Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-04-24 Planning Board Packet
o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 24, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: March 27, 2019 Retreat Minutes and April 10, 2019 Meeting Minutes 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Official Street Map Amendment — Eliminate planned right-of-way north of 184th Ave W, between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (File No. PLN20190011) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction to Nonconforming Building Code Amendments - ECDC 17.40.020 B. Role of the Planning Board 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda April 24, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes: March 27, 2019 Retreat Minutes and April 10, 2019 Meeting Minutes Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft minutes Narrative Draft minutes are attached Attachments: Draft April 10, 2019 Minutes Draft March 27, 2019 Retreat Minutes Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES OF RETREAT April 10, 2019 0 N O �L CL Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank(excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was amended to add, "Appointment of Student Representative" before Development Services Director's Report. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. APPOINTMENT OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Cheung introduced Conner Bryan as the recommended candidate for the student representative position on the Board. Conner Bryan said he is a sophomore at Edmonds Woodway High School and is interested in the position because he is hoping to enter the field of architecture or career planning someday. He felt participating on the Board would be a great opportunity, and he is excited to participate. VICE CHAIR ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPOINT CONNER BRYAN AS THE PLANNING BOARD'S STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTEIR SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the Planning Board meeting is on April 101 and not April 5' on PUBLIC HEARING: HAINES WHARF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (FILE N NO. AMD20180011) o Mr. Lien said the subject property is located west of the railroad right-of-way in the tidelands of Puget Sound. The parcels a are currently owned by Snohomish County, the City of Edmonds, Jeri Ann Merritt and Meadowdale Marina LLC. The Q current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the four parcels as Mixed -Use Commercial (MUC), and the properties 3 are zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Open Space (OS) consistent with the property to the south. Landward of the subject parcels, the land use designation is Single -Family CD Resource (SFR) and the zoning is Single -Family Residential (RS-12 and RS-20). The property to the south is zoned OS. The current amendment before the Board would not change the zoning at this time. 5 Mr. Lien explained that the properties were previously designated as Urban Mixed Use (UMU), but the 2017 Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update changed the land use designation to Aquatic I. Aquatic I areas are mostly characterized by aquatic ecosystems that have been modified by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad bed fill that covers the intertidal and transitional upland zones along the beach. The beach has been altered by seawalls or larger -rock riprap. These shoreline areas generally exhibit low -intensity development and few overwater structures. In freshwater areas, there may be a significant number of docks and piers serving residential areas. Mr. Lien noted that, historically, there were two structures on the property. A wooden barn -like structure was brought to the site via barge in 1939 and became the original Haines Wharf that was operated as a full -service sport fishing facility for 30 years. Around 1970, the property was sold and a second metal structure was constructed on the site in 1975. The site was also renamed Meadowdale Marina and shifted to primarily being used as boat storage. According to the City's records, there has been no active business license for the site since 2001. The current owner of the Meadowdale Marina site applied for a business license in 2008, but it was never issued. The owner also applied and received a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in 2005 to reconstruct the existing timber portion of the pier. The permit was issued but it recognized that the structures and uses on the site were nonconforming. Conditions were added to note that, per the City's nonconformance code, moving the structures any distance would require them to be demolished and the new structures would have to comply with the current code. Other conditions noted the project would have to comply with conditions imposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). From looking at the record, it appears the applicant was not successful in receiving all of the permits needed to go forward with the restoration, and the original wooden structure deteriorated over time and no longer exists. The metal 1975 structure still exists on the site and is connected via a narrow walkway to the shoreline. He provided aerial photographs taken in 2005 and 2017 to illustrate how the conditions on the site have changed, pointing out that the entire wooden structure is gone, the site has been secured, and it is no longer putting debris into the Sound. He noted that the site was also identified in the SMP Restoration Plan as a potential restoration site. Mr. Lien reviewed the criteria that must be considered when considering Comprehensive Plan amendments (ECDC 20.00.050) and shared how the proposal is consistent with each one: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest. Currently, the site is designated as MUC. While there are no provisions in the Comprehensive Plan specific to that designation, some general goals and policies apply to all commercial areas. For example: • Commercial Development Goal A. Commercial development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent and compatible with the character of its surrounding Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a neighborhood. All commercial development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds. Staff does not believe the current land use designation is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and there is Cn no safe access to the site. The subject parcels are located in a residential neighborhood with no other commercial activity in the area. There are no arterial or collector streets to the site, which can only be accessed via local streets. N Access to the site is further limited due to the presence of the unsignalized railroad crossing and a locked gate o preventing access to the marina. = L CL Commercial Development Goal A.2. Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which Q are now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses. M The SNIP identifies the subject parcels as Aquatic -I, which prohibits commercial and light industrial uses and development, except water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area designation. The two abutting shoreline environments are Urban Railroad and Shoreline Residential, and neither allow commercial uses and development. Therefore, commercial uses would not be permitted on the subject parcels, either. Staff believes the site should be reclassified consistent with this goal. • Open Space Goal A. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the Edmonds environment, in accordance with the following policies: o A.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces. o A.2.b. Areas which have an abundance of wildlife, particularly where there are linked wildlife corridors or habitats or rare or endangered species. • Open Space Goal B. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies: o B.1. Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs. A number of fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitat for either part or all of their life stages. There are 8 species of salmonids that frequent the Edmonds Shoreline, and there are also endangered and threatened species (Puget Sound Chinook, bull trout, Steller sea lion, and Puget Sound Orcas. Open Space Goal B specifically recognizes that the Puget Sound and the City's saltwater shorelines should receive special consideration for preservation. Staff believes the proposed OS designation would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City. The main purpose of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is to implement the updated SNIP that went through an extensive public process before final adoption in 2017. The proposed new land use designation will help preserve and enhance habitat for federally -listed species. At this time, access to the site via an unsignalized railroad crossing is a safety concern, and staff believes the low -intensity OS designation is more appropriate for the site. 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The only other area in the City that has the MUC designation is in the Medical Highway Activity Center near Highway 99. The urban upland areas are more appropriate for commercial uses than Puget Sound tidelands, and there are a lot of other areas in the City with commercial designations. Staff believes that removing a nonconforming site would not impact the appropriate balance of land uses when it comes to commercial development in the City. Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a 4. In case of an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan Map, the subject parcels area physically suitable for the requested land use designations(s) and the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. o� The site is not physically suitable for the current MUC designation. The landward neighborhood is single-family N residential, and the site can only be accessed via local roads. The railroad tracks impose a physical obstacle to the site, o and the SMP prohibits commercial uses and development on the subject parcels. Staff feels the proposed OS land use = designation is more appropriate and compatible with the adjoining land uses. a Q Mr. Lien concluded his presentation by recommending the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) to Open Space (OS). Board Member Lovell asked if the remaining metal building on the site is nonconforming, and Mr. Lien answered yes. He explained that the SMP no longer allows overwater structures. Board Member Monroe asked what changing the designation would do since the existing structure and use are already nonconforming. Mr. Lien explained that all of the City's plans, policies and zoning should be consistent with each other, and this is the first step in the process to make the City's Comprehensive Plan consistent with the currently adopted SMP. Next year, the City will review zoning along the waterfront, including zoning for the subject parcels. The City's code has a Marina Resource (MR) zone, but the zoning map does not have any MR zones associated with it. He noted that, currently, most of the City's tidelands are zoned RSW-12, which is the zoning that applies to Lake Ballinger but doesn't make any sense for the tidelands. However, he emphasized that the current proposal is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a zoning amendment. Board Member Monroe summarized that the amendment is more of a process change, and development potential on the subject parcels would not change. Board Member Monroe asked what would happen after both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map have been updated to be consistent with the SMP. Mr. Lien said the wooden structure has been removed and no longer dumps debris into Puget Sound. The City would not force the property owner to do anything with the property, and the existing structure will remain a nonconforming structure, as it has for years. The proposed amendment would not change what the property owner is allowed to do on the site. Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendment would have any impact on the current property owners, and Mr. Lien answered that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would not change what the property owners are allowed to do on the site. He explained that any development would have to comply with both the zoning and the SMP. While the zone would remain CW until the shoreline is rezoned, the existing use is still nonconforming based on the SMP, and the SMP rules what can be done on the site. Guy Mansfield, Edmonds, disclosed that he lives close by the subject parcels and has some personal preferences and opinions. However, he will restrict his comments to objective matters. He reviewed the April 5' document from the Planning Commission Advisory Report and found it does a good job of laying out the facts. Specifically, the current structure is nonconforming. It has been nonconforming in the past and will be nonconforming in the future. It seems like it would be unfeasible, both in terms of permitting and expenses, to do anything with the property. It is very clear that the SMP specifically prohibits commercial use of the properties because they abut both residential and the railroad property. He also believes that changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to OS is the right thing to do to be consistent with the SMP. He observed that there is a real issue with commercial traffic to the structures. Specifically, all traffic going to the structure would have to go down an extremely quiet street that is immediately adjacent to the park. Everyday, he sees children walking on that street as they wander out of the park. He said it seems evident that opening up access to the subject parcels would be an additional disruption to rail traffic. He concluded that the proposed change seems to clearly provide a greater value to the community, more safety for children visiting the park, and better protection for Puget Sound and the environment. Vice Chair Robles asked what incentive there is for the property owner to remove the structure rather than letting it continue to deteriorate and become an eyesore. If the neighbors were to petition for its removal, he asked if they would be more likely Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a to prevail under the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Mr. Lien said the property is already identified in the SMP as a potential restoration site, but the City cannot force restoration. If someone wants to use the site as restoration for another project along Puget Sound, they would have to purchase the property from the property owner. Over the years, the DNR and DOE have worked with the property owner to shore up the structures. Since the wood structure has basically .-. deteriorated away, it no longer dumps debris into the Sound during major storms. But there is still an opportunity for restoration, as removing piers and underwater structures is better for the environment. Again, he said it is not something the N City can force on the property owner. o Board Member Monroe asked if the proposed change would make it more likely that the remaining elements of the wood a structure would be removed. Again, Mr. Lien answered that he does not know if the current or proposed land use designation Q would make it more or less likely. The property has already been identified as a potential restoration site, regardless of the 3 land use designation. Board Member Lovell asked if the BNSF trains blast their horns as they travel through the area. Mr. Lien said no, the crossing is gated and locked now, and BNSF no longer recognizes it as a crossing. Access over the tracks to the shoreline would require a person to go over the fence. Chair Cheung asked if there have been any issues with kids and homeless people hanging out on the existing structure. Mr Lien answered that he is not aware of any calls related to vandalism. Vladan Milosavljevic, General Manager of Meadowdale Marina, advised that the original wooden structure was brought to the site from Sequim via barge in 1939 and was previously used as a cannery. In 1939, the marina rented out plywood boats for people to use in Puget Sound to fish, etc. During World War II, Mr. Haines offered the marina for war use. He also offered the War Department his boats and manpower to transport the soldiers from Haines Wharf to Whidbey Island. Later on, the facility was used as a Coast Guard station, and then it was used for renting and storing boats. The property has been transferred from Laebugten Boat House, Haines Wharf and then Meadowdale Marina, but the same people owned the property until he purchased it. The metal building was built in 1975 to expand the business and also provide a fuel station for boats. The facility was successful through the mid-80s and generated revenue for the City. When he purchased the property, he decided to remove the fuel tanks and obtained a permit from the Fire Marshal to do so. Mr. Milosavljevic continued that in 2002-2003 he started plans to restore the wood structure back to its original use. In 2004-2005 he obtained a hydraulics permit, as well as permits from the WSDFW, the Army Corps, and DOE. Later on, he also received a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from the City of Edmonds. In 2007-2008 he lined up people with funds to contribute for the project, and everything was ready to go. He applied for a building permit from the City to replace the 45,000 square foot wood pier with steel piling and a concrete deck. He paid the City $25,000 for the plans to be reviewed and a permit to be issued. The building permit was ready for pick up when the economic recession hit and his investors got scared, and lost the house he built next door that he was planning to live in while he operated the marina. Mr. Milosavljevic said he once again applied for a building permit five years ago. He obtained a permit from the WSDFW and was ready to submit for permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, the DOE and other government agencies, but times were still tough financially. Now he has identified a potential developer, but he has been unable to secure a loan for the project. The current SMP designation limits what can be done on the property, and this has created a heavy financial burden for him. The property is no longer worth as much. The SMP was changed so the City can provide a greenbelt along the waterfront. He questioned how the City could restore the beautiful shoreline unless they get the train tracks off the coastline. He encouraged the Board Members to deny the nonsensical Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said the railroad pollutes the coastline more than Meadowdale Marina or nearly everything else. Mr. Milosavljevic said that, according to the City Planner, he hasn't done much with the property. However, he has a file full of correspondence, permits, applications and approvals. He has been through the process before, when the Hearing Examiner determined that he could not rebuild the wooden structure if it was torn down, but that is not the case. It cost him money each time he has to defend his proposal to the City of Edmonds. If the proposed amendment is adopted, he will once again have to go before the Hearing Examiner to fight it out. He strongly urged the Board to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. His intention is to work with his investors to rebuild the wooden structure and clean up the metal structure to become beautiful and a benefit for everyone. Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Mr. Milosavljevic explained that the BNSF crossing near his property was established in 1910, and it will cost him between $25,000 and $30,000 to restore the crossing with arms, signals, etc. Safety is very important to him, and when the time comes, he will pay the fee and make the appropriate upgrades. .-. o� Vice Chair Robles voiced concern that staff is telling the Board that the proposed amendment would have no impact on the N property owner, but the property owner is indicating that his property would be significantly impacted. He felt that a lot of o issues need to be ironed out before the Board can forward a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Cheung agreed that = there needs to be more discussion about how the proposed change might impact the property owners. He asked if there are a steps in place for Mr. Milosavljevic to implement his plan. Mr. Lien said it is hard to answer without seeing an actual Q application. However, he explained that, in addition to the structure being nonconforming, the use is nonconforming, as well. He read from ECDC 20.470.010.D: "If a nonconforming use is discontinued for six consecutive months or twelve months during any two-year period, any subsequent use shall be conforming. " During his presentation, he noted that there has not been a business license on the site since 2001. While the property owner applied for a business license in 2008, it was never issued, in part, because of the nonconforming aspect of the site. In his opinion, the way the SMP is spelled out, developing the site would be a very heavy lift, if not impossible. Board Member Monroe asked if the City has sought feedback from a real estate appraiser to determine what the impact of the proposed amendment would be. Mr. Lien answered no. Board Member Monroe said it would be interesting to know the potential damage, but it would probably be difficult to figure out. Board Member Monroe summarized that, currently, the City's position is that nothing can happen on the property based on the current MUC designation. The proposed amendment would definitely make it so the property owner could not do anything else on the property and remove all of the ambiguity out of it. Other than a more streamlined SMP process, there is no real tangible benefit to the amendment. Mr. Lien responded that the amendment is intended to address a consistency issue. Board Member Monroe commented that consistency makes sense from the City's point of view, but the property owner wants to keep fighting for his right to develop the site and there is a process for that to occur. He questioned why the City wants to change the land use designation when the existing designation works just as well. Mr. Lien again said it is to make sure that all the plans, policies and zoning are consistent. Chair Cheung observed that the property owner is clearly still fighting to redevelop the property, and he questioned if Mr. Milosavljevic spoke up when the SMP was changed in 2017. He said he is also concerned about the benefits of the proposed amendment other than for consistency. If there was absolutely no objection to the amendment, he would support it in order to provide consistency. But he has some reservations based on the property owner's concerns. Board Member Lovell cautioned the Board to look at all of the reasons outlined in the Staff Report with respect to consistency for the use of this particular property. It is evident from the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps that the area in question is essentially a dead-end, single-family residential neighborhood. If they are thinking they want to potentially allow the continuation of the existing use or some alternative use other than single-family residential, he does not think it will ever be approved. If they were talking about the feasibility of a real project occurring on the subject parcels, he is not so sure they would be hearing the same discussion. It's also evident from the history that nothing has happened on the site for years other than removal of the wood that continues to pollute Puget Sound. There is an acknowledgement and understanding that, for years and years, the current structures and use have been nonconforming. He said he does not think they would be doing the City justice by putting off the land use change in anticipation of something happening in the future. Chair Cheung said his understanding is that nothing can happen on the site based on the existing land use designation. The amendment is simply an administrative change to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the SMP. The property owner would not be permitted to restore or redevelop the site in either case. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that there are several issues being discussed, and some might be outside of the Board's purview. At their last meeting, Mr. Lien carefully explained the status of the owner in terms of having forfeited the ability to continue the nonconforming use of the business by failing to meet certain criteria throughout the years. If the property owner had kept his business license and permits up to date, he could have continued to enjoy his nonconforming use. However, it is outside of the Board's purview to speak to that issue. Mr. Lien once again referred to the nonconforming use provision and Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a explained that if a nonconforming use is discontinued for six consecutive months or twelve months during any two-year period, any subsequent use must be conforming. He explained that, from the property owner's business records, there has not been a use at the site since 2001. Board Member Rubenkonig acknowledged that this is an uncomfortable situation because the property owner would like to be able to implement his vision for the property. However, there are other factors that must be considered. The Board needs N to be very clear about the impact of this nonconforming use. He could have enjoyed it through the years and been using it o right now, except the licenses and permits to do so were not kept current. Mr. Lien clarified that the property has not been = used as a commercial site for years. Nonconforming uses can continue, but they cannot be expanded in any way. There is no a record of a commercial use, nonconforming or otherwise, at this site since at least 2001. Q Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the property owner would challenge the City's interpretation of the nonconforming code. Mr. Lien said the SMP has its own nonconforming code, and ECDC 20.70.010 defines what a nonconforming use is. Nonconforming uses are "shoreline uses which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this master program, or amendments thereto, but which do not conform to the presence regulations or standards of this master program or the policies of the act. " He explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was passed by the legislature and approved by the voters in 1971, and the Haines Wharf wooden structure was in place long before that time. The metal structure was constructed in 1974-1975, shortly after the SMA was adopted. He doesn't know when the City had its first SMP, but when the permitting went through in 2005, the City had last updated its SMP in 2000. The site has been nonconforming at least since 2000, and from what he can tell, there hasn't been a continued use at the site at least since 2001. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that is the point that much is hanging off of, that the use wasn't continued. She asked where the property owner would go to get legal redress. Mr. Lien said staff would work with the City Attorney, but the property owner would have to demonstrate that there has been a commercial use at the site continued since 2001. This same question came up when he was reviewing the file in 2008 when the property owner applied for a business license. Board Member Monroe asked if the property owner would have the ability to sue under the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said the Comprehensive Plan amendment would have to be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board and not to the Hearing Examiner. Barring the proposed amendment, Board Member Monroe asked what recourse the property owner would have if the City denied his permit application. Mr. Lien said it would depend on what the permit was for. Generally, permit decision would be issued by the Hearing Examiner, and that decision would be appealable to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Board Member Monroe summarized that, as long as the property is designated as MUC, the property owner would have some legal recourse to sue for his rights. He asked if the property owner would retain those same rights if the designation is changed to OS. Mr. Lien emphasized that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would not change the zoning. The current Commercial Waterfront (CW) zoning would remain in place until the City looks at and adjusts the zones along the tidelands. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the City's intent is to change the zoning following the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Lien answered that the property owner would have the right to sue, regardless of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation, if the argument is that the nonconforming use should be allowed to continue. Board Member Monroe asked if the property owner would have less opportunity or a different avenue to sue if the land use and zoning are changed. Mr. Lien said it would depend on what the application is for. Again, he said the structures and uses are considered nonconforming under the existing SMP, Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Even if the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed, the structures and uses will still be nonconforming, and the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and potential rezone will not change the situation if the structures and uses are found to be nonconforming uses that are allowed to continue. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that the current proposal is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and there is no proposal to rezone the property at this time. Board Member Monroe felt this approach was a little disingenuous since they know that a rezone proposal will be forthcoming. Board Member Monroe asked if redevelopment of the site in the neighborhood of $5 to $10 million would trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. Lien said he would have to see a proposal before making that determination. Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Board Member Monroe asked if a traffic analysis would be required as part of the EIS. Mr. Lien responded that, regardless of whether an EIS is required or not, the property owner would likely be required to complete a traffic analysis. However, without a proposal, he cannot say whether or not traffic improvements would be required. At the request of Mr. Milosavljevic, Mr. Lien read a letter dated March 26, 2009 from Mike Clugston, Senior Planner, into the record: N N O "After extensive review of your existing permit approval for Meadowdale Marina Project (SM0594) and the = applicable city and state codes, the City has determined that the timeline for your Shoreline Substantial a Development Permit is not in danger of expiring. In fact, the timeline for Shoreline Substantial Development Q Permits has yet to begin according to RCW 90.58.153.4, which states `the permit time periods do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permit and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonable related administrative or legal actions on any such permit or approvals. Your Shoreline Permit timeline has not started because you are still seeking any other government permits that authorize marina development to proceed. In this case, two building permits, 20080693 and 20080694, as well as a City business license. That said, we are still awaiting a response to your request for additional information with which to complete our review of the above reference permits. If we do not receive the requested information, the building permits will expire on February 12, 2010, which is 18 months from the date the original application for the permits (August 8, 2008). The fee you submitted for your extension letter will be refunded." Mr. Milosavljevic said he never received a refund for the permit fees, so the City is still obligated to the permit application. Mr. Lien responded that the building permits that were referenced in the letter have expired, and he will research whether or not the fee was refunded. Mr. Lien said that, with the SMP update, there was also a change with regard to timelines and the specific provision referenced in the letter. A section was added (ECDC 24.80.140) to outline time requirements for shoreline permits. It reads that, `Authorization to conduct development activities pursuant to a Shoreline Permit issued by the City of Edmonds shall expire five years after the date of issuance provided the activity was not pursued due to impendency of administrative appeals or legal action. " He summarized that, if it takes more than five years to get all the required permits, the Shoreline approval goes away. With regards to the 2009 letter, there are questions as to whether or not the applicant continued to pursue the other permits, and that would be a legal matter that would come up again should the property owner reapply. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the status of the nonconforming structure and use has nothing to do with the proposed amendment to change the land use designation to OS. The property owner could still seek recourse for his standing as having an active, nonconforming use and/or structure. Mr. Lien agreed that the nonconforming status is separate from the proposed amendment. Mr. Milosavljevic submitted an additional document for the record. Mr. Lien said the document is the hydraulic project approval from the WSDFW. The issue date was October 29, 2012, and the project expiration date was October 28, 2017. The project name was Meadowdale Marine Upgrades, and the project description was to replace the timber pier, approach trestle and timber piles with concrete/steel construction. The document also notes a 5-year Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) at the request of Rachel Villa on August 18, 2011, which supersedes all other previous HPA's. However, this most recent HPA expired on August 28, 2017, so the permit is no longer valid. Mr. Milosavljevic commented that according to the documentation he submitted, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is still valid. These other documents extended the expiration date. Chair Cheung said it does not appear that the property owner's rights would be impacted by the proposed amendment. The only way he can actually move forward with his proposal is by bringing a lawsuit. Mr. Lien said the property owner is making arguments under the nonconforming code. The property is nonconforming now, and it will remain nonconforming regardless of the land use designation. Chair Cheung said the property owner will not be able to apply for any permits through the City, and the only way for him to move his project forward is through legal action. Regardless of whether or not Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a the Comprehensive Plan is amended to be consistent with the SMP, the property owners remedy or course of action will remain the same. Board Member Monroe said his understanding is that, as long as the property is designated as MUC, the property owner can apply for a permit. It will get denied, and then he can go through the appeal process. If the designation is changed to OS, the property owner would not have the ability to even apply for a permit. Mr. Lien said that is incorrect. He does not know what N the property owner's proposal will be, but given that the site is nonconforming and has been nonconforming since 2001, his o approach would remain the same regardless of the zoning or Comprehensive Plan change. The structures and uses are = nonconforming under the current zoning and SMP, and have been at least since 2000. That will not change with any action a the Board takes tonight or if the City Council ultimately adopts the amendment. Q Board Member Monroe asked if there is any chance the property owner would be able to tear down the existing facility and rebuild. Mr. Lien answered no. As per the nonconforming code, the building would be destroyed more than 75% of the replacement value. If the building is removed, it could not be reconstructed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NUMBER AMD20180011) FROM MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TO OPEN SPACE FOR THE WATERFRONT AREA CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS HAINES WHARF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION'S BRIEFING MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 10, 2019, WITH ITS INCLUDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Monroe said he does not necessarily like the marina in its current location, and he can see why it makes sense for it to not be there. However, he does not think this is the right avenue by which to cut off that use of the property. They need to allow the property owner to go through the entire application process in order to say for certain that he would not lose any of his use. He has sympathy for the property owner when the government changed the rules and the property is worth less, and the property owner needs to maintain his full set of resources. Board Member Rubenkonig said the property's nonconformance has no bearing on the current issue before the Board. The property owner would still be able to pursue the nonconforming use of the property on his own, regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan designation is. The property will always be nonconforming, and the owner will have to meet the criteria for nonconformance in order to obtain the necessary permits. However, it is outside of the Board's purview to address that issue and staff cannot respond to what might happen in the future when there is no application to refer to. The property owner can pursue whatever he wants to do with his property, and the amendment would not make any difference. She said she expects it will be difficult to support that he has had an ongoing nonconforming use of the property and the structure, but that is the legal route that he must take and a separate issue than what is before the Board at this time. Once again, Board Member Robles voiced concern that there are too many unknowns for the Board to make a recommendation on the proposed amendment at this time. They do not know for sure whether the proposed amendment will impact the property owner or not. There is too much unsettled on both sides, and he cannot support the amendment. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does not have any standing in the property owner's argument related to use. Zoning is what determines his use. When a zoning change is proposed, it must refer to and align with the Comprehensive Plan. The SMP update has already changed the property and its allowed uses. The current proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan, which does not change the zoning or anything that has to do with his use. While zoning will be the likely next step, it is not something the Board should be focusing on at this time. He reminded the Board to focus on the four criteria that must considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. In his mind, the proposal meets all of the criteria. For clarity, he reviewed the criteria again: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City. 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a 4. In case of an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan Map, the subject parcels area physically suitable for the requested land use designations(s) and the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. Board Member Rubenkonig said there appears to still be confusion around the nonconforming use. She asked Mr. Lien to explained again how the nonconforming use would still be present with any future new zone, and the property owner's N standing will not change. Mr. Lien said he is hesitant to say that the nonconforming use would still be present, given that if a o nonconforming use is discontinued for six months or twelve months over a two-year period, it would not longer be = considered a nonconforming use. From what he has seen in the record, a nonconforming structure is still present, but he a questions whether a nonconforming use is still present. However, the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning would Q have no bearing on the nonconforming aspect of the property. It is nonconforming now, has been nonconforming, and will c continue to be nonconforming. Chair Cheung summarized that the Board's responsibility is to make sure the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the SMP, which is the intent of the proposed amendment. The property owner's rights would not be impacted, and his ability to sue would remain the same. Board Member Monroe asked what criteria will be considered when a rezone proposal comes forward for the property next year. Will they be required to address potential impacts to the property owner? Mr. Lien reviewed the rezone criteria outlined in ECDC 20.40.010 as follows: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Board Member Monroe said he can support the proposed amendment based on the clarification provided by staff and Board Members and given that the Board will have another discussion about value when a rezone is brought forward. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER ROBLES VOTING IN OPPOSITION. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the April 24' agenda will include a Vision 2050 Update, a presentation on options to address the number of units for multifamily in existing multifamily, and a public hearing on an application for a street vacation map amendment. The May 81 agenda will include a legislative update, as well as a public hearing on potential code amendments to ECDC 17.40.020 to address nonconformance of existing multifamily development. Mr. Lien explained that the City has an official street map that designates future rights -of -way, and the street vacation application involves removing the connection from 801 Avenue down to Olympic View Drive. He also explained that options for addressing the number of units for multifamily in existing multifamily were presented to the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on April 9r''. The nonconforming code says that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed to more than 75% of the replacement value, it shall be reconstructed in full conformance with the Development Code, and that includes density. At least 20 multifamily developments have been identified that exceed the density allowed by the zone in which they are located. If they were to burn down, they could only be reconstructed to the current density. Condominium owners are having trouble selling their units because banks won't fund a mortgage if there is a possibility that Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a the unit would not be allowed to be reconstructed. The City Council forwarded the issue to the full City Council. Pending direction from the City Council, the issue could be a topic of discussion at the Board's next meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS o� Chair Cheung reported that he and Vice Chair Robles will present the Planning Board Update to the City Council on May 7t''. N He also reported that Board Member Lovell has submitted his resignation from the Board, but has agreed to stay on until a o replacement has been identified. He announced that a joint Planning Board/City Council meeting is scheduled for June 18t1i _ and the intent is to discuss the major topics from the Planning Board retreat, including Housing and a interactions/communications with the City Council. He asked the Board Members to share thoughts on a potential third Q topic. Chair Cheung said that, at the Board's next meeting, the Development Services Director will review the Board's roles, responsibilities and limitations and provide ideas for how the Board can better assist the staff. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig commented that every time a difficult subject comes before the Board, she feels it is important for them to clearly define the planning terms that are used and make the discussion user friendly so that when it is presented to the City Council the Board's language is readily understood. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the March 20'h Economic Development Commission meeting where they elected new officers: Mary Monroe as Chair and Kevin Harris as Vice Chair. They received updates from two of the three work groups, and a formal memorandum was discussed and approved to advise the City Council of the three work group activities: • The Development Feasibility Work Group will be working to further develop the City's designation as the first Creative District in the State. • The Arts and Tourism Work Group is working to create an app for smart phones to provide information about what is available in the City to people who are waiting in line for the ferry. • The Business Attraction Work Group is working to set up a health care district to emphasize calling new businesses to join the health care district area by Highway 99. Board Member Lovell further reported that the Commission had a roundtable discussion covering a variety of input from other Boards and Commissions. It was reported that the Rotary Club is hard at work planning a wine and beer festival, as well as the annual July 41 Celebration. The Port of Edmonds reported that the business that runs the whale watching tours is looking at the last available piece of Port property with the potential of building their headquarters there. He said he plans to attend their next meeting on April 17'. Board Member Rubenkonig said she had a discussion with Diane Cunningham about what happens when Board Members attend the same campaign gatherings during the upcoming elections. She was advised that there should not be any issues with the Open Public Meetings Act requirements, as long as Board Members refrain from discussing Planning Board issues. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.b as T 0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD CM SUMMARY MINUTES OF RETREAT a March 27, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting the retreat of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall, 12151 Avenue North, Edmonds, WA. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (excused) ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager POSSIBLE UPDATES FROM STAFF: HEIGHTS, ESPERANCE ANNEXATION AND PARKING • Building Height in the Downtown. It was noted that the Council recently rejected a proposal by the Economic Development Commission to adjust the ground -floor height requirement in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, which is related to height. Board Members indicated that they were not in favor of discussing height limits in downtown Edmonds at this time. Annexation of Esperance. It was discussed that, last year, the Council decided not to go forward with any actions related to Esperance annexation at this time. However, if the Council decides to move forward with annexation at some point in the future, it would direct staff to work through the process with the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board, and the Planning Board would likely be involved in discussions related to zoning and land use. They briefly reviewed the annexation process and discussed potential pros and cons of annexation. They also discussed how the City can inform members of the community that Edmonds does not have jurisdiction over development that occurs in Esperance. They generally agreed that the only thing City staff can do is advise citizens on an individual basis when they approach the City. • Downtown Parking. The Board discussed that restriping created additional parking spaces on the street, and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED) is working with banks in the downtown to allow parking on their sites during non - business hours. They acknowledged and discussed a current community concern that the new Civic Park will add Packet Pg. 14 2.A.b additional stress to the current parking situation in Downtown Edmonds. They also discussed a variety of ideas and opportunities to address parking, as well as the need for better management of the existing spaces. It was noted that the City Council has earmarked funding for a parking study in 2019. They generally agreed to postpone any future r discussions about parking until the parking study has been completed, but they requested an opportunity to provide input N on the parameters of the study. c DISCUSSION: HOUSING AND WATERFRONT DISTRICT Q a Housing. It was discussed that the Board has already had a number of discussions related to housing, but it seemed that some of the guidance it provided on the draft Housing Strategy, both the content and the process, were ignored. They talked about how the Board could appropriately share its work and information with the Citizen Housing Commission. They also stressed the need to have a well-defined process in place that addresses when and how the public can be involved, what the Planning Board's role will be, who will make the final decision, etc. Council Member Tibbott shared his vision of how the process would move forward, noting that the Housing Commission's initial meetings would be somewhat educational and the intended outcome is a list of housing policy options that focus on strategies that are already outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. This work will be followed by potential code changes to implement the strategies, and that is when the Planning Board will become involved in the process. He advised that the Council is considering adding ad hoc members to the Housing Commission from both the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board. The Board emphasized the need to provide adequate information to the public and solicit input from residents of all ages and in all areas of Edmonds. Waterfront District. The Board was reminded that issues such as a shuttle to the retail district, a year-round farmer's market, waterfront center and coordination with the Port, Sound Transit, and Community Transit are outside of the Board's purview unless a zoning or land use amendment is involved. Mr. Chave advised that the Board could request updates and information from various agencies. For example, they could request a presentation from the Port of Edmonds and/or Sound Transit about current projects and their long-term impact on Edmonds. These presentations could lead to issues the Board wants to explore. He briefly shared how the City staff, boards and commissions often coordinate with each other and other agencies. The Board agreed that updates or presentations from time to time would be helpful, perhaps starting with the Port of Edmonds and Sound Transit. INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS TO COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC Council. The Board discussed a concern that some members of the City Council publicly admonish the Board for their recommendations, which does not generate trust between the two groups. It would be helpful for the Board to have a clearer idea of the Council's expectations. In addition, when the City Council disagrees with a Planning Board recommendation, it would be helpful for them to do so more respectfully. Council Member Tibbott observed that the Planning Board has the luxury of discussing a topic for as long as needed to ask all of the questions of staff and seek public feedback. The Council's time is more limited, and that is why the Board's work is so important in helping them understand the broader context of an issue. It was observed that the Board's role is to represent the public, seek public input and provide counsel to the City Council. However, if the Council Members do not make a concerted effort to review all of the information provided to them by the Board, the public will lose interest in providing their input at the Planning Board level and the process will have little value. They agreed that clear ground rules and expectations are needed and then the public, Planning Board and City Council can be held accountable to the process. Good decision making requires the trust of the public, whom the Board is supposed to represent. Ideas to improve communications between the City Council and Planning Board include appointing a City Council Member to serve as a Planning Board Liaison, quarterly updates to the City Council, periodic joint meetings and follow up meetings after major initiatives. It was suggested that the Board Members should share information about their background, expertise and experience that might lend support to their comments. They should also provide sufficient background information to support their comments and use vocabulary that the general public is familiar with. Chair Cheung advised that he intends to share Planning Board Minutes March 27, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.b background information on each of the Board Members when he presents the next Planning Board Update to the City Council. as Staff. The Board had a brief discussion about how they can improve their communications with staff, and Mr. Chave T N said the only time staff is taken aback is when they don't understand what the Board is looking for when preparing a o meeting or discussion, but that doesn't happen very much. Board Member Rubenkonig commended Mr. Chave for T keeping the Board on topic, answering questions that come up during their discussions, and guiding the Board to a good Q. approach. She would like the other planners to use this model, as well. They agreed that, at the end of each meeting, it Q would be helpful for staff to summarize the action steps, assignments and timelines identified throughout the Board's discussions. It was discussed that the Board Members typically receive their meeting materials a week early, which is cc ample time for them to review and contact staff with requests for additional information. They also discussed that it is helpful for the minute writer if the Board members provide their more specific comments and motions in writing when possible. 5 • Public. The Board discussed ideas for improving communications with the public in a meaningful way. They talked about opportunities to share information on various social media platforms and agreed it would be helpful to establish a social media policy. Mr. Chave advised that the Board can post announcements and updates on the City's social media website, and they can individually post information that comes from the public domain, too. However, he cautioned against posting individual comments as representative of the entire Planning Board. Board Member Crank summarized that it is okay for the Board Members to post information on social media sites, but not respond or provide an opinion. Questions were raised about whether or not the Board could conduct meetings outside of their regular meetings, such as listening sessions in neighborhoods. Mr. Chave agreed it is possible, but it would be extremely important to carefully define what is and is not within the Board's jurisdiction. The topic of discussion would need to be clearly defined and within the Board's purview. It was discussed that the public engagement process has changed, and the City will need to use platforms that are convenient and have meetings in times and places that are convenient. Aside from their regular meetings, the Board has not provided a lot of other good opportunities for the public to engage. They talked about a number of ideas that included the City's Facebook page and using a centralized ledger. DEFINING THE PLANNING BOARD'S VISION FOR SUCCESS Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board use stoplight charts or matrix charts to evaluate success and help them figure out what to focus on. They discussed establishing a process to follow for each topic: training/informational meeting, study session, public hearing, deliberation, recommendation to Council, and a follow-up discussion on the Council's final decision. Vice Chair Robles commented there are very novel and new methods available to gather data and score a project's success, and he agreed to explore the issue further and report back. The Board talked about how the public's perception of the Board can impact their opinion of the Board's work. Board Member Cloutier observed that the Board Members are not elected officials and do not make final decisions. The only opinion that matters is that of the City Council, and the City Council is accountable for the public's perception of the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the makeup of the Board to be diverse and geographically spread out. In addition to providing background information on each of the Commissioners, Chair Cheung advised that his presentation to the City Council will also include a map showing their residential addresses. Because he is not an elected official, Chair Cheung commented that public comment do not necessarily have to shape his opinion. Board Member Rosen questioned why the Board would have a public process if each member is going to make a recommendation based on his/her own opinion. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that all of the Board members can benefit and learn from listening to the voice of the people, and they should acknowledge and respond to the comments that are valid and on topic. Board Member Crank commented that the Board should listen to learn, recognizing that everyone comes with their own set of experiences and public comments can re -inform her opinion when making a recommendation. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that, following a public hearing and prior to the Board's deliberation and recommendation, the Chair should summarize the issues that have been brought forward. This will help the Board hear the issues a second time, and will tell the public that their viewpoint has been considered. Planning Board Minutes March 27, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.b The Board agreed to schedule a future discussion about creating a matrix or some other method for evaluating the Board's success in addressing items within their purview. They agreed to start by identifying the Board's responsibilities and then r work to identify the best way to measure success for each one. N 0 Chair Rubenkonig reminded them that the Planning Board Chair and the City Council President can meet from time to time to discuss upcoming issues and get feedback. Q a STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Cheung reported that he and Vice Chair Robles met with three of four candidates for the Student Representative position. The plan is to present the preferred candidate at the next Planning Board meeting for final confirmation. SUMMARY OF MEETING Mr. Chave summarized that: • Staff will contact the Port of Edmonds and Sound Transit and request a representative attend an upcoming Board meeting to provide an update on their activities. • Staff will investigate a potential social media policy and present it to the Board for consideration. • The Board will have a study session to identify specific responsibilities and come up with a method for measuring success. • The Board will have a future discussion to expand on ideas about how the Planning Board and City Council can more effectively communicate. • Chair Cheung will work with staff to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 27, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 17 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Development Services Director will give an update on the Housing Commission. Packet Pg. 18 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Official Street Map Amendment — Eliminate planned right-of-way north of 184th Ave W, between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (File No. PLN20190011) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval of the official street map amendment with conditions to the City Council. Narrative Manjinder Josan has applied for an Official Street Map Amendment impacting the planned right-of-way north of 184t" St SW, between 80t" Ave W and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Josan has requested the City's Official Street Map be amended to eliminate the 60-ft wide planned right-of-way line. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.50.030 states changes to the Official Street Map shall be processed as provided in Chapter 20.65 ECDC. Street map changes shall be reviewed as a Type V development project permit application, with a recommendation from the Planning Board and final decision by the City Council. The attached staff report provides an analysis of the proposed street map amendment. Attachments: Street Map Amendment - Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING & ENGINEERING DIVISIONS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD Project: Official Street Map Amendment — Eliminate planned right-of-way north of 1841h Ave W, between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive File Number: PLN20190011 Date of Report: April 18, 2019 Planner: Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager Engineer: Jeanie McConnell Engineering Program Manager Public Hearing: April 24, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: Manjinder Josan has applied for an Official Street Map Amendment impacting the planned right-of-way north of 1841h St SW, between 801h Ave W and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Josan has requested the City's Official Street Map be amended to eliminate the 60-ft wide planned right-of-way line. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.50.030 states changes to the Official Street Map shall be processed as provided in Chapter 20.65 ECDC. Street map changes shall be reviewed as a Type V development project permit application, with a recommendation from the Planning Board and final decision by the City Council. The following is staff's analysis of the proposal. Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a II. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Owner/Applicant: Manjinder Josan (MJ) (Attachment 1). B. Location: North of 184th St SW, between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (Attachment 2). C. Zoning: Single Family Residential (RS-12). D. Request: An Official Street Map Amendment to eliminate the 60-ft wide planned right-of-way line, north of 184th St SW and between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive. (Attachment 3). E. Review Process: Planning board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council who makes a final decision. F. Applicable Codes: 1. Chapter 15.05 ECDC — Comprehensive Plan — Purposes 2. Chapter 15.40 ECDC — Comprehensive Street Plan (Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan) 3. Chapter 18.50 ECDC — Official Street Map 4. Chapter 20.65 ECDC — Street Map Changes 5. Chapter 20.01 ECDC—Types of Development Project Permits III. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: A development project consistent with the RS-12 zoning for property is currently being designed for the subject underlying property. While the potential development project will be reviewed separately from the official street map amendment request, acknowledgement has been given to the fact that the property could best be developed if the existing 60-ft planned right-of-way line was eliminated. In review of the subject street map amendment application, the City has determined that a 60-ft street right-of- way connecting 801" Ave W and Olympic View Drive, as shown in Attachment 4, is not desired in the location of the planned right-of-way line. City water, sewer and storm utilities exist within the subject site and partially within the 60-ft planned right-of-way (Attachments 5 & 6). Easements will need to be established as a condition of the street map amendment approval. The required easement widths are not yet known, however, this will be determined prior to the official street map amendment being presented to the city council. IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: A "Notice of Public Hearing" (Attachment 7) was published in the Herald Newspaper and was posted at the subject site Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on April 10, 2019 (Attachment 8). This notice was also mailed to residents File No. PLN20190011 — Josan Street Map Amendment Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a within 300 feet of the site on April 10, 2019 (Attachment 9), The City has complied with the noticing provisions of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. V. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City's Fire Department and Public Works Department. Fire Marshal, Karl Fitterer, stated South County Fire does not require connection from 80th Ave W to Olympic View Drive. A meeting with the Public Works Department, including the Public Works Director, Street/Storm Manager, and the Water/Sewer Manager concluded that the planned right- of-way could be eliminated with the establishment of utility easements for those utilities located through the property and which meander in and out of the planned right-of-way line. The exact easement widths and locations have not yet been determined and establishment of the easements will need to be a condition of the street map amendment. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, no public comments have been received on the subject proposal. VII. APPLICABLE CODES: A. ECDC 16.20 (Single Family Residential Zone) The subject property and surrounding properties are located within the Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone. The proposed Official Street Map amendment will not impact the current zoning or use of the properties in the neighborhood. B. ECDC 20.65 (Street Map Changes) This code section establishes the criteria and process by which Street Map changes will be reviewed. The criteria are as follows: Compliance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan (addressed in section IX.0 of this report), compliance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan (addressed in section IX.D of this report), and compliance with the purposes of the Official Street Map (addressed in section IX.E. of this report). The proposed amendment will be heard at a public hearing before the Planning Board who will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make a final decision. C. ECDC 15.05 (Comprehensive Plan - Purposes) The purposes of the Comprehensive Plan as stated from page 1 of the Plan are as follows: File No. PLN20190011 — Josan Street Map Amendment Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 22 6.A.a 1. To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. 2. To promote the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare. 3. To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. 4. To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. 5. To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. The current comprehensive plan designation of the subject property and surrounding properties is Single Family— Resource. The subject proposal appears to be consistent with the above purposes as it allows for adequate right-of-way along 184t" St SW, 80tn Ave W, and Olympic View drive for transportation needs, including emergency services. Public easements will need to be established for the ownership and maintenance of city water, sewer, and storm utilities. D. ECDC 15.40 (Comprehensive Street Plan — Purposes) The Comprehensive Street Plan section of the Edmonds Community Development Code has the following purposes, in addition to the general purpose of the comprehensive plan: 1. To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the official street map to implement the comprehensive plan. 2. To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies: Policy 2.3 - Locate and design transportation facility improvements to respect the community's residential character, natural features, and quality of life. Policy 2.4 — Design local residential streets to prevent or discourage use as shortcuts for vehicle through -traffic. Coordinate local traffic control measures with the affected neighborhood. Per the Official Street Map, the proposed right-of-way line lying north of 184t" St SW, between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive, indicates a 60 foot right-of-way. With future development of the underlying property, the Official Street Map would require dedication of the 60-ft right-of-way as a public street. The proposed official street map amendment would eliminate this 60-ft planned right-of-way line. This proposal File No. PLN20190011 — Josan Street Map Amendment Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 23 6.A.a is found to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element. E. ECDC 18.50 (Official Street Map— Purposes) The Purposes of the Official Street Map as stated in ECDC Chapter 18.50 areas follows: A. Implement the comprehensive street plan. B. Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. The subject street map amendment is found to be consistent with goals of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in that a public street is not needed in the location of the 60-ft planned right-of-way line and would inadvertently create a short cut for vehicle through -traffic. Pedestrian connections are desired and will be reviewed for consistency with the comp plan upon submittal of any future development application. Vill. CONCLUSIONS: • City staff has determined that a 60-ft street right-of-way between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive, is not needed at this location. • Establishment of any pedestrian connections between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive will be reviewed with future development of the site. • Utility easements will need to be provided to the City as a condition of the official street map amendment. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the Official Street Map Amendment to eliminate the 60-ft planned right-of-way line north of 1841h St SW, between 801h Ave W and Olympic View Drive with the following conditions: 1. Public water, sewer and storm utility easements shall be granted to the City of Edmonds. 2. Approval of the street map amendment does not guarantee or infer approval of the subdivision being planned for the subject property as shown in Attachment 5. X. PARTIES OF RECORD: Manjinder Josan 132 143rd St SW Lynnwood, WA 98087 City of Edmonds 121— 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 File No. PLN20190011 — Josan Street Map Amendment Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a XI. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Application 2. Vicinity Map 3. Applicants Request for Official Street Map Amendment 4. City Official Street Map 5. Surveyed Site Plan Provided by Applicant 6. City Utility Map 7. Notice of Public Hearing 8. Affidavit of Posting 9. Affidavit of Mailing File No. PLN20190011 — Josan Street Map Amendment Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 25 I 6.A.a I City of Edmonds Land Use Application •' ivc -I 201S f- t _A11 NTERRMCES cou A i-i ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT L� - L CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # fW ^w19061 ZONE " LZ F HOME OCCUPATION DATE } '�I �4 REC'D BY L FORMAL SUBDIVISION F SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT X OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT L HE STAFF PB ADB { X STREET VACATION REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION J OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION . 7707 Olympic View Dr PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) MJ Edmonds Plat PROPERTY OWNER Manjinder Josan PHONE # 425-750-6606 ADDRESS 132 143rd St_ SW, Lynnwood WA 98087 E-MAIL mjosan@gmail.com FAX # n/a 00370800100900,00370800101000, TAX ACCOUNT # 00370800101100, 00434600010601 SEC. 18 TwP. 27N RNG. 5E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) . Official street map amendment and stree vacation DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) as requested by City of Edmonds APPLICANT Manjinder Josan PHONE # 425-750-6606 ADDRESS 132 143rd St SW, Lynnwood WA 98087 E-MAIL mJosan mail.com FAX # n/a CONTACT PERSON/AGENT BRL Services LLC PHONE # 425-259-5556 ADDRESS 2221 Everett Ave ste# 203 E-MAIL brian@brlservicesllc.com FAX # n/a The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 3/19/19 Property Owner's Authorization I, �A {3r,7p i ,..� O� S -�\ �.i _ , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. ` q SIGNATURE OF OWNER �� — DATE / % I If `7' '�f S - - Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Pag Packet Pg. 26 Fita ...... -... 6.A.a 10 # 81114 18208 * 112 # 182ND PL SW OPENED R/W * 7914 18203 7822 # 18213 8115 * 18218 # 0 w z Li 8117 18226 * 0 18227 3 Li * 18335 8041 8001 # 184TH ST SW OPENED R/W 7821 * 7817 0 w z * 7809 a 47816 O 7810 * 3 w 5 U a J * 18321 * 18305 000, i o 7704 00 OLYM P I Cwo 0000 - VIEW DRIVE PARCEL # 00370800100900 * 18332 - 95,230 SOFT 18325 80TH/ 18408 79TH AVENUE WEST AVENUE WEST PARCEL # 95,230 SOFT PARCEL # 00370800101100 00 0800101000 --�-- ",—— 20,607 — 1841416 1618405 UNKNOWN ADDRESS 18416 * 18415 PARCEL # 1 00434600010601 # 18418 * 97,372 SOFT * 18419 18426 1618427 VICINITY MAP 18212 # 18214 : 1 * 18216 18218 # 1822 183 GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 75 150 18301 # 1 "=150' - VACATION UNOPENED R/W 2,727 SOFT w z w 7601 * a 3 Q 18401 1618432 1 18501 16 18508 * 1850� 106 * 8034 * * 3 7811 � - 7831 * # # # 7801 18512 7817 18516 w a 185TH PL SW OPENED R/W'$QQ 18510 '� 18521 101 18 o 18521 102 * *10 3 * 7802 7810# 18530 * 18521 104 105 1 0- )1 # 7818 # 18521. BLDG * * 16 8035 790 * 118 18521 107 ib 0 7939 7925 7915 * * 7805 18596 * 18521 1091 7 186TH PL SW OPENED R/W 18521 110 18604 # # 18605 * 18601 18604 # 18603 BLDG 18603 1 f # _ � Ana (RECEIVED MAR 2 12019 DEVEWPIAENT SERVICES COUNTER Legend Parcel ID Snohomish Parcels Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 27 6.A.a BRf Services ZYC An Engineering Company March 21, 2019 City of Edmonds City Council Office — City Hall 121 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 ATTN: To whom it may concern RE: 7707 Olympic View Dr— Manjinder Josan Subject: Official Street Map Amendment (Petition) To whom it may concern: RECEIVED MAR 21 201 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER I respectfully request that you accept this petition for the Official Street Map Amendment to delete the street name from the City Maps as required for the development of the proposed MJ Edmonds Plat. See attached Site Plan. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, 441 00 Brian R Lindsay Owner of BRL Services LLC Agent for Manjinder Josan 2221 Everett Ave., Suite 203, Everett, WA. 98201 PH: 425-259-5556 d raftstatio n @ea rth I inic.net Packet Pg. 28 ,aa r City of Edmonds Official Street Map 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is fc reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accuratf WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary —Sphere current, or otherwise reliabl: © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIOI 6.A.a ilL F'i—d, .7y ------------ MDur•SIdW Legend 4 Notes E 60-ft Planned ROW line Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a L I I ICI - ---- ;. US I I ,i N I 17 ( U I 18 Ii--------------� I i I z 0 J L '--) VV SEC 18, TWP 27N, RGE 5E, WM I � 1 it � —— — — — — — — — — — — — — Ii t I � II � { 1+ I Jan I 4 LLj 1 GRAPHIC SCALE i I 14 I 50 0 25 50 1 "=50' 0 i 4I i l I jI I i 1 ,k N89*67151°W I k_ ; I3o;oa` 1 i ! I 13410' 1 k LOTI 1 \ 1428' \ \ L LOT' q 11O�t \ 12,387�S.F.iLOT 11 14 641--S ' � 158.0' iF,, 20 I / I BREAKDOWN OF IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS SURFACES Pre -developed Basin Area = 4.95 ac Existing Gravel Drive 3,600 sf = 0.08 ac Existing asphalt 184" 2,420 sf = 0.06 ac Existing 2nd growth forest = 4.61 ac Existing Buildings Two — SFR's 2,620 sf = 0.06 a.c (Lot 4 will retain ex SFR) Lawn and Landscape = 0.14 ac Total = 4.95 ac Developed Basin Area = 4.95 ac Proposed Cul-de-Sac Asphalt = 0.29 ac Fire Lane Tract 999 = 0.16 ac Driveways = 0.70 ac Sidewalks = 0.13 ac BuildingLots Buildings 14 total roofs = 0.84 ac Lawn and Landscape = 1,66 ac Lawn at Cul-de-Sac = 0.13 ac Retain Existing 2"d growth forest = 1.04 ac Total = 4.95 ac PROJECT APPLICANT: JOSAN MAJINDER 132 143RD STREET SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 425-750-6606 PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE: BRIAN R. LINDSAY 2221 EVERETT AVENUE, SUITE 203 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-5556 ZONING INFORMATION: CURRENT ZONING — R97-28 PROPOSED ZONING — R12 SITE AREAS: AREA 215,472 SQ FT = 4.95 AC 15 LOTS PROPOSED MIN. LOT SIZE = 12,002 S.F MAX. LOT SIZE = 14,544 S.F. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: y sF O?� 180TH ST SW C> SITE z 184TH ST SW 88TH ST SW r` 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PARCEL # 00370800100900 LOT 9, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECRODED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 18408 79TH AVENUE WEST PARCEL # 00370800101000 LOT 10, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY , STATE OF WASHINGTON. 18325 80TH AVENUE WEST PARCEL # 00370800101100 LOT 11, BLOCK 1, OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, AS RCORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. NO ADDRESS PARCEL # 00434600010601 LOT 1, BLOCK 0, OF THE PLAT OF EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 106003, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 106 LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF BEVERLY PARK ROAD, LESS THE EAST 212 FEET AND LESS COUNTY ROAD. EXISTING SOIL: ALDER WOOD— EVERETT GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM EXISTING VEGETATION: TREES WITH SOME UNDERBRUSH WITH LAWN AND LANDSCAPE PROPOSED VEGETATION: 20% TO REMAIN FORESTED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: LOT SIZE: 12,407 SF AVERAGE DRIVEWAY: 800 SF = 0.02 AC BUILDING: 5,200 SF = 0.12 AC LAWN / LANDSCAPE: = 0.04 AC INFILTRATION / BIO—RETENTION AREA 30' x 10' x4' DEEP VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' CERTIFIED EROSION CONTROL SPECIALIST BRIAN LINDSAY BRL SERVICES LLC 2221 EVERETT AVE, SUITE 203 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-5556 ENGINEER TED TREPANIER BRL SERVICES LLC 2221 EVERETT AVE, SUITE 203 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-5556 BENCH MARK — DATUM (NAVD 88) NGVD29=NAVD88-3.17 BENCHMARK: TOP OS SURFACE BRASS CAP PI MONUMENT 79THAVE WEST AND 79TH PLACE WEST. ELEVATION 343.68 CITY OF EDMONDS DATUM (MEAN LOWER LOW WATER) SHEET INDEX 1. SITE PLAN / EXISTING CONDITIONS 2. ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 3. STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 4. ROAD AND STORM NOTES AND DETAILS 5. GRADING PLAN 6. GRADING PLAN 7. SEWER AND WATER PLAN 8. SEWER AND WATER PLAN 9. SEWER PROFILES 10. SEWER AND WATER NOTES AND DETAILS 11. T.E.S.C. PLAN 12. T.E.S.C. PLAN 13. T.E.S.C. NOTES AND DETAILS 14, 20% VEGETATION AREAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: 0 af 311111F. CN N N z 0 U VJ Q Q > Z 0 z a Q Z Z j:) 2 i Lj- W w3 0 7 H SHEET: 1 REV: BY: CITY ENGINEER DIVISION or: w Copyright 2016 by Brian R. Lindsay, BR.0 SerViCES C.CC. Design, map, text and data may not be used, copied or reproduced in any way without express written permission of Brian R. Lindsay, BRL Services 11C. Packet Pg. 30 City of Edmonds City Utility Map 18208 IF18218 18226 8332 Edmonds Wat r 18326 os 18213 027 9PI 8305 8uu1 0 18325 5-204 2 ~ 2 � ~ �'� EW 1966d 1966 5-203 %, h 1 ► - 12 v 1CF. 0 ,C� 5-209 •�� ,70 (� s' - CLOSED 76 5-` �. 5-142 -143 s 18415 r.i C 18418 mm 18408 N v o �827f CD 00 )• 5-154F 5-159F P05-8ti 1:2,257 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accur WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary-Sphere current, or otherwise relia © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI a� (D L f+ U) +d, 0 .0 rloumlak O � ' �� •.,•�' I inrace � 4 � Legend r r O O O O N Z J d Notes E Water - blue Storm - grass green Q Sewer - olive green Att Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .nC 1$y., PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on a proposed change to the City of Edmonds official street map in accordance with Chapter 20.65 Edmonds Community Development Code. The proposed change would eliminate the potential right-of-way identified on the official street map that would connect 801h Avenue West to Olympic View Drive beginning near the intersection of 184th Street SW and 801h Avenue West. The potential right-of-way intersects four parcels with the tax parcel numbers 00370800101100, 00370800101200, 00370800101300, and 00370800100900. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation on the proposed official street map change to the City Council for a final decision. FILE NO.: PLN20190011 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: April 24, 2019 As a legislative process, any person may comment on this application up to the time of the final decision by the City Council. Information on this proposal can be viewed or obtained by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa(please look either under public notices or under the appropriate public meeting agenda), or by contacting the City of Edmonds Development Services Department at 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday or 8:30 to Noon on Wednesday. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made in person at the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Board on April 24, 2019 at 7 p.m, in the Council Chambers located at 250— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attach Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a ��' — (81 iT Tlr_i3:�.W. J ui HO Es~ 7A� IRA �'Y 4 7 B O i B �N� s° ST. S.W. 10 ' g - ° 3d 30 -- y 15 i Prop d Street Ma i4 < -� 14 m A V I E W 4 P a R k L4j v� 6 0 fl 60 rl �llV �r12 l 1 0 ,� �' -� f3 14 16 8 no 0 Attach Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20190011 Applicant: Josan DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 10th day of April, 2019, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 10th day of April, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attach Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20190011 Applicant: Josan DECLARATION OF MAILING On the I Oh day of April, 2019, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this I01h day of April, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: �A6�aj {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attach Packet Pg. 35 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Introduction to Nonconforming Building Code Amendments - ECDC 17.40.020 Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History In the City of Edmonds, some properties have existing multifamily buildings (including condominium developments) that were built in conformance with prior City codes, whereby the buildings were permitted to have more units or height than are allowed under the City's current development codes. Existing multifamily buildings that have more units or different dimensions than currently allowed are considered "nonconforming". Nonconforming buildings are not allowed to be rebuilt if they are damaged to 75% or more of their value --UNLESS the rebuilding would fully meet the City's current development codes. A significant problem has arisen for condo owners who are in "nonconforming buildings" that have more existing units than are now allowed under current code. When they try to sell their units, banks are refusing to finance the purchase by a new owner. This is becoming a serious problem for those owners that need to sell (for example, a senior who wants to move to an assisted living facility) and for people that want to buy the existing condos. At the April 8 meeting of the City Council's Planning, Public Safety, and Personnel Committee, the Committee reviewed the issue, including the staff's recommendation to work with the Planning Board on a possible code amendment, and concurred that the proposal should go to the full City Council for direction at the next available meeting time. On April 16, the City Council discussed and concurred that an amendment to the nonconformance code was the logical way to address the issue. The amendment might include addressing building dimensions and setbacks for existing multifamily buildings, as well as the number of units (density). This issue is also on the agenda for an update at the April 23 City Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Hold public hearing on potential amendments to the nonconforming building code in ECDC 17.40.020 on May 8, 2019. Narrative So far, City staff has learned of 25 multifamily sites that are affected by the nonconformance requirement because they have a greater number of units than would be allowed now. Each of these 25 sites has from 1 to 19 more units than would be allowed under the City's current code if the Packet Pg. 36 8.A development were to be rebuilt. A total of 633 residential units are affected. (Note: The identification of some sites was based on initial research by interested parties --but the information has been reviewed and confirmed.) There appears to be much prior discussion on this very issue as apparent from the various code changes. 1979 - 1980: o "Primarily nonresidential" buildings were required to be reconstruct to current standards if the building was damaged in an amount exceed 50 percent of its value. o "Primarily residential" buildings could be rebuilt to the same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of the damage o This code also required abatement, meaning that buildings the exceeded the density of the current zoning were required to come into compliance. The code identified a couple of options for obtaining compliance; purchase an adjacent property so the development meet the density requirements or eliminate units until the building met the density standards. The code also allowed only one of the units that exceeded the density to apply for "innocent purchaser," but the rest of the units had to be eliminated. 1980: o "Primarily nonresidential' buildings were required to be reconstruct to current standards if the building was damaged in an amount exceed 50 percent of its value. o "Primarily residential" buildings could be rebuilt to the same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of the damage o The abatement provision of 1979 - 1980 was removed from the code. 1981: o Any nonconforming building could be reconstructed to the same density and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of the damage. 1982 - 2008: o Any nonconforming building was required to be reconstruct to current standards if the building was damaged in an amount exceed 50 percent of its value. 2008 - Present A nonconforming building was required to be reconstruct to current standards if the building was damaged in an amount exceed 75 percent of its value. Residential buildings in commercial zones may be reconstructed regardless of the 75% rule if the building is reconstructed in the same "footprint" provided the footprint shall not be expanded more the 10% and the replacement building is found "to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with current codes." Could the code be amended to narrowly allow the number of units to be "grandfathered" without affecting other requirements? Yes, the nonconformance code could be amended in a very limited manner to apply only to the number of existing multifamily units and/or to the building dimensions that could be rebuilt --without changing other requirements that must be met under the City's codes. Does the Comprehensive Plan provide any policy guidance on this issue? The City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal D states: Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community... Packet Pg. 37 8.A Also, Comprehensive Plan Policy D.4 calls for the City to: Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. Issues for a possible long-term ordinance The Planning Board will consider issues and questions related to nonconforming multifamily buildings, including the following: Should an amendment to the nonconformance code address density only? Should an amendment also address building dimensions and setbacks so multifamily buildings can be reconstructed to the same size as before? Does one year give sufficient time between when any major damage occurs and a building permit application, with complete plans for reconstruction, is submitted? Assuming the Planning Board makes its recommendation on May 8, the earliest the City Council can hold a public hearing and make a decision is May 14. However, to do so on that date would require a special meeting of the City Council, given that second Tuesdays typically only have committee meetings. If the Council does not want to have a special meeting for the permanent ordinance, the earliest that a public hearing could be held and a decision made is May 21. Such public hearings require a published notice at least 14 days in advance. Next Steps The City Council has indicated that this code update should proceed as expeditiously as possible. The following is a potential timeline for this code amendment. Notice has been given for a Planning Board public hearing on May 8. At the Planning Board's May 8 meeting (to be held at 7 pm at City Hall), the Board will hold a public hearing on amending the code, then discuss and make recommendations. A draft permanent ordinance could be brought back to the City Council for a public hearing on May 14-though that would require Council to hold a special meeting, given that second Tuesdays are usually reserved for committees. An ordinance adopted on May 14 would go into effect five days after publication (typically about 10 days from adoption night). Attachments: List of Identified Nonconforming Condominiums Map of Identified Nonconforming Condominiums Packet Pg. 38 8.A.a Examples of Nonconforming Condominiums Address Zone Number of Existing Units Number of Units Allowed by Zone Year of Contruction 1020 5th Ave S RM-1.5 15 13 1962 10415th Ave S RM-1.5 19 14 1962 1070 5th Ave S RM-1.5 27 23 1979 1110 5th Ave S RM-1.5 20 10 1966 20632 76th Ave W RM-2.4 20 17 1968 20714 76th Ave W RM-2.4 20 17 1975 233 3rd Ave N RM-1.5 20 9 1964 300 2nd Ave S RM-1.5 23 20 1965 500 Elm Way RM-1.5 74 1 65 1965 510 Forsyth Ln RM-1.5 36 26 1967 517 4th Ave S RM-2.4 8 7 1976 523 Maple St RM-1.5 10 9 1975 555 Alder St RM-1.5 18 17 1964 655 Main Street RM-1.5 15 13 1967 7421 212th St SW RM-2.4 17 14 1976 7813 218th St SW RM-2.4 48 47 1968 7901 196th St SW RM-2.4 22 18 1976 7905 218th St SW RM-2.4 16 12 1978 7924 212th Sr SW RM-2.4 42 23 1968 8015 196th St SW RM-2.4 22 18 1978 8410 240th St SW RM-2.4 38 31 1979 8503 Bowdoin Way RM-2.4 13 7 1977 8516 196th St SW RM-2.4 50 41 1969 900 5th Ave S RM-1.5 11 8 1976 960 5th Ave S RM-1.5 29 25 1967 0 N O 0 ti V 0 U W r� a Packet Pg. 39 —mr- 6HLLINGER WAY 244TH ST SW `^ 8.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Role of the Planning Board Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative At the March 27, 2019 Planning Board Retreat, the Planning Board discussed have the Development Services Director attend a meeting to discuss: 1. The role of the Planning Board (specifically what the code requirements and limitations are) 2. How the Planning Board can be the most helpful to city staff, and 3. Suggests on how the Planning Board can improve or if there is anything else they should be doing or not doing. Shane Hope, Development Services Director, will be present at the Planning Board to discuss these topics. Packet Pg. 41 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/24/2019 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting. Attachments: 04-24-2019 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 42 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLAT Wf BOARD ARDD 14�o Extended Agenda April 24, 2019 Meeting Item APRIL, 2019 April 1. VISION 2050 Update 24 2. Options to Address Number of Units for Multifamily in Existing Multifamily (Tentative) 3. Public Hearing on Street Map Change 4. Role of the Planning Board MAY, 2019 May 1. Legislative Update 8 2. Public Hearing on Potential Code Amendment to ECDC 17.40.020 to Address Nonconformance of Existing Multifamily (Tentative) May 1. Public Hearing on Potential Code Amendment to ECDC 22 17.40.020 to Address Nonconformance of Existing Multifamily (Tentative) TUNE, 2019 June 1. 12 June 1. 26 July 1. 10 July 1. 26 r a Packet Pg. 43 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2019 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Election of Officers (1st meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) Packet Pg. 44