Loading...
2018-03-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 14, 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 Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES 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 Board Member Robles referred to the report on the Puget Sound Regional Council, which talks about anticipated growth in the Puget Sound region. He suggested that "2015" should actually be "2050." He also suggested that the job growth numbers might also be inaccurate. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the Tree Board is scheduled to have a presentation and discussion on the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) on April 5r''. She suggested that a Board Member should attend that presentation. Board Member Lovell agreed to attend the meeting. He pointed out that the consultant would present the UFMP to the Planning Board on March 28'. Mr. Chave added that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 25' PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) ALLOWED ACTIVITIES/SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave recalled that the Board discussed this item at their February 281 meeting. He explained that, during a meeting with the City Council when a report on the CAO was being presented, a citizen raised a concern about the "Select Vegetation Removal" provision (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8). The citizen noted that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration projects because the development of a Critical Area Report adds time and costs that may be excessive for the size and intent of the project, particularly when the project is being done by a non-profit or citizen group with limited resources. The City Council referred the issue to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. They asked the Board to review the provision and see if some adjustments could be made so that restoration activities would not be hampered by the provision. Mr. Chave advised that ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 outlines the provisions for select vegetation removal activities and primarily governs situations where someone is attempting to remove and/or control invasive species. It applies to all critical areas, including wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat corridors and steep slopes. These activities can be performed as part of development, by a property owner, by a non-profit or other organization, by the City as part of parks maintenance activities, and with habitat restoration projects via partnerships between the City and local organizations. Mr. Chave explained that, as per the current code, restoration and/or vegetation removal projects over 1,500 square feet in area over a cumulative 3-year period require a Critical Area Report. Concern was raised that this might discourage some on -going restoration and/or vegetation removal activities. Non -profits have limited resources, and the provision could make it difficult for them to allocate resources to the actual activities if they are required to hire a consultant to prepare a report and supervise the activity. Mr. Chave reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Commission considered a number of options and agreed with the language contained in the draft amendment currently before the Board. He referred to the draft language included in the Staff Report. He advised that, as per the proposed amendment, the restriction on the area of work would not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals who have experience in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. He emphasized that the amendment would only change how projects in wetlands and streams are handled. Other critical areas, such as landslide hazard areas, have potential life/safety issues that are of more concern. For example, on steep slopes, it is important to make sure the slope remains stable and is not undercut in any way. He noted that even invasive species can help stabilize a slope, and it is important to make sure that removal activities to not create hazardous situation that result in erosion or slides. As currently proposed, Mr. Chave advised that for activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, vegetation removal may exceed the 1,500-foot limitation if: 1. 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, and 2. The project sponsor provides a specific proposal identifying the scope and location of the project, provides the project supervision, and includes a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department. Mr. Chave said the general concern is that the City will need to have confidence that restoration project actions will be moving in the direction of returning the critical area or its buffer functions and values to its unaltered state. To do this, the City will need assurance that the organization or individual is qualified to do the project and provide the proper supervision. The proposed amendment provides clear guidance for staff to review and approve projects. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he is a retired fisheries biologist. For the past three years, he has been working with the Edmonds Woodway High School student group, Students Saving Salmon, which is interested in improving habitat for salmon. He said he has participated in multiple restoration projects in cooperation with EarthCorp and Sound Salmon Solutions, so he is very familiar with restoration efforts. He said he approached the City Council with a request that the provision be changed because it was impeding new restoration projects. He said he worked with the students last fall to do a parcel on private property at Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 2 Holy Rosary Church but found that the 1,500 square foot limit was too restrictive. He commented that the restriction complicates projects and puts unnecessary burdens on groups or individuals who are trying to do something that benefits habitat. He pointed out that, currently, the provision only deals with removal of vegetation or invasive species and says nothing about replanting. That means that someone could remove vegetation from up to 1,500 square feet of area without replanting. This could be a problem on steep slopes in landslide hazard areas. He suggested that the provision was not well thought out from the beginning. Mr. Scordino said he supports the proposed amendment, which would no longer restrict habitat restoration projects in streams and wetlands without a consultant's report. However, he suggested that the amendment should not apply to geographically unstable areas. These areas should require a consultant review to ensure that slope stability is maintained. Mr. Scordino advised that coordinating habitat restoration projects on private property using volunteers is not an easy task. For the project last fall, they started planning in April. He cautioned against having restrictions that confound and stifle the effort. He said he understands the City's concern that the work should be planned and managed by qualified people, However, since the exception only applies to wetlands and streams, he suggested that the threshold be raised to 2,000 square feet annually as long as the projects include replanting of native species. He agreed that large projects should require additional professional assistance, but a 2,000 square foot area is not that large when you are talking about restoration where there is a lot of invasive species. You need to work large enough areas to make sure the invasive plants to not regenerate. He asked the Board to move its recommendation to the City Council now so that groups can begin planning restoration projects for this fall. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Robles recalled that at their last meeting, the Board discussed provisions for a larger area because of the repopulation problem associated with invasive species. However, he said he does not recall discussing a replanting requirement, which sounds like a good idea. He asked if additional language needs to be added to the draft amendment to address a replanting requirement. Board Member Lovell said he was not at the February 28' meeting, but he reviewed the minutes, specifically noting the comment made by Board Member Cloutier that since a review is required for anything over 1,500 square feet, it does not do any good to include a limit of 2,500 square feet as originally proposed. By the same token, he asked if it is inherently understood that replacement would be required for any project, regardless of size. He also asked if staff would do a more thorough, high- level review of very large projects or if the review criteria would be the same. Mr. Chave referred to the introductory language in ECDC 23.40.220, which states that activities allowed under the provision must be reviewed and approved by the City and may or may not require a Critical Area Report. It allows the Director to apply conditions to the approval, and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is required. BMPs would not allow someone to remove a bunch of vegetation along a stream bank and then leave it bare for an extended period of time. Staff would not approve this type of project. However, there may be situations where ivy is removed so that the underlying vegetation can grow and take over. As proposed, staff could actually work with proponents to determine if replanting is needed and what types of plants should be used. However, there needs to be a threshold in place. A 1,500 square foot threshold makes some sense because many of the streams are on downtown lots that are relatively small. A 1,500 square foot project on a 6,000 square foot lot is substantial. For project that go above the threshold, the City wants to see what is proposed to make sure some level of expertise is involved. However, a Critical Area Report would not be required. Mr. Chave observed that people are looking out more and more for the streams and critical areas in their neighborhoods. When they see clearing activities, they often contact the City to find out what is going on. If they raise the threshold too high, the City will not know what is going on. He suggested that is it part of a good stewardship program to actually require people who want to do larger areas to coordinate with the City so everyone knows what is going on. He said he views this approach as a partnership rather than a regulation. Board Member Robles asked why it takes six months for an organization to go through the process to obtain City approval for a project. Mr. Chave clarified that Mr. Scordino was speaking to the coordination needed on behalf of the organization. It does not take the City six months to review a proposed project. Mr. Scordino's point was it takes the organizations a long time to put projects together. Having regulations that require them to hire a consultant can add to the difficulty of putting a project together. The proposed amendment would not require an elaborate consultant study. They just need to put down on paper Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 3 what the project will be, how it will be managed, who will supervise, and who will do the work. It is a matter of submitting enough information for the City to be assured the project will be done correctly. Regarding the proposed 1,500 square foot threshold, Mr. Chave said it makes sense to have a limit. However, they can talk about what a reasonable threshold would be. He cautioned that he becomes more uncomfortable the higher the threshold is set. The City does not want to be enforcers when someone clears out vegetation without replanting and the streambank begins to erode. The work may be done by an innocent person who simply does not know that something needs to be done to stabilize the bank. Board Member Robles commented that it is great to see the community pull together to do projects like this. The last thing the City wants to do is put up roadblocks to this sort of environment. He would like to see the process streamlined as much as possible. Mr. Chave agreed and felt the proposed amendment would do just that. Chair Monroe observed that any project that requires the community to work together will likely be greater than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed and reminded the Board that there would be no square foot limitation as long as the organization or individual submits a plan that is approved by the City. A Critical Area Report would not be required. For example, an organization could submit a plan to control vegetation in an area over the next three years. This enables the City to approve the entire project and the applicant would not have to submit an application each year. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the two requirements would not be onerous. They are simply a check -in to make sure they are taking care of their critical area. Mr. Chave said organizations that do this work on a regular basis would not have difficulty providing the information required by the City. Chair Monroe asked if the City has received any feedback from the industry regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Chave answered no but he does not believe they would be onerous or difficult to meet. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the proposed amendments, which are consistent with the direction recommended by City Council Member Buckshnis. The intent was that the provisions be supportive of responsible restoration and reduce the roadblocks that are in currently in place for good community organizations. However, there are a few issues she would like staff to respond to. • As to technique, when invasive species are removed according to BMPs, the area will immediately be planted with native plants. However, that is not specifically called out in the code language. She asked if replanting would be addressed in the plan submitted to the City for projects greater than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Chave said that is correct. • What happens if a project stops and does not progress. Mr. Chave responded that these situations would be handled administratively by staff, and there are mechanisms in place to try to make sure that does not happen. • As far as errors of omission, what happens to developers who post bonds that say the project will be completed or the bond will be forfeited. Mr. Chave said these concerns are typically associated with development projects, and most of the restoration projects that take place in the City are non -project situations. These issues would be handled administratively by staff and would not need to be addressed in the proposed amendment. • Are there guaranteed results that the City would expect from a project over 1,500 square feet? If so, would this be part of the plan that is submitted to the City? Mr. Chave said the plan would describe the scope of the project, what they intend to do, how they will do it, and what the ultimate result will be. It may require more than a year to get a project done, so the City could inspect at the end of each phase. However, the Board is not being asked to become involved in that level of detail. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendment could be applicable in the following situations: A private land owner can decide to allow a volunteer group to come onto his/her property to do a restoration project. A private citizen can reach out to the City for direction on improving the habitat on the stream that crosses his/her property, and the City already serves in this capacity. The Parks Department has already received approval of a work plan that was prepared by a consultant to do restoration work around the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department would oversee and coordinate all of the activities that occur at the marsh consistent with the approved plan Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 4 • A developer could request a non-profit group to be part of a restoration project on private property, and the proposed amendment would not preclude this. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if amending the CAO as proposed by staff would be consistent and compatible with a future potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave answered that the amendment could be applied in the shoreline jurisdiction, but it would require a separate process. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 1,500 square foot cumulative threshold would still apply. Mr. Chave said it would remain in the provision for steep slope situations, etc. It would also apply to activities along streams and in wetlands that do not meet the two criteria. Chair Monroe added that you could also submit a Critical Area Report for a larger project. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Mr. Scordino's request that the threshold be set at 2,000 square feet per year rather than a cumulative 1,500 square feet over a 3-year period. She noted that staff has recommended that the 3-year cumulative threshold remain as currently written. Mr. Chave said that, as currently written, the 1,500 square foot cumulative threshold would apply to steep slopes and would also be the default for any activity that does not meet the two criteria. However, there would be two other avenues to exceed the limit: hire a professional consultant to prepare a Critical Area Report or partner with an organization that can show it has expertise in these types of projects and submit a written plan. Chair Monroe reviewed that Mr. Scordino requested a larger threshold. It is really a question of whether the City wants to error on the side of being conservative or allow people to do whatever they want under 2,000 square each year. He pointed out that a 2,000 square foot per year threshold would equate to a total of 6,000 square feet over a 3-year period. This is a substantial change over the current restriction. Increasing the threshold would mean that anyone could do the work without requiring assistance from a professional consultant or qualified organization. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about raising the threshold, which would open it up for anyone to do the work, including those without expertise. Mr. Chave said the intent is to have the discussion up front, and point people doing larger projects to the right resources, etc. It is a lot easier to do this than having to deal with situations later on. They tried to make the provision the least difficult and onerous as possible. Board Member Robles said he would like to see an advantage given to professionals who want to work with the community, and it seems the proposed language would accomplish this goal. The limitations would not apply to projects that meet certain provisions. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT IT BE NOTED THAT NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE LANGAUGE PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe briefly reviewed the extended agenda, noting that a pre -presentation on the Housing Strategy would be provided on March 28', along with a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan. This will give the Board an opportunity to provide feedback on the Housing Strategy before it is written in draft form for the public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig asked when the Five Corners Subarea Plan would next appear on the Board's agenda. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council still has to discuss the Board's recommendation relative to the feasibility study and decide what action they want to have take place. All of this must occur before the issue comes back to the Board for further work. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the February 21't Economic Development Commission meeting, where most of the discussion centered around two specific items the Commission has been dealing with. They made a Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 5 recommendation to the City Council to adjust the I" floor building height in the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone from 15 feet to 12 feet. The City Council has taken the recommendation under advisement but sent it to committee for further study. The second item is a study being undertaken by the Commission with respect to a potential disposition of City -owned properties. The idea is that the City may want to sell some existing buildings and/or property in order to improve its economic picture. Alternatively, the displaced activities would be moved to other locations. The Commission also discussed its mission to identify potential changes that could improve or impact the City's economic condition. Typically, the ideas would be assigned to a subcommittee of the Commission for further study and recommendation. After a recommendation has been accepted by the entire Commission, it would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Commission's activities do not involve checking in with the Planning Board to get concurrence on matters. However, at some point, each item goes to the City Council, and the City Council may decide to forward some of them to the Planning Board. He noted that there are two vacant positions on the Commission, which have been advertised by the City. Board Members should encourage interested individuals to submit applications. Board Member Lovell said he also serves on the task force undertaking further study and beginning preliminary design of the emergency railroad crossing at the end of Edmonds Street. The task force has had one meeting to discuss various structural possibilities to create the span and transition into Brackett's Landing. A public meeting was held on February 28r' where people were invited to share their thoughts on a variety of schemes. The taskforce will narrow the schemes down to just two and forward a recommendation to the City Council. At some point, the matter will likely come before the Planning Board for review, as well. The task force will hold its second meeting in April, on a date to be determined. Board Member Robles gave a shout out to Arturo at Starbucks, who did something very nice for an individual. The people in Edmonds, in general, treat each other with respect, independent of social status, and it is nice to see random acts of kindness happening throughout the City. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 6