Loading...
2018-08-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 8, 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 Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Board Member Lovell recalled that when recommending approval of the amendments related to quasi-judicial decision processes, the Board emphasized the need for the Council to really understand what they will be giving up by approving the amendments. Mr. Lien summarized that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the appeal process in land use decisions, which means the Council would no longer hear appeals for decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and Architectural Design Board. The Council would still conduct close record hearings and make the final decision regarding site - specific rezones and development agreements. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was amended to add a discussion about a Planning Board retreat. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report and invited Board Members to comment. Board Member Lovell announced that the draft Housing Strategy was introduced to the City Council on July 24t1i. Per their request, the City will host a public open house on August 27t' in the Brackett Room on the 3' Floor of City Hall. Following a brief presentation, it is anticipated the public will be invited to share ideas. Board Member Rosen advised that he posted the open house notice on the Nextdoor website in an effort to engage more people in the conversation. Board Member Lovell reported that the Economic Development Commission cancelled its August meeting, so their next meeting will be September 19'. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires each city and county with "shorelines of the state" to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific needs of the local community. The SMA also requires that SMPs be updated at least once every eight years, and the City is required to complete its periodic review by June 30, 2019. Mr. Lien explained that a periodic review is different than a comprehensive review. The City just completed its comprehensive review in June of 2017, completely overhauling the SMP to be consistent with state guidelines found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The periodic review is a statutory requirement of all cities and counties in the state. The periodic review is intended to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with the City's other plans, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. Mr. Lien referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 and identifies the amendments that are needed to make the City `s SMP consistent. He explained that the SMA comprehensive review took a number of years to complete and some of the recent amendments and shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated. He noted that none of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the SMP. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments identified on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few additional amendments as part of the update. He explained that updates to the SMP may result from the site -specific study of the Edmonds Marsh that is currently in progress. These amendments may include updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and modifying the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline jurisdiction. Staff is also recommending language to clarify the process for moving shoreline permit review from a staff decision (Type II) to a public hearing process (Type III). In addition, staff is recommending that the City revise its Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) wetland regulations for consistency with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) most recent Wetland Guidance. He reminded the Board that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of their updated Wetland Guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance. As a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency for wetland regulations throughout the City. Mr. Lien reviewed each of the proposed amendments with the Board as follows: • ECDC 24.80.010.B.1— Cost Threshold for Substantial Development Permit (2017.a). The Office of Financial Management (OFM) revised the cost threshold above which a development will require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) to $7,047. The 2012-2017 amount of $6,416 was simply adjusted for inflation. The new threshold was effective September 2, 2017. Staff is proposing that the dollar amount in the City's SMP be updated accordingly. • ECDC 24.90.020.D — Definition of Development (2017.b). The DOE amended its permit rules to clarify that the definition of "development" does not include projects that involve only dismantling or removing structures without any associated development or redevelopment. Staff is proposing a new sentence be added to the definition of "development." Board Member Lovell asked if this new definition would apply to the demolition of Haynes Wharf. Mr. Lien answered that it would apply to removal of the bulkhead and other development landward, but he is not sure it would apply to the wharf, itself, since it is located in the water. • ECDC 24.80.025 — Exceptions to Local Review Under SMA (2017.c). The DOE adopted WAC 173-27-004 to consolidate three separate laws that create special exceptions to applicability of local SMPs. As proposed, a new section would be added to ECDC 24.80.025 to identify the types of development actions that are exempt from review under the Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 2 City's SMP. These include: remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions, boatyard improvements to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and certain Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) maintenance and safety projects and activities. The change is consistent with what the City has been doing in practice. ECDC 24.70.020.1) and G — Nonconforming Use and Development (2017.g). The introductory paragraph clarifies that the rule is a default rule that only applies if a local government has no provisions in their local SMP to address nonconforming uses. The City's SMP contains a nonconforming development chapter (ECDC 24.70), so this provision would not be applicable. However, staff is recommending a revision to ECDC 24.70.020.13, which currently requires a nonconforming structure that is moved any distance to be brought into full conformance. This provision is potentially a disincentive to moving structures away from the shoreline so they are less nonconforming. As proposed, the change would require a nonconforming structure to be moved "as far as practical" from the shoreline. This change allows more flexibility to get something better that is less nonconforming. The DOE is recommending that the time period for obtaining permits to replace damaged development be extended from 6 months to 2 years. Even in normal circumstances, it can take longer than 6 months to prepare an application, and staff believes a longer timeframe is warranted when a development has been damaged. However, staff is recommending an 18-month time period to be consistent with the timeframe in the nonconformance chapter of the code. • Expansion of Nonconforming Use via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The DOE suggested allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses through a CUP. However, the City does not have a similar provision in its nonconforming code or zoning code. Staff does not believe this is something the City should allow, so no amendment has been proposed. • ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 and C.3 — Periodic Reviews (2017.h). The DOE adopted new rules in 2017 that spell out the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews of SMPs as required by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.080(4). Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 be amended to update the frequency of the periodic review from 7 to 8 years. In addition, a new sentence would be added under the Administrative Authority and Responsibility section. (ECDC 24.80.150.C.3). • Process for Submitting the SMP to the DOE (2017.j). Board Member Lovell asked if the City's SMP contains a description of the SMP submittal process for the DOE's review. Mr. Lien answered that it does not; and therefore, no amendment is needed. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.16 — Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Permit Exemption (2016.a). The legislature created a new SDP exemption for retrofitting existing structures for ADA compliance. The City's current list of exemptions does not include ADA retrofitting, and staff is proposing that the list be updated accordingly. • ECDC 24.80.105.A and B — 90 Day Target for Local Review for WSDOT Projects (2015.a). The legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of WSDOT projects. The law allows WSDOT projects that address safety risks to begin 21 days after the date of filing if the project will achieve no net loss of ecological function. Staff is recommending a new section (ECDC 24.80.105) to add this special procedure. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b — Replacement Docks on Lakes and Rivers (2014.a). The legislature raised the cost threshold for requiring an SDP for replacement docks on lakes and rivers from $10,000 to $20,000. Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b be amended to reflect this updated dollar threshold. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how "fair market value" is determined, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be based on the value of the project. Docks have a certain value assigned to them in the table the City uses to apply the building code, and this same table would be used when implementing this SMP provision. The intent is to prevent someone from replacing a dock and then doing small additions later to avoid the permit requirement. • ECDC 24.80.095 — Shoreline Restoration Projects within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) (2009.a). The legislature created new "relief' procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) resulting in a hardship for properties subject to new and extra regulations. The new procedures were a response to concerns that the SMP regulations could stop or significantly alter restoration projects. This Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 3 "relief' procedure is not explicitly referenced in the current SMP, and staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.095 be amended to adopt the "relief' rule by reference. Another option would be to incorporate the rule into the SMP to make it clear that the process is available. The rule allows people to do restoration projects that expand the OHWM further landward without expanding the shoreline jurisdiction, as well. This new rule could be applied at the Edmonds Marsh as part of the City's project to daylight Willow Creek. • ECDC 24.90.020.GG — Options for Defining Floodway (2007.a). The legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps or the floodway criteria set forth in the SMA. Currently, neither the CAO or the SMP define the term "floodway." Staff is recommending that a definition be added to ECDC 24.90.020.G. that uses the FEMA maps. The "SMA floodway" described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA Floodway Map, which is derived from a model. Currently, no floodways have been identified in Edmonds. • List and Map of Streams and Lakes (2007.b). The DOE amended the rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs must include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. The City's shoreline jurisdictions are defined within the text of the SMP and on maps. Staff is recommending that the shoreline jurisdictions be reviewed and revised as necessary. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.15 — Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects (2007.c). The DOE's rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects. The City's SMP provides an exemption for fish habitat enhancement projects, but it does not include all of the language in WAC 173.27.040(2)(p). Rather than adopting language to match the WAC rule, staff is suggesting that ECDC 24.80.010.13.15 be amended to include a reference to the WAC rule. That way, the City won't have to amend the section again if the WAC rule changes at some point in the future. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments outlined above, which are intended to ensure consistency with changes to state laws and rules, staff is considering modifications to the following elements of the SMP: • Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state relatively late in the previous SMP update and appropriate shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh was the subject of significant public comment and discussion before the City Council. The City is working with a consultant to assess the ecological functions of the marsh and evaluate buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. Results from this study will be used to update the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and could result in modifications to the UMU-IV shoreline regulations. ECDC 20.80.100 —Public Hearings. ECDC 24.80.100 identifies when a public hearing is required for an SDP. In some cases, the SDP may begin the process as a Type II staff decision but change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner if requested during the comment period. Staff is recommending that ECDC 24.80.100 be amended to clarify this process, which would be similar to the contingent review process in the CAO (ECDC 23.40.195). As per the proposed process, an SDP that does not trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or require an open record hearing would be a Type 11 staff decision. Staff would issue a notice of application, followed by a 14-day public comment period. If someone requests a public hearing during the public comment period, the application would be bumped up to a Type III decision by the Hearing Examiner. The application fee would increase from $880 (Type 11) to $1,820 (Type III), and the person requesting the hearing would be required to pay 50% of this additional cost. The applicant would be responsible for the other half of the fee, and the City would pay the Hearing Examiner costs. Board Member Lovell suggested that the language in ECDC 24.80.100(A)(4) needs to be changed to provide more clarity relative to who would pay the fees when an application changes from a Type II to Type III decision. Mr. Lien agreed to review the language for clarification. • ECDC 24.40.020 — Critical Areas. As discussed earlier, this section of the code would be amended to adopt the updated CAO provisions for wetlands into the SMP by reference. The City is currently working to update the CAO to be consistent with the DOE's newest 2018 Wetland Guidance. Once the CAO has been updated and adopted by reference in to the SMP, the wetland section of the SMP can be deleted. The result will be one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. Mr. Lien summarized that the work program going forward identifies additional Planning Board study sessions before the public hearing. However, the proposed periodic changes are minor, and the Board may be ready to move on to the public Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 4 hearing without any additional study sessions. After the public hearing and public comment period, staff will respond to the comments received and then the Board can formalize its recommendation to the City Council. The Edmonds Marsh Study is ongoing and the timeline for updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization has not been finalized. Staff will conduct a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review at about the same time as the public hearing. A page was created on the City's website to provide information about the SMP Periodic Review, including the checklist, work program, public participation plan and links to Planning Board agendas and minutes. The Board agreed that no additional study session is necessary before the public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding is that the Edmonds Marsh Study will not be completed before the Board acts on the SMP Periodic Review. Mr. Lien agreed that the study would not be completed, but the part that needs to be acted upon, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, should be available this fall. The study will not impact any of the proposed code changes identified on the checklist. However, after it has been completed, along with a buffer study, the City Council may want to change the buffers and setbacks for the UMU-IV shoreline jurisdiction. These changes would come later and will not be part of this periodic update. PLANNING BOARD RETREAT The Board discussed the following list of potential agenda topics for their retreat: 1. Identify, invite and host a non-profit housing developer or affordable housing "oriented" developer to meet and talk about strategies for putting together such a project in Edmonds. 2. Have a staff member present and lead a discussion regarding available building land within Edmonds. 3. Pick a given area or property in Edmonds and discuss the applicable regulatory steps and/or modification necessary for said property to accommodate affordable housing. 4. Increasing the Board's effectiveness in service to the Council. 5. Increasing the Board's effectiveness and efficiency in working with staff. 6. Increasing public engagement. 7. Defining a vision of success as a Board. 8. Hold an open forum for local business owners to offer ideas and suggestions on how to improve the business district. 9. Bring in a consultant that specializes in increasing to tourism to cities. Given the amount of public interest, Board Member Rosen suggested that Topic 1 might be more appropriately discussed in a regular meeting that allows the public to engage in the conservation. Board Member Lovell agreed that the draft Housing Strategy has ignited a lot of feedback from the public, and the City Council has expressed to staff that they want more public input before carrying their discussions further. They scheduled a public open house for August 27. Board Member Lovell said he suggested Topics 1 through 3 because he thought the issue of housing would be a big concern coming up in the City and it would be good for the Board Members to become better educated on the topic. He said he supports the idea of bringing in a developer to talk about what could be developed and how the City could help, whether the discussion takes place at a retreat or a regular meeting. Board Member Crank recalled that she previously suggested the Board invite a representative from Blockable to do a presentation at the Board's retreat or as part of a regular meeting. In addition, she suggested it would be helpful to have a presentation/discussion about housing development in general, and not just focused on affordable housing. Focusing too much on affordable housing created a lot of stress, misinformation and negative connotations amongst the public, when the Housing Strategy is really about diversifying the housing strategy. It would be helpful to have a general presentation around the potential housing inventory for all types of housing. Chair Monroe commented that this general discussion about housing would be more appropriate for a regular meeting rather than the retreat. Board Member Crank observed that the Planning Board is also the Parks Board, yet it has been quite some time since the Board has had any park -related discussions. She suggested the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be invited to provide an update on parks, especially as it pertains to accommodating the population growth related to development. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like the presentation to go beyond the regular quarterly report, perhaps an overall presentation about what is going on at all the parks. Board Member Rosen commented that if the Board's concern is that staff is not Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 5 providing enough information or that the Board does not have meaningful involvement in park -related matters, they should bring this up with staff rather than discussing it at the retreat. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the retreat is intended to be a time for the Board to strategize rather than address specific policy issues. Talking about the business district and tourism (Topics 8 and 9) would be great discussions for an Economic Development Commission retreat, but that is not the Board's charge. Public engagement (Topic 6) would be a great topic, but is not part of the Board's charter, either. Strategizing on how the Board can more effectively serve the Council (Topic 4) would be an appropriate retreat discussion, but it would be helpful to first meet jointly with the City Council to agree on the issues they want the Board to address, as well as the level of Board involvement. All of the topics related to housing (Topics 1, 2 and 3) are already addressed in some form in the draft Housing Strategy, and he cautioned against the Board rehashing or rewriting the Housing Strategy at this time. However, once the Housing Strategy is adopted, it might be helpful to have a discussion with the Council about what strategies, if any, they want the Board to pursue. Board Member Cloutier suggested another retreat topic could be figuring out exactly what the Board needs to be working on. Rather than falling prey to focusing on issues that other groups are already working to address, the Board could review matrices to identify what the City is doing wrong and how to address it. Edmonds is primarily built out but still needs to accommodate a certain population. Studying a variety of matrices could help the Board identify whether the City is on track to meet its goals. If not, the matrices could be used to help identify the problems and opportunities that need to be addressed. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is interested in pursuing Topic 3 so the Board can gain a better understanding of what it takes to do a housing project in Edmonds. She felt the Board's knowledge of the regulations and processes associated with development could be deepened, and staff is well suited to explain this to them. Board Member Rosen said he is interested in Topic 4 because having a common vision of the Council's expectations and the Board's desire to serve would be helpful. He said he often sees Board Members hesitating and second guessing their decisions. Board Member Lovell pointed out that, to a large extent, the Board's agenda is focused on items having to do with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as well as specific items the City Council wants them to consider. Board Member Rosen said he suggested Topic 6 because he believes the City can improve its public engagement efforts to reach more people. He referred to the Urban Forest Management Plan and Housing Strategy as two examples where lack of communication resulted in misunderstanding and confusion amongst the public. Although the City's outreach plans provide multiple opportunities for the public to engage, the opportunities are either the wrong forms of engagement or the City is not doing a good job advising the public of their opportunities to participate and provide input. Providing opportunities for meaningful public engagement is something the Board is charged with doing, and recent public comments indicate they could do a better job. Although it is not the Board's burden, the Board needs to have confidence that someone in the City is addressing the issue. Board Member Crank suggested that defining the Board's vision of success (Topic 7) might be appropriate for the retreat. It would be good for the Board to have a discussion and figure out collectively what defines success as a Board. Chair Monroe said it would be helpful to understand how much buildable land in Edmonds is available for housing development. Mr. Lien advised that a Buildable Lands Inventory was done as part of the major Comprehensive Plan update in 2016, and he agreed to email the Board Members a link to the document. The Board tentatively scheduled the retreat for September 12'. They also generally agreed that it would be best to postpone discussions related to the Housing Strategy until after the City Council has acted and provided additional direction to the Board on what strategies they want to tackle first. There was some agreement that the retreat should focus on Topics 5, 6, and 7, and perhaps Topic 3, too. Chair Monroe agreed to work with staff to finalize a date for the retreat and narrow down the agenda topics. He agreed to email a draft agenda to the Board members for feedback. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe announced that the August 22nd agenda will include a public hearing on potential amendments to the Critical Area Ordinance wetland regulations. He said he will be meeting with staff to discuss and update the extended agenda. The Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 6 Board requested that an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be scheduled within the next month or so. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank reported that she attended the August 71 City Council meeting where the City was presented an award for its Highway 99 Subarea Plan. She was also able to hear how the City Council is not happy with the Urban Forest Management Plan, which may come back to the Board at some point. Mr. Lien advised that the Development Services Director is working with Mayor Earling to determine the next steps, but nothing has been decided yet. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 7