 into something the City could be proud of. He said he takes pride in what he does. He has met with all of the landowners near his properties, as well as the attorney that represents the condominium association. All have indicated support for the proposed change. Mr. Leiser said proposed change would also benefit the condominium owners by providing an opportunity to rezone their properties. When the properties were annexed into the City and rezoned to RM-2.4, the 38-unit Edmonds Greenery Condominiums became non -conforming. If a fire were to destroy 75% or more of one of the units, it could not be rebuilt under the current zoning. The proposed change would allow for a plan designation that is more appropriate for the properties and their location. Board Member Crank said she lives in the neighborhood near 84t1i Avenue and 236r' Street and travels the corridors a lot. Everyday when coming home from work in Seattle, she has to make a decision about getting off at Highway 99 and dodging traffic or taking the scenic route home. Traffic can be treacherous, especially in inclement weather, and there are no sidewalks Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 4 to protect pedestrians. She asked staff to share how the proposed change could hypothetically make the situation better for the chiropractic business. She said she empathizes with the cost and restrictions involved with making upgrades to the existing buildings under the current zoning. Mr. Shipley advised that, currently, the property owner would have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in order to do any upgrades, and some of the development standards have changed, as well. While he cannot speak to some of the issues the property owners have dealt with as far as financing, he knows that signage is also restrictive under the current RM-2.4 zoning. Changing the land use would allow more flexibility on what could be done on the site. Mr. Leiser added that the current zoning also has restrictions on lot coverage and greater parking requirements. Changing the zoning would offer property owners relief from some of the parking requirements and allow them signage similar to what other commercial uses along Highway 99 are allowed to have. The change would benefit businesses that provide services for the community. Board Member Cloutier asked if all of the different zones currently located on the subject property would translate directly to a Highway 99 Corridor designation or would some zoning changes be required in order to implement the land use designation change. Mr. Shipley answered that the existing zoning is compatible with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposed change would not change any zoning or force property owners to seek a rezone at some point in the future. However, the proposal would allow a wider variety of zoning to be considered. Any rezone proposal would be handled as a separate application. Mr. Leiser added that, looking into the future, the proposed change would give landowners more opportunity to develop something that falls within the City's code and creates a greater gateway into the City. The subject parcels are some of the first seen as you enter into Edmonds on Highway 99. Chair Monroe said it appears that the subject parcels are underzoned. He asked how many similar situations exist in the City. Mr. Shipley answered that while it is not extremely common, it does occur sometimes, particularly in the southern part of Edmonds. He recalled that few other locations along SR-104 were re -designated last year. He reminded the Board that the properties were rezoned from CG to RM-2.4 when they were annexed into the City and now they are overbuilt based on the current residential zoning. What might have been allowed under Snohomish County's zoning was not allowed under the City's code. Mr. Chave referred to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to point out where the Highway 99 Corridor and the SR-104 Corridor intersect. The subject property is located in the area where the two corridors connect. Part of staffs analysis was to identify which corridor the property relates better to. Given the property's situation, the proposal seems to make more sense, especially with the history that it was previously zoned and developed as CG. The property seems to relate more to Highway 99. Mr. Chave cautioned that it is very speculative to talk about zoning at this point. It will be up to the property owners to decide if and when to pursue a zoning change. The Comprehensive Plan change will open up more options for the property owners. The record indicates there are some issues with the existing uses related to current zoning, and the zoning does not quite match with the existing mixture of uses. Chair Monroe summarized that it sounds like there is a list of characteristics appropriate for the subject properties, and approval of the Comprehensive Plan change would not propagate to the rest of the City. Mr. Chave responded that this is a unique situation, since these are the only properties that front on both corridors. The question the Board needs to consider is what makes more sense, and staff believes the best option is for the properties to orient towards Highway 99. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. Mr. Shipley invited the Board to formulate a recommendation to forward to the City Council, noting that athe City Council would conduct another public hearing before making a final decision. Board Member Crank explained the reasoning behind her earlier question about how the proposed change would impact the existing businesses. Even though it sounds like the proposal makes sense on paper, it is also important to have a clear understanding of how the change would impact existing development. It is also important to understand how existing development and uses would be impacted if the proposal is denied. Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 5 BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE TEN SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL AREAS ALLOWED ACTIVITIES/SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave advised that this is a follow up to a previous Planning Board discussion about potential amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). A concern was brought to the City Council's attention that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration projects within critical areas or their buffers. As currently written, restoration work greater than 1,500 square feet over a three-year period requires a critical area report. It was pointed out that development of these reports adds time and cost that may be excessive for the size and intent of a project. This is particularly true with projects done by non-profit or citizen groups who have limited resources. The City has had good experiences working with citizen groups to remove invasive species and do appropriate planting and restoration efforts. The City Council forwarded the issue to the Planning Board to consider, and several options were provided. Staff is in favor of amending the CAO as appropriate to encourage restoration projects and has prepared draft language for the Board's consideration. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for March 14'. He referred to Page 73 of the Staff Report, which outlines the proposed amendment, which would add the following language to Section 23.40.220(C)(8)(a): "For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, vegetation removed under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitations up to a maximum of 2,500 square feet annually, if i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization approved by the City that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity. ii. Provides a specific proposal identifying the scope ad location of the project, provides for project supervision, and a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department." Mr. Chave noted that the new language would only apply to wetlands and streams and their buffers and not to steep slopes, where life safety issues must be considered. In these situations, it is critical to have a consultant report attached to each project to ensure that the work is done appropriately and safely. Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to have some limitations in place so you cannot do wholesale clearing of a large property, but the proposed new language would raise the limits fairly significantly. It also includes criteria for determining whether a project is good or not. The notion is that staff would review the qualifications and experience of the organization or group who is proposing the project, as well as the proposed plan and schedule to make sure what is being proposed is appropriate and that there will be appropriate supervision. Mr. Chave said the current language was crafted using the City of Seattle's code as a reference. Since that time, the City of Seattle has eliminated the square foot limitation entirely. Staff is not entirely sure that the square footage limitation is necessary, but it was included for discussion purposes. Board Member Robles said that, as discussed previously, it would be helpful to have an inventory showing how much land in Edmonds has been designated as critical areas. This would give the Board a better idea of how broad the proposed change would apply throughout the City. The Board also indicated it would be appropriate to define the consultant qualifications and how staff assesses their credentials. Board Member Robles commented that some invasive species can represent a danger, and it might be appropriate to require a consultant to have "error and omission" insurance for these situations. However, he would not want this requirement to apply to all restoration projects. He commented that it would make sense to remove all of an invasive species as part of the same Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 6 project regardless of the number of square feet. Otherwise, it will quickly grow back. He suggested a better approach would be to have a 2,500 square foot limitation for citizen or non-profit groups, but no limit for projects that are done by consultants who have error and omission insurance. He said that, overall, he supports the proposed amendments and staff s efforts to seek a solution. Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the Board's last discussion, concern was raised about how to make sure those doing restoration work are qualified and that they do what they say they are going to do. The Board also discussed the importance of having someone approve the process and plan. He appreciates that the proposed language addresses all of these issues. Chair Monroe suggested that Items i and ii seem redundant. Mr. Chave explained that individuals or organizations who clear invasive species from critical areas have to have some knowledge to make sure the project is done right. In some cases, replanting might be necessary, and there are experts and organizations who have done this type of work for a long time. They can train others on how to do it properly. While restoration projects are not usually difficult, it is important to know what you are doing. For example, there have been situations where people have removed invasive species without planting, and erosion has occurred. There can be negative impacts if projects are not done right. Mr. Chave said the City does not necessarily want to be in the business of cleaning and restoring critical areas, but they need to make sure, at the outset, that people know what they are doing. The proposed amendment will streamline the process and avoid enforcement issues later on. Enforcement issues are much more difficult to resolve than having some assurance that projects will be done right in the first place. Chair Monroe suggested that Item ii would provide that assurance, and perhaps Item i is unnecessary. Mr. Chave responded that Item ii does not identify who will do the work. It simply talks about what will be done. The City needs to make sure there is some training and level of understanding about what is involved in the project. Chair Monroe voiced concern that the term "demonstrate experience and expertise" is not well defined and can be subjective. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that staff would be able to apply the language as currently proposed. He agreed it may limit some types of people who can do the work without supervision, but it only applies to projects that exceed the threshold. It will not prohibit a property owner from cleaning up invasive species along his/her section of a stream. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Edmonds Marsh is extremely large. If the intent is to construct walking paths through it, it is likely that the amount of invasive species will increase. It will be important for the City to have the ability to eradicate these species on a large scale. He asked if there is a mechanism by which a project can exceed 2,500 square feet. Mr. Chave answered that larger -scale projects would require a critical area report. He noted that City recently approved the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department's program for a series of activities that will take place around the marsh. The program was prepared by a consultant and identifies how the activities will be done and who will supervise. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the 1,500 threshold would trigger additional review so the 2,500 threshold could actually be eliminated. Any work over 1,500 square feet will be reviewed by staff, and staff will determine if it is too little or too much. The remainder of the Board concurred. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the March 14'h agenda will include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance addressing select vegetation removal as an allowed activity. It will also include a review and discussion about the Urban Forest Management Plan. The March 281 meeting will include a presentation and discussion about the draft Housing Strategy. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Board Member provided comments during this portion of the meeting. Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 8