Loading...
2019-05-22 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 22, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: April 24, 2019 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing Regarding Nonconforming Building Code Amendments 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 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 May 22, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/22/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes: April 24, 2019 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: PB190424d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES OF RETREAT April 24, 2019 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 Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2019 AND APRIL 10, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, reported that, on April 171, he emailed City Officials a memorandum regarding nonconforming uses dated June 8, 2006 from former City Attorney Scott Snyder to the City Council and Mr. Chave. Because the memorandum was not attached to the Board's Staff Report, he delivered it to the Planning Board in person as he felt it would be helpful in the Planning Board's discussion. The memorandum discusses the basic legal concepts behind nonconforming uses and their status under Washington State Law. It notes that, in some cases, the City has lightened the burden for property owners regarding nonconforming uses by creating exceptions, but at other times, past City Councils have been extremely restrictive. The memorandum states that, as defined by the Washington Supreme Court, a nonconforming use is "a use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is situated. " Mr. Reidy said he finds that the word "nonconforming" can cause confusion, and he prefers to use the word "grandfathered." Grandfathered Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a uses are typically uses that lawfully existed prior to a change in land use regulations. As discussed in the memorandum, however, it is more complicated than that in Edmonds. Mr. Reidy explained that, in Edmonds, the City Council has grandfathered other items by creating exceptions, and examples include the Council's decision to establish a grace period for enforcement purposes for accessory buildings that existed on or before January 1, 1981 (ECDC 17.40.020(A) and (H) and the Council's decision to grant amnesty to certain long -existing wireless communication facilities (ECDC 17.40.023). He said history shows that the City has struggled with the application of grandfathering laws. He can provide an example where the City allowed a new structure to be grandfathered under Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020 even though no zoning laws had changed. In its decision, staff stated that owners are usually required to bring such structures into compliance with the existing zoning code, and they didn't say why this particular owner was not required to do so. He said history also shows that the City has required removal of an accessory building that existed in 1968 and was grandfathered under the grace period provided by ECDC 17.40.020(A) and (H), and he can provide the details to interested Planning Board Members. Mr. Reidy said he points out these situations to show that the City's historical conduct in this area is messy and complicated. The City has a history of different rules for different people even after grandfathering laws have been passed. An exception is not needed for the multifamily buildings being discussed tonight, as those buildings are already grandfathered. The solution to that problem is much more complicated. Thankfully, the City Council has broad legislative powers. As the memorandum also states, the City has certain buildings or housing stock that do not qualify for historic status, and the City Council could find that these buildings, whether commercial or residential, are worthy of preservation for cultural or other reasons such as a desire to preserve affordable housing stock. Therefore, the City Council is not obligated to adopt a one -size - fits -all category. Mr. Reidy said he hopes the Planning Board can give this topic deep consideration and help the City Council adopt a permanent solution that works for the multifamily buildings and is comprehensive and solid. He also hopes any new laws adopted are fairly and faithfully enforced. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the updated Development Services Director's Report and invited Board Member comments and questions. At the request of the Board, Director Hope shared details relative to the Housing Commission. She recalled that housing has been an issue in the City for quite some time, and there have been various efforts to provide some solutions, some of which have involved the Planning Board. Because a variety of people have voiced concern that their perspectives were not heard and the issues were not clearly understood, the City Council determined that a new process was needed. On April 161, the City Council adopted a resolution to establish a Citizen's Housing Commission. The resolution lays out how the Commission will function, how the participants will be seated, etc. In order to make sure that representation is citywide, the City Council used a census -based map to divide the City into seven districts, all with approximately the same population. As per the resolution, each Council Member would be assigned to a district and asked to select two candidates out of a pool of applicants, as well as an alternative, to serve from that particular district. The Council President will assign the Council Members to districts. Any resident of Edmonds can submit an application to serve on the Commission, but the adopted resolution states that preference will be given to residents who are not already serving on a City Board or Commission. However, on April 231, the Council discussed going one step further to state that those currently serving on City Boards and Commission will be ineligible to participate on the Citizen's Housing Commission. They will consider an amending resolution at their next Council meeting. Director Hope reported that the City is nearly ready to launch the application process. The application form will ask for standard information, as well as some specific questions related to which district the applicant lives in and whether they are renters or owners. She clarified that it is not the City Council's intent to discriminate against either renters or owners, but they recognized it will be good to have a mix. She explained that each assigned City Council member will select their preferred applicants. The timeline for this process will depend on how many applications are received and whether or not all districts are represented. She advised that, in addition to the 14 members (2 from each district) and 7 alternate members (1 from each district), the Mayor will also be invited to select one candidate from the pool of applicants after the City Council Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 2 11 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a has appointed their members. The Commission will consist of 15 members and 7 alternates. The alternatives will not be voting members, but could step in if a representative from their district is absent. Director Hope concluded that the application will be posted on the City's website soon, and a postcard will be sent out this week to every residential address in the City to announce the process, direct citizens to where information is available, and advise on how they can submit an application to serve on the Commission. The City's website will provide detailed information, including the resolution that was adopted by the City Council and a frequently asked question (FAQ) sheet. A press release will be released, as well as other types of announcements, to get the word out about this opportunity. The website will be updated as the project evolves. The hope is to have the Commissioners seated sometime in June, and the first meeting will be called by the Council President. At their first meeting, the Commission will choose the date for their regular meetings. The idea is to have monthly meetings, plus quarterly public outreach. The goal is for the Commission to come up with a set of housing policy options and/or recommendations by December 31, 2020. Board Member Crank asked if the application will be available before or after the Council adopts its amendment to the resolution. Director Hope said it will probably be available before, but an explanation about the potential change will be provided, as well. Board Member Crank said she has heard questions and concerns about whether or not the Commission membership will be heavy on owners versus renters. She pointed out that there are some long-term (15 years +) renters in Edmonds who are concerned that they won't be seen as valuable as a 10-year owner. Her response to these people was that she is confident in the City Council's ability to be fair when choosing members. She suggested that the FAQs address the equal and fairness of how the Commissioners will be chosen, especially when the application will include the "renter/owner" question. Director Hope agreed that should be clarified. She explained that the renter/owner question is not meant to discourage applicants but to make sure there is a reasonable equity balance. At least 30% of the City's population are renters, and about 70% have ownership. The hope is that there will be at least some representation from renters, even though there will likely be more representation from owners. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there will be an age requirement for applicants, and Director Hope answered no. Theoretically a young person could apply to serve on the Commission. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there will be a designated position for a youth representative. Director Hope answered no, but emphasized that one of the representatives from a district could be a youth. There are no restrictions, except none of the youth representatives currently serving on a City commission or board will be eligible. She also emphasized that the Commission meetings will be open to the public, and there will be other public outreach opportunities, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she hopes the City Council will wisely see that the housing issue is also a matter of entry into the housing market, which applies to all ages of residents and all types of housing. She recalled that, at one time, there were more apartments in Edmonds, but many have been turned into condominiums. In addition, condominium projects were not being constructed for a period of time because of certain state laws that were previously in place. Edmonds does not have a variety of housing, and that may be why so many people are still living in apartments. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if pertinent information collected by the Citizens Housing Commission could be forwarded to staff for dispersal to the Planning Board when appropriate. Director Hope advised that staff will provide assistance to the Commission, and the plan is to also have a separate meeting facilitator. There is also some general interest in hiring a community engagement specialist. The meeting facilitator will make sure the meetings run smoothly and that discussions stay on topic, and the community engagement specialist will do all of the cool stuff to get the word out to the public via surveys, graphic information, etc. The intent is to reach out to a broad segment of the population. PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE A PLANNED RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) NORTH OF 184TH AVENUE SW BETWEEN 80TH AVENUE W AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (FILE NO. PLN20190011) Ms. McConnell explained that the proposal before the Board is an amendment to the Official Street Map, which is a Type V decision. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council. She Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 3 11 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a advised that, in order to recommend approval of the amendment, the Board must find that it meets the review criteria found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.65.010. Ms. McConnell explained that the Official Street Map was adopted in 1980, but it is still referenced in the Development Code and used by the City. She provided a map of the subject area, pointing out that the dashed line indicates the planned ROWS, and the existing and desired ROW widths are labeled. She emphasized that the ROW does not currently exist, but it is shown on the map to indicate that it would be dedicated as such at some point in time when a development comes forward. She used a vicinity map to identify the location of the current planned ROW that is the subject of the hearing. She explained that the ROW and the developed travel lanes would go north on 801 Avenue W and head east down to Olympic View Drive. Ms. McConnell advised that the applicant is requesting that the planned ROW line to be eliminated. The City has completed its review of the proposal and determined that the dedication of ROW is not desired in that location. She provided an illustration of the applicant's potential lot configuration, but emphasized that no development proposal has been submitted to the City. She provided a graphic to illustrate the existing utilities (sewer, stormwater, water) in proximity to the planned ROW line. While the City recognizes that the development would be better served if the planned ROW was not dedicated as public ROW and it is not needed from a public infrastructure standpoint as a connection between 80' Avenue W and Olympic View Drive, easements must still be maintained for the existing City utilities. Board Member Lovell asked if the current utility easements are in place in perpetuity. Ms. McConnell explained that easements are intended to allow the City proper access to utility infrastructure, but they do not require a road, and access may be difficult in some situations due to vegetation, etc. Not all of the City's utility infrastructure falls within travel lanes, and many are on private property and accessed via easements. Board Member Lovell observed that the area is slated for single- family residential development (RS-12), which means that some lots will have forever easements that are recorded on the property titles. He asked if the City will ensure that any homes developed on the site are located to preserve the utility infrastructure and maintain access. Ms. McConnell said the City would not allow a building structure to be constructed over an easement, and the easement area would need to be preserved. Board Member Lovell asked if the City would allow a developer to relocate a utility to accommodate a different lot configuration. Ms. McConnell agreed that is possible. She said that, in some respects, relocating the utilities could be a benefit to the City by providing better access to the infrastructure or by realigning an easement so it no longer meanders through private properties. She noted that a 24-inch water transmission line runs through the property. In discussions at the staff level, as well as with the developer, it has been determined that it would not be desirable to relocate this transmission line. The current thought is that it would stay in its existing location, but stormwater and sewer utilities could be relocated. That would be something staff would review during the Development Permit review process. Board Member Lovell summarized that the Board is being asked to remove the concept that the route would be used for a road in the future. Otherwise, everything else, including the utility easements, would remain the same unless the developer presents another proposal for utilities during the Development Permit process. Ms. McConnell pointed out that the City owns the property to the south of the subject parcels, and there are some utilities located on the City -owned property. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like the maps to line up more easily. The City's Official Street Map shows the addresses and lot numbers, but this information was not included on the maps provided in the Staff s presentation. She likes to be able to line the maps up with each other. She asked that the addresses and lot numbers be listed on all of the maps that are used going forward. She also suggested it would be helpful for the images to line up with each other so that the planned ROW line is clearly identifiable on each one. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the map provided on Page 29 of the Staff Report provides addresses. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would compensate the property owner for the purchase of the easements. Ms. McConnell answered no. Board Member Monroe asked if the easements would be sized to allow for future replacement of utilities. Ms. McConnell said City staff has concluded that easements are needed, but they have not yet determined the exact width. Staff is proposing a condition that would require that the easements be retained. Information showing the exact easement widths will be available when the proposal moves forward to the City Council. Again, Ms. McConnell referred the Board to the criteria found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.65.010 and reviewed how the current proposal would meet each one: Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 4 11 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Complies with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated on Page 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, its purposes include: anticipating and influencing the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs and facilitating adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment and parks. The area is designated as Single -Family Resource, and that would not change with the Official Street Map amendment and is consistent with future development that may come through. Based on staff review, it has been determined that there is adequate ROW in connection to Olympic View Drive going east on 80' Avenue W. The recommended condition for utilities, as stated in the Staff Report, would also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Complies with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. This plan is referenced in ECDC 15.40 (Transportation Element). This section calls out specific policies such as locating and designing transportation facilities with respect to the community's residential character, natural features and quality of life, as well as designing local residential streets to prevent or discourage use as shortcuts for vehicle through traffic. Staff believes the elimination of the planned ROW line would be consistent with the Comprehensive Street Plan (Transportation Element). If it is not eliminated, the dedication of ROW would be required with future development. The amendment will eliminate this undesirable ROW and potential for cut -through traffic. • Complies with the purposes of the Official Street Map. The purposes of the Official Street Map, as stated in ECDC 18.50 are to implement the Comprehensive Street Plan and regulate the construction of improvements in accordance with the Comprehensive Street Plan. Staff does not believe a public street is needed in this location. This decision was vetted through the Public Works Operation and Maintenance Group and the South County Fire District, and all are in concurrence that it is not a needed street connection. Ms. McConnell said the Comprehensive Plan does take pedestrian connections into consideration, and this has been discussed and will be reviewed with potential future development. The City will require dedication of easements as needed to ensure there are proper pedestrian connections. Ms. McConnell concluded that staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Street Plan and the Official Street Map. She recommended approval 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 of the Staff Report. Brian Lindsay, BRL Services, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant, Manjinder Josan, was also present. Mr. Lindsay advised that the applicant has no intention of changing the water main or sewer infrastructure, but they may change the stormwater easement to make it more uniform but still maintain all of the same drainage features. None of the utility infrastructure on the City's property will be changed. The applicant will dedicate 5 feet along 801 Avenue W, which puts the stormwater line within the ROW. The stormwater line above Address 18314 may be relocated to make it more perpendicular so the property can be better utilized. Board Member Crank asked if the applicant's plan to change the stormwater line would still be in line with staff s recommendation. Ms. McConnell answered yes. She explained that these items would be reviewed and considered with a future development proposal. At this time, the Board is considering just the Official Street Map amendment, with the utilities in their existing locations. Board Member Lovell referred to the steep grade change east of Lot 7 down to Olympic View Drive, which will make it difficult for a street to be constructed. Ms. McConnell said a potential pedestrian connection, and not a street, is shown in this location. The street access would be from 801 Avenue W to the west side of the development. She explained that the proposal for future development shows no vehicular connection to Olympic View Drive. Any connection to Olympic View Drive would be for pedestrians only. There is currently a home at the north end of the property that has a driveway connecting to Olympic View Drive, but there are other portions of the property where it is too steep for a road to go through. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 5 11 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Mr. Lindsay advised that an actual American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) pathway will be included as part of the proposed proj ect. Board Member Monroe asked if the Fire Marshall and Traffic Engineer considered the traffic use and the need for the connection in light of the upcoming development, and Ms. McConnell answered affirmatively. Board Member Monroe recalled that the Board previously discussed the subject property. Mr. Lien said the property used to be subject to a contract rezone (RS-8), which required it to be developed via a Planned Residential Development (PRD). It has since been rezoned to RS-12 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, and the PRD requirement was removed. Board Member Rubenkonig asked when the individual lots were created. Mr. Lien clarified that the lots have not been created yet. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that providing the lot numbers is somewhat confusing. The Board is only to be looking at whether or not a ROW can be vacated. Mr. Lien said the reason behind some of the confusion is the processes that are involved in the project. Normally, multiple applications are consolidated into a single review. The proposed Official Street Map amendment has an associated application to vacate a portion of the ROW for pedestrian access from 184' Street W down to Olympic View Drive. Both of these actions are Type V Legislative processes, but the subdivision is a Type III quasi-judicial process. The City cannot consolidate legislative and quasi-judicial processes, and the intent is to deal with the legislative processes first to address the street map amendment and the street vacation request. The Planning Board is only responsible for reviewing and making a recommendation relative to the Official Street Map amendment, but the two proposals will be linked together when presented to the City Council for a public hearing at the same time. Following the Council's decision, the applicant will likely make an application for the subdivision. Staff s recommended Condition 2 is intended to make it clear that approval of the Official Street Map amendment does not guarantee or infer approval of the subdivision. The only thing under consideration at this time is the Official Street Map amendment. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that it is not the Board's purpose to make the project developable, and Mr. Lien concurred. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said that at the City Council's April 23rd meeting, he presented 11 questions relative to the proposed amendment. In general, he said he is very confused about what is taking place. He asked what a planned ROW is, given that a search of the City's code yields no results. He asked how a planned ROW ended up on the City's Official Street Map. If it was added as part of a previous subdivision or PRD approval, he questioned why it was not removed when the subdivision or PRD approval expired. He asked how something that is not yet dedicated ends up on the City's Official Street Map. In his research, he found several discussions about a concept called "paper street," but in every situation, the "paper streets" were actually dedicated ROWS. Because the planned ROW has not been dedicated, it should be removed from the City's Official Street Map. He said he is curious to know the difference between an Official Street Map amendment and a street vacation. He found an example from 1997 where a platted street (41 Avenue south of Walnut Street down to Howell Street) was not dedicated. Instead it was handled through an Official Street Map amendment process, which at the time was a closed record review and not a Type V decision. He said he knows when the ordinance was passed to change it into a Type V decision, but he questioned what changed at the State level to warrant the change. He said he was involved with a street vacation that involved dotted lines, but he was advised to pursue a street vacation rather than an Official Street Map amendment. A street vacation is subject to compensation and other issues. If an Official Street Map amendment is available as an option, many property owners with unopened ROWS would be better off using this approach as opposed to a street vacation. He said he hopes that some clarity will come forth with this issue because it is very confusing to him. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Monroe commented that Mr. Reidy's point is well taken that perhaps the Official Street Map amendment process is not well known and/or available, but the current proposal is straightforward. If the City is not planning to use the ROW, there is no need to hold onto it. He is satisfied that staff did a good job discussing the proposal and soliciting feedback from the Fire Marshal and Traffic Engineer. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN AND OFFICIAL STREET MAP POLICIES AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 6 11 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a 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. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTRODUCTION TO NONCONFORMING BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS (ECDC 17.40.020 Director Hope said these potential amendments are related to nonconforming multifamily buildings and not a sweeping review of the nonconformance code at this time. She explained that the issue was brought to the City's attention when a long-term resident of Edmonds experienced problems selling her unit when banks refused to lend to a prospective buyer because the property is nonconforming and cannot be rebuilt to its current density if a major disaster were to occur. Mr. Lien said the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020.A defines a nonconforming building as "one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the City of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the City. " He also reviewed ECDC 17.40.020.17, which is the section that caused the funding problem referenced earlier by Director Hope. Based on this provision, "if a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. " This means that the reconstructed building must meet all of the current code standards for height, setbacks, density, etc. Mr. Lien said the issue arose when a bank appraiser called the City to ask if the building could be reconstructed. Staff referred to ECDC 17.40.020.F, which caused the condo sale to be put temporarily on hold. Since the problem was first brought forward, staff has identified 23 additional sites where the provision could be a problem, but it is not an exhaustive list. The sites identified so far have all been condominium buildings, but the provision would also apply to apartment buildings, and the owners may not be aware of the situation. The 24 sites represent 633 units that may be impacted due to financing issues. Mr. Lien reviewed how the Zoning Code has changed over the years: • 1956 — 1964. The City's first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1956, and it was in place until 1964. There was no specific multifamily zone, and some of the existing buildings along 51 Avenue were built during that time period when the property was zoned C-1, which was a mixed -use zone that had no density requirement or limitation. For example, one of the buildings has 20 units where the current zoning would only allow 10. • 1964 — 1970. The City adopted its first multifamily zones, which were Multiple Residential, Low Density (RML) and Multiple Residential, High Density (RMH). The density in both of these zones was calculated differently than the City's current method. • 1970 — 1978. The method for calculating density was changed a bit, with an additional option for a density bonus. • 1978 —1980. The option for a density bonus was eliminated for the RML and RMH zones. • 1980 — Today. In 1980, the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) was established along with most of the zones that are currently in place. There are three multifamily zones today: RM-1.5 (one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area), RM-2.4 (one dwelling unit per 2,400 square feet of lot area), and RM-3.0 (one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area). Mr. Lien said that only one of the 24 properties that have been identified so far is nonconforming with regards to being annexed into the City. The remaining 23 were constructed under the older RM zones. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 7 11 Packet Pg. 9 Mr. Lien explained that 1964 was the City's first opportunity for a nonconforming building, and that is when the first nonconforming code was adopted. Over the years, nonconforming situations has been addressed in a variety of ways: 1964 — 1979. The nonconforming code said that if a nonconforming building was destroyed in an amount of 50% or greater, it must be rebuilt consistent with the current zoning standards. 1979 — 1980. In 1979, a primarily nonresidential building had to be reconstructed to the current zoning standards if it was destroyed more than 50% of its value, and a primarily residential building could be rebuilt to the same density, bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage. That same nonconforming code also included an abatement requirement that said the nonconforming buildings were required to come into conformance by reducing the number of units or purchasing an adjacent property so the density requirement could be met. Interestingly, that same code also allowed one of the units that exceeded density to apply for "innocent purchaser" status, but the rest of the units had to be eliminated. • 1980. The abatement requirement was eliminated, but the reconstruction provisions still applied. That meant that primarily residential buildings could only be rebuilt to the same density, bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage and primarily nonresidential buildings had to meet the current zoning standards if destroyed more than 50% of their value. • 1981. The code was changed to allow any nonconforming building to be rebuilt to the same density, bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage. • 1982 — 2008. The provision was amended to say that any building that is destroyed in an amount of 50% or more of its replacement cost must conform with zoning standards if reconstructed. • 2008 — Present. The nonconforming code was last updated in 2008 and required that any building that is destroyed in an amount of 75% or more of its replacement cost must conform with the current zoning standards if reconstructed. The memorandum provided by Mr. Reidy has some discussion about the 75% requirement. An additional provision was added in 2008 that allows all residential buildings in commercial zones to be reconstructed regardless of the 75% rule, but they must be reconstructed in the same footprint. The buildings would not have to comply with the current height requirements, and the footprint could be expanded by 10%. Mr. Lien advised that the Comprehensive Plan contains some policies and goals related to the topic of nonconformance: Housing Goal D — Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community. Housing Policy D — Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. Mr. Lien reported that the City Council passed an interim ordinance on April 23' that provided an exception for nonconforming multifamily buildings. As approved, ECDC 17.40.0201 would read: "F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be constructed except in full conformance with the provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks, and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for a building permit is submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred." Mr. Lien said the City Council has remanded the issue to the Planning Board to review the impacts of the interim ordinance and provide a recommendation for a permanent ordinance. Issue and options to consider for the long-term ordinance include: Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 • Should the provision "grandfather" only the number of residential units? From 1956 to 1980, multifamily zones had a maximum height limit of 35 feet. The height limit was reduced to 30 feet in 1984. Therefore, in addition to density, many of the existing older multifamily developments are also nonconforming in regard to height. If the long-term ordinance only grandfathers the number of residential units, some of the flat condominiums that were built to 35 feet could be reconstructed with the same number of units, but the units might have to be smaller. • Should the provision "grandfather" both density and building dimensions and setbacks? The interim ordinance addresses both density and bulk and dimension requirements. • Is one year sufficient time for a property owner to apply for a building permit to rebuild a structure? If a building burns down, it will take time to work with insurance companies, draw up new plans, etc. Currently, both the nonconforming code and the interim ordinance have a 1-year time limit to submit a building application. • Should specific reference to the Building Code be included? If the buildings are going to be reconstructed, the assumption is that they will be rebuilt to the current Building Code standards. • Should the rebuild be required to comply with current design standards? The current design standards require a 4:12 pitched roof in order to obtain the additional 5 feet in height above 25 feet. If both the density and height are grandfathered, buildings that are currently 35 feet could be rebuilt and the impact could be significant. • Should the provision apply to mixed -use buildings that have residential components? The interim ordinance includes an exception specifically for all residential buildings, and the Board should consider whether it would be appropriate to also include mixed -use buildings with residential components. • How will the long-term ordinance impact other related code sections? For example, the nonconforming code that is part of the interim ordinance provides an exception for residential buildings (ECDC 17.40.020.F). If the ordinance is expanded to include mixed -use buildings with mixed -use components, it would override ECDC 17.40.020.G, which covers residential buildings in commercial zones. Mr. Lien concluded his presentation by stating that staff is looking for the Board to begin its discussion on the issues and options related to a long-term ordinance. Staff will use feedback from the Board to draft amendments for a public hearing on May 81. If the Board follows the public hearing with a recommendation to the City Council, a tentative public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for May 141 Given that the interim ordinance is in place for 180 days, Chair Cheung asked if the permanent ordinance really needs to be on a fast track. Director Hope responded that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to look at the issue expeditiously. It may be necessary for the Board to extend its process beyond May 8', but the idea is to focus on multifamily development and provide ideas and options for staff to write up in code format. Other issues outside of multifamily development can be discussed as a separate matter. Board Member Crank asked if the owners of multifamily developments were notified when the various zoning changes were being considered. Director Hope said staff does not have all of the information needed to answer that question. As much as she wants to fix the current situation expeditiously, Board Member Crank said it is also important to think about how to avoid having the problem coming up again. Director Hope commented that, whatever happened in the past, does not mean it has to happen that way now. The City's intent is to notify the owners of the known addresses, publish press releases and be very proactive about letting people know of the proposed amendment. As a former investment banker, Board Member Crank said she learned that every mistake costs money and it is up to whoever created the mistake to bring that person whole. Hopefully, the City can make that happen without having to come back down that road at some point in the future. Director Hope agreed that is something the Board should consider, and they should feel confident that staff has been researching the issue a lot by reviewing historical information and looking at what other cities have done. They have identified the things that are most obvious that need to be considered. At this time, staff is seeking feedback about whether the permanent ordinance should only deal with the density, or the bulk and dimension standards, too. They are also seeking feedback about Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a whether or not the provision should be expanded to include mixed -use buildings with residential components and if the rebuild should be exempt from certain design standards? Board Member Lovell suggested that the first step should be to notify property owners and make them aware that their properties are nonconforming. Director Hope cautioned that a comprehensive analysis would require a lot of work to examine every building. They may not be able to give exact information to every property owner, but they can notify the ones they know about. Board Member Lovell asked what the banks are complaining about. Director Hope said the risk is too great for them to loan money to finance the purchase of a nonconforming property based on the current code. That means the current owners have no value in their property. For example, the person who brought the issue to the City's attention is unable to sell her condominium unit because the bank won't authorize the loan. Board Member Lovell asked what criteria the bank used to determine they would not authorize the loan. Director Hope said banks typically have appraisers who research zoning, etc. In the past, they didn't look as closely at the density, bulk and dimension standards. If questions come up, financial institutions contact the City to determine the status of the property and whether or not it can be rebuilt if a major disaster were to occur. The City cannot control what happens in the banking world, but it can at least allow the possibility for people to be made whole and to preserve the existing housing stock. Board Member Lovell presumed that the drawings and plans for all development within the City are on file. Mr. Lien commented that the buildings in question were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and the City's records are not extensive, and he cannot easily determine the height of a structure. Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that if a property owner decides to demolish and rebuild or add onto an existing nonconforming structure, they should be subject to the current Development Code standards. If a structure burns down, the insurance company, under the terms of the policy, would only guarantee replacement exactly the way it was. They won't pay to upgrade it to code or increase the height and/or density. Their goal will be to keep the costs as low as possible. He questioned why it wouldn't be possible to assure the banks that, should a catastrophe occur and the structure is considered a total loss and needs to be rebuilt, it can only be replaced in fact. Director Hope said it is not the City's intent to allow a property owner to tear down and rebuild a nonconforming building to the same density and bulk. The provision in the permanent ordinance would only apply to structures that are destroyed by a natural disaster. Mr. Lien explained that, currently, nonconforming buildings that are destroyed less than 75% of their replacement value can be reconstructed to their original height, density, etc. If the destruction goes beyond 75% of the value, the 2008 policy decision was that the building could only be reconstructed consistent with the current Development Code standards. Nonconforming buildings can be maintained based on the current code, and the ordinance is intended to address situations where structures are significantly destroyed and need to be completely rebuilt. Board Member Lovell asked how many situations of this type have occurred in the City over the last 10 years, and Director Hope cautioned that the issue is not whether it actually occurs, but whether there is a risk of it occurring. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the concept of "making property owners whole again." The thought came to her mind that, even though the provision would allow them to rebuild, the new structure would have to meet the current Building Code requirements and it might not be possible to obtain the same density as existed in the previous building. Director Hope explained that the interim ordinance will expire in 180 days, and a full public process is required before a permanent ordinance can be adopted. She believes the City Council was interested in providing relief to not only density, but the bulk and dimensional standards and setbacks, too. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that so many variables would come into play, such as the width of hallways and the space designated for utility rooms, community rooms, etc. Director Hope cautioned that the ordinance may not need to respond to every potential variable. The big issue is whether or not the City wants to provide a statement that becomes part of the code that allows for rebuilding nonconforming residential structures to basically the same number and size so they can get financing. All of the variable issues could get decided if and when a nonconforming building is destroyed, and that is why it may require longer than 1 year to submit the building permit application. She suggested that 1.5 years would be a more reasonable time frame. Some may take longer, and the City could provide for a potential extension if requested under special circumstances. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a Board Member Rosen applauded the City Council and staff for working to address the issue quickly. After the discovery of the unintended consequence and the idea of making people whole, the City is trying to do right by the residents. It is the Board's intention to do exactly the same thing. Board Member Rosen commented that the rush is needed to address a real situation where a person is trying to get funding but is hung up by the City's code. The interim ordinance shows great intent by the City Council, but banks will still likely be concerned about funding a purchase based on an ordinance that is only good for 6 months. They will want to have a more secure resolution. It has been discovered that at least five other property owners are facing a similar problem. At this time, they only know of some of the buildings that are impacted. As they work to raise awareness, they could also caution people to be more aware of and understand the agreements they are asked to sign when purchasing a condominium. This situation is not unique to Edmonds and is an issue in many other areas of the country. Board Member Rosen asked if the ordinance would apply to all residential structures with more than one unit. Director Hope said staff would check to see if it would apply to structures with just two units. She explained that, under the Building Code, two units do not count as multifamily, but the zoning code actually does consider a two -unit structure to be multifamily. Her interpretation is that the ordinance would apply to all residential structures with more than one unit, with the exception of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Board Member Rosen commented that many things can impact the size of a unit (setback, height, density, open space, etc.). If the motivation is to protect the individual's investment, where do they stop. There could always be something that isn't included, and perhaps the ordinance should be more specific. Director Hope agreed that is a concern, and that is why staff is proposing specific language in the ordinance. They aren't trying to decide what the total square footage of the building needs to be, simply that they can rebuild to the same bulk and density. It will be up to the property owner to decide if they want to rebuild with a different layout or unit count. However, the ordinance would not allow them to exceed the existing density. Board Member Rosen commented that, as the City develops and amends its regulations moving forward, they should work hard to identify the potential unintended consequences of each one. The ordinance could have significant impacts that the Board is unaware of at this time. Director Hope commented that, even in the best of circumstances, the City will not be able to identify everything that might happen in the future. However, they can try harder and learn a lesson from this experience. Board Member Rosen voiced concern about the perception of fairness if a nonconforming building that is destroyed can be rebuilt to the same density and dimensional and bulk standards, but an adjacent nonconforming property that is still intact would not have this same opportunity. The latter would be held to the current code requirements, and the former would not. Director Hope agreed that is a fair point, and the purpose of the nonconforming code is to deal with existing buildings and uses. Some jurisdictions do not allow any nonconforming buildings to be rebuilt unless they meet the current standards, but many times jurisdictions allow for some exceptions. Board Member Rosen commented that if the City does not adopt a permanent ordinance to solve this problem, it will be setting itself up for legal consequences down the road. The City also has a moral obligation to address the issue appropriately. If the ordinance is motivated by the reaction of banks, he asked if there is a way for the City to test whether the ordinance would resolve the problem. It would be a shame to go through all of this work without some assurance that the problem will be addressed. Director Hope said the City can never guarantee that banks will not come up with new concerns to deny loans, but it is common for banks to approach cities if there is any doubt as to whether or not a structure can be rebuilt. They typically ask for zoning confirmation and/or verification letters as routine business. She expressed her belief that the ordinance, as discussed, would satisfy the requirement of banks. Board Member Crank pointed out that the interim ordinance allows the Planning Division to write rebuild letters to banks, and this could be considered a test as to whether it will resolve the issue or not. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the Architectural Design Board would be involved when a nonconforming residential structure is rebuilt. Director Hope answered that Architectural Design Board review will be required. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Architectural Design Board could propose some upgrades to update the structure. Board Member Monroe agreed that design review is important to ensure that more modern buildings are constructed. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 Board Member Monroe said he is fine with allowing the ordinance to apply to both density and bulk and dimensional standards, but he wants to be fair to the adjacent property owners by not allowing the building dimensions to expand. He supports allowing a structure to be rebuilt to the existing height and setbacks, but they need to also allow the outside features of the buildings to be updated. Mr. Lien advised that staff would be back before the Board in two weeks with some draft code language for a public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:53 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:57 pm. ROLE OF PLANNING BOARD Director Hope recalled that, at their retreat, the Board requested she provide a presentation on the Planning Board's roles, responsibilities and limitations, as well as how the Board can better assist local officials and staff. She said that, broadly speaking, there are a lot of variations on how planning boards/commissions are comprised and what they do. In Washington State, planning boards/commissions play a very active role in long-range planning and code development and reviewing some types of development. Director Hope referred to Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) 10.40, which defines the roles, responsibilities and operating practices of the Planning Board. As per EMC 10.40, the Planning Board: • Advises on Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes and development regulations. • Advises the Mayor and City Council on parking matters related to development regulations. Sometimes parking and transportation issues have loomed up, and it was recognized that the Planning Board, which looks at all of those issues together, could play a useful role in addressing parking matters. • Serves as an ongoing Parks Board and advises on all matters related to acquisition or development of City parks and recreation facilities. • Conducts research on specific projects assigned by the Mayor and City Council with the option to present findings and recommendations. • Carries out other duties per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.63, except those duties that are delegated to the Hearing Examiner, other agencies or staff. Director Hope also referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01, which specifically assigns the Planning Board the authority to make recommendations to the City Council on site -specific rezones and development agreements, as well as legislative matters such as zoning text amendments, area -wide Zoning Map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations, and development regulations. The Planning Board's responsibilities include holding regular meetings (2nd and 4' Wednesdays, 7 p.m.) that are open to the public and public hearings as needed. The Board also meets with the City Council periodically to review and update Planning Board agendas and stimulate "continuing communication" amongst the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Board in an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the City. However, this conversation would not limit the items placed on the Board's agenda nor the topics the Board may consider. The Board has specific responsibility for adopting internal rules and procedures and rules governing the election and duties of Planning Board officers. Prior to 2010, the Board was also responsible for reviewing and considering strategies for economic development in coordination with the Economic Development Commission. This last responsibility sunset in 2010 and was replaced with, "May work with the Economic Development Commission." Director Hope advised that the City's Planning Division provides regular staff services to the Planning Board, and other City departments provide staff services as requested. The City Council establishes an annual budget for Planning Board operations, and this funding is typically provided via the Planning Division to provide services the Board needs. The Planning Board can request funding for special needs as appropriate. Director Hope said there are certain limitations that apply to the Planning Board. For example, their work should focus on planning issues, and their recommendations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board must also recognize the authority of state laws and City codes and follow the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and Open Public Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a Meetings Act. If Board Members are involved in situations that might appear to be unfair, they should recuse themselves from the discussions. They must also avoid conducting secret meetings that are not open to the public and avoid conducting business outside of meetings via email, etc. She reminded them that the Board is a creature of the City and not an independent body. The Board operates under the broader authority of the municipal government. Director Hope shared ideas for how the Board could continue opportunities for greater effectiveness and assist elected officials and staff. The ideas included: • Having good discussions at meetings. The Board is creating a record of their discussions, and the City Council relies on the minutes as valuable information. • Asking questions and listening. • Continuing learning and training. The Board may be interested in more opportunities for learning and training. Some of these opportunities can be arranged at no cost to the City. The City Attorney can also provide training to the Board. • Receiving and respecting public input. This is important because the public views the Board Members as representatives of the City. They know that what the Board says matter, and they have knowledge and opinions that should matter to the Board. Public input can be valuable in helping the Board make decisions. • Modeling civil behavior. The Board Members are always polite and respectful to each other. • Running orderly and efficient meetings. The Planning Board generally does this, and their discussions usually stay on track. • Providing useful reports to the Mayor and City Council. The Planning Board Chair is scheduled to present a report to the City Council soon. This is an opportunity to provide information that can generate discussion or information. Chair Cheung asked what would be most helpful for the Mayor and Council to hear as part of the Board's report. Director Hope said that, depending on the topic, most of the Council Members read the Board's minutes in detail. The report could identify issues the Board wants to explore and/or has concerns about, as well as a report on all the Board has accomplished. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, during a public hearing, the staff person representing the application is very busy. It is helpful for the Planning Manager to also be present to assist in running an orderly and efficient meeting. In the past, the Planning Manager has done a good job of keeping the Board focused, which is different than the planner's responsibility when presenting an application. The Board is not as effective when the Planning Manager is not present for public hearings. Director Hope agreed to share this comment with the Planning Manager. At the same time, she commented that there will be times when the Planning Manager is unavailable for a variety of reasons. Board Member Lovell thanked Director Hope for her presentation and said he wishes she had presented it eleven years ago when he was a new Board Member. He suggested that, as a policy, a print out of the presentation should be given to each new Board Member. Mr. Bryan said he found the presentation informative and helpful. Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves the concept of continuing communication between the Mayor, City Council and Planning Board in an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the City. She asked what measures the Board could take to further this goal. She noted that the Planning Board Chair could meet with the President of the City Council and he already meets on a monthly basis with the Mayor. Director Hope said there are a lot of ways to intensify this effort. For example, some of the Board Members interact with City Council Members and the Mayor on an ongoing basis, and the Development Services Director Reports to the Planning Board also go to the City Council. The Board's quarterly reports to the City Council offer another way to stimulate conversation and understanding. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that Vice Chair Robles has previously suggested that Board Members go out into the neighborhoods and listen to the public. Director Markle cautioned that this could be tricky unless they have a defined agenda and proper meeting notification because they are there on public business. They are also somewhat limited in how they can respond to people. The Board could have an occasional extra meeting or a time before regular meetings where people are invited to speak about a particular issue. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board could also meet before a regular meeting to have a speaker on a particular topic such as a Short Course on Public Planning. Director Hope said she would like to have speakers in from time to time about subjects that other community members might also be interested in. Topics might include climate change, sustainability, transportation, land use, etc. Invitations could also be sent to the other City Boards and Commissions that might be interested in a particular topic, as well as press releases when big topics come up. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 At the request of Board Member Rosen, Director Hope explained that the Economic Development Commission's authorizing statute called for coordination between the Planning Board and the Commission, and a report was actually due at the end of 2020. After the report was presented, the coordination between the two groups was sunset as a requirement. However, there is nothing to prevent the Board and Commission from working together from time to time. Board Member Rosen commented that the Board spends very little time talking about parks. They love listening to all of the amazing activities that are going on related to parks, but they really do not engage much in the process. Director Hope pointed out that the Board's authorizing statute says that the Board serves as the ongoing Parks Board to advise on all matters related to acquisition and development of City parks and recreational facilities. They are not really involved in ongoing park operations. Board Member Lovell recalled that, several years ago, the Board spent an inordinate amount of time working out a Park Naming Policy that was subsequently adopted. Director Hope added that, at least once a year, the also Board reviews and makes a recommendation on capital facilities and park improvements. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the Board could create informal committees of three or fewer Board Members to look into particular issues. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the agenda for May 8' 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 structures. The Board will be asked to make a recommendation following the public hearing, if possible. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung announced that Board Member Lovell would no longer serve as liaison to the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Board Member Monroe said he may be interested. Board Member Lovell said the Commission appreciates the liaison's participation at their meetings. He recalled that in its first phase, the EDC indicated they wanted to work as a team with the Planning Board, but the City Council indicated that was not part of their duties or responsibilities. However, the two groups can still coordinate their efforts. He reported that the EDC recently presented a briefing memorandum to the City Council that voiced the EDC's desire to deal with code changes, and the Council again informed them that was not their responsibility. He said it is important that the Planning Board remain apprised of what the EDC is doing, and they value the liaison's input. Chair Cheung advised that he and Vice Chair Robles will present a Planning Board update to the City Council on May 71 At that time, he will provide Planning Board Member profiles and raise a few issues the Board wants to discuss at the joint meeting in June. He invited the Board Members to notify him of other items they want included in the update. Chair Cheung also invited the Board Members to share their thoughts on potential topics for the joint meeting with the City Council in June. He noted that the topics identified so far include housing and communicating better and more effectively with the City Council. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) recently submitted a memorandum to the City Council outlining areas of focus for the upcoming year. The report was well received, with the exception of the Commission working with the Planning Board to amend the Development Code. They were reminded that was outside of their authority. The Commission received a good response back on the idea of putting signage or creating an app for people to use while waiting for the ferry. It was reported that the Holiday Market has grown and is highly successful. Last year, it was done completely without the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society's help, and there is still a desire for a year-round market. Board Member Monroe suggested that the Board consider having a joint meeting with the EDC, and Chair Cheung agreed to contact their chair to arrange a meeting. Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.a ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. rn r O N N �L a N N a+ 7 C r cc L O O L 0. a 13 Iq N O O r m IL c m E z U 2 a Planning Board Minutes April 24, 2019 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/22/2019 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. Attachments: Director. Re po rt.05.17.19 Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a °F E L Af rrrc. i !t'y. MEMORANDUM Date: May 17, 2019 To: From: Subject Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report Memories of our lives, of our works and our deeds will continue in others. -Rosa Parks Next Planning Board Meeting The next regular Planning Board meeting is May 22. It will include a public hearing on a code amendment for nonconformance. This topic follows from previous City Council and Planning Board discussion of a need to address nonconforming multifamily buildings. STATE & REGIONAL NEWS Legislature The state legislative session ended on time this year. The results included bills on climate protection and carbon reduction, as well as many other topics. Funding for several Edmonds projects was also approved in the state budget. A briefing on bill related to planning will be provided to the Planning Board in the near future. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) ❑ PSRC's Regional Staff Committee met May 16 and discussed : o Key population and employment issues under a possible Preferred Alternative for the VISION 2050 Regional Growth Strategy o VISION 2050 outline and schedule ❑ Public comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for VISION 2050 have been received by PSRC More information about VISION 2050 and the environmental impact comments are posted online at: https://www.psrc.org/vision. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a LOCAL PROJECTS Housing Commission The City Council has established a new Citizens' Housing Commission. Applications are being accepted from eligible residents. For more information, including application forms, checks online at: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. (Note: A recent vote by the City Council on formalized that members of codified boards and commissions during the last two years are not eligible for appointment.) A postcard mailing, with brief information and reference to the website, has been sent to every known household address in the City. Small Tree Brochure The Citizens' Tree Board has just completed a new brochure. The brochure is designed to provide examples of trees for small spaces, noting key features and illustrations of several different species. This information will be very useful to local residents as they think about tree choices. Copies of the brochure will be available soon for public distribution. OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB met for a Special Meeting on Monday May 13. The agenda included: ❑ The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. Arts Commission The Arts Commission met on May 6, with an agenda that included: ❑ Concerts — Sign-up ❑ Tourism Promotion Awards Review Committee ❑ Public Art/On the Fence ❑ Partnership programs ❑ Creative District Advisory Committee ❑ Retreat -Follow-up. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 20 5.A.a Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee met May 2 to discuss potential measures for Edmonds to track progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The next round of discussion on this topic will be at the Committee's June 6 meeting. Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission meets next on June 5. The agenda will be posted online when available. Economic Development Commission (EDC) The EDC met on May 15. The agenda included: ❑ Work group Updates ❑ Liaison Updates ❑ Roundtable Discussion The Citizens Economic Development Commission is accepting applications till May 31, 2019. The application form, is located at this webpage: http://edmondswa.gov/boards-commissions- rnmmittPPs- Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner will meet next on May 23 to consider: ❑ The City & Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed building is approx. 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approx. 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bio retention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission met May 9. Items of discussion included: ❑ Social Media Policy ❑ Goals and Objectives ❑ House proposed for Edmonds Register of Historic Places 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 21 5.A.a Tree Board The Tree Board met on May 2. Attendees discussed: ❑ Earth Day Re -cap ❑ Rec Center/ Craze plans ❑ Small Tree Brochure status ❑ UFMP status ❑ PUD tree topping Youth Commission The Youth Commission met on May 1 to consider: ❑ GroupMe Communication ❑ May Recruitment ❑ Monthly Partnerships ❑ Quarterly Youth Forums ❑ Teen Nights ❑ Farmers Market booth ❑ Arts Commission collaboration ❑ Arbor Day ❑ Transit activity The Youth Commission is accepting applications for new members until May 25. More information is on the web at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/youth-commission.html. City Council Activities at the May 7 City Council meeting included the following topics of special interest to the Planning Board: ❑ Approval of Consent Agenda, including for: o Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Ordinance o Council's Housing Commission Resolution (modifying the previous resolution by not allowing anyone who has served on a codified board or commission in the last two years to be appointed to the Housing Commission) ❑ Planning Board's Quarterly Report ❑ Edmonds "Gateway Sign" recommendation (approved with additional budget) ❑ Discussion (not on the original agenda) about a possible statement to be read at City Council meetings to recognize historic lands of native peoples in our area (with agreement to have more research done and reconsider this as part of a future meeting item) ❑ Development Activities Update presentation (showing permit activity and illustrations of 23 projects in town followed by questions and appreciative comments from Council) COMMUNITY CALENDAR • May 5 —June 9: Garden Market, Bell St., 9 am — 2 pm • May 27: City offices will be closed in Honor of Memorial Day • June 1: Family Day at the Marina, Port of Edmonds Public Plaza, 11 am — 3 pm • June 14: Edmonds Art Festival 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 22 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/22/2019 Public Hearing Regarding Nonconforming Building Code Amendments 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). The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 4149 on April 23rd which provided short term solution to allow nonconforming multifamily residential building to be restored to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the damage or destruction occurred. The Planning Board heard an introduction on this issue at the April 24th Planning Board meeting. Staff Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding a permanent ordinance for the restoration of nonconforming multifamily structures. Narrative Packet Pg. 23 6.A At the April 24th Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board indicated a desire to "make property owners whole again" with regard to the restoration of nonconforming residential buildings. As with the interim ordinance, the general direction was that nonconforming residential buildings should be allowed to be restored to the same density, height, setbacks, and coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred. Staff has prepared draft code language provided in Attachment 1 that would allow for multifamily residential buildings to be restored to the same density, height, setbacks, and coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred. An item of note is that this language also allows mixed use buildings containing multiple residential units to be restored as well. Another item added in the draft code language is a new section in the building code (ECDC 19.00.045) that specifically references the nonconforming code chapter. Attachments: Draft Nonconforming Structures Code Amendments Packet Pg. 24 Edmonds Page 1/4 17.40.010 Nonconforming uses. A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in this chapter or a prior ordinance. B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C) of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050. C. Lapse of Time. 1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance. Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use. 2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC ' 9�1519.00.025(G), et seq., is filed within 18 months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180-day extension may be granted. 3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not apply if a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agent. In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F). D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However, the use may not be expanded, as provided for in subsection (B) of this section, without obtaining a conditional use permit. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued, unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly provided in subsections (C) through (I) of this section. C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council -approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Packet Pg. 25 Edmonds Page 2/4 consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code. D. Maintenance and Alterations. 1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted. 2. Solar Energy Installations on Buildings That Exceed Existing Height Limits. A rooftop solar energy installation mounted on a nonconforming building that exceeds the existing height limit may be approved as a Type II staff decision if. a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches. b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties. 3. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted. 4. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access easement or public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements may also be permitted in nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not more than 30 inches nor one-half of the distance to the property line, whichever is less. "Minor architectural improvements" are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative trim. Such improvements shall be required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt such improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes. 5. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety regulations shall be permitted. E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable to the building or structure. F. Restoration. 4—If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 49.00.01519.00.025(G) et seq. within ene-y a months of the date such damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180 dam a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months. This right f restoration shall not ply if: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Packet Pg. 26 Edmonds Page 3/4 4.2_f—Residential Buildings i r^nner-ci l Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections{} (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met: J a. If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building containing multiple residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the building may be restored to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 18 months of the date the damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months. The remodel er- oeans,..ueti n take, place within the footprint ef the original building e. "F-etffifit" shall mean an area equal to the smallest r-eetangular area in a Plane Pafallel_tj "ieh the existing building eould be feetprifft ef the building or- stnde�ffe shall net be expanded by more than 10 pereen4 and is found by the fib. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction. 3 c. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures. 4A. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006. 3. The right of restoration shall not apply if: a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross of the owner or owner's agents; or mac. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment H. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. I. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B). J. The antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming wireless communication facility may be completely replaced with a new antenna and related equipment; provided, that, upon replacement, the applicant shall use the The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Packet Pg. 27 Edmonds Page 4/4 best available methods and materials to enhance the appearance of the antenna and related equipment and/or screen it from view in a manner that improves the visual impact or the conspicuity of the nonconformity. [Ord. 3961 § 3, 2014; Ord. 3866 § 2, 2011; Ord. 3781 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 13, 14, 2009; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. NEW 19.00.045 19.00.045 Reconstruction of damaged buildings. For any structure that is destroyed, damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost of the time of destruction, the reconstruction shall be considered to be under the category of "New" construction. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. The "New" construction will be subject to all applicable requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code for a new building, including but not limited to zoning, utilities and site -related features; provided that Chapter 17.40 ECDC also applies to certain requirements for nonconforming buildings and uses. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Packet Pg. 28 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/22/2019 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: 05-22-2019 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 29 OY F.➢M N FLANNN9 BOARD 7911 Extended Agenda May 17, 2019 Meeting Item any 7ni4 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change May 1. Public Hearing on Potential Code Amendment to ECDC 22 17.40.020 to Address Nonconformance of Existing Multifamily TUNE, 2019 June 1. Legislative Update 12 2. VISION 2050 Update June 1. 26 IDLY, 2019 July 1. 10 July 1. 26 AUGUST, 2019 August 1. 8 August 1. 22 a Packet Pg. 30 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. 31