Loading...
2019-01-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 23, 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 Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Rosen (excused) Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Lovell requested an update on the small cell wireless amendments. Mr. Lien advised that on January 151, staff made the same presentation to the City Council that was provided to the Board on January 9'. The issue will come back before the Board on February 131. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that all local regulations and guidelines related to small cell wireless facilities must be in place by April 131. Otherwise, the City will have lost its opportunity. He asked if the City is on track to meet this deadline. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council will consider an interim ordinance on February 5t1i, and the intent is to have a permanent ordinance in place before the deadline. Board Member Lovell observed that a public hearing before the Planning Board on the permanent ordinance is scheduled for February 27t1i Board Member Monroe asked for a status report on the public process related to housing. He asked if the issue would come back to the Planning Board at some point in the future. Mr. Lien answered that a public open house was held on January 10' and was well attended. Board Member Crank said she did not attend the public meeting, but the ad hoc housing group is having its final meeting on January 31". She anticipates the meeting will include information and feedback that was gathered from the last two open houses, and it will likely be the official ending of the group. Board Member Monroe asked if a work product would result from the housing group meetings, and Board Member Crank answered no. She explained that the group was intended to be a type of stop gap to allow a pause and an opportunity to work the Housing Strategy back to what it was supposed to be. At the group's last meeting, it was discussed that a Housing Commission could potentially be formed. If a Housing Commission is appointed, she suggested it might be helpful for them to meet jointly with the Planning Board. HAINES WHARF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION (FILE NO. AMD20180011 Mr. Lien advised that this is a City -initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment that involves four parcels in the Haines Wharf area. The City owns a small parcel, and the other three are privately owned. Notice letters were sent to the three property owners, but no response has been received to date. Mr. Lien explained that the current Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the properties is Mixed Use Commercial and the properties are zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The only other area in the City that is zoned Commercial Waterfront is near the downtown and near the Port of Edmonds. The remainder of the tidelands are zoned Open Space (OS). With the exception of a few properties that are zoned Mixed Use Commercial, properties further shoreland are zoned Single Family Resource (RSW). RS-20 requires a lot size of at least 20,000 square feet and RS-12 requires a lot size of at least 12,000 square feet. He also advised that the existing structure on the subject parcels has been deteriorating over the years. Mr. Lien said the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is primarily an outgrowth of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided an image to depict the old shoreline designation for the properties and explained that under the old SMP, the areas were intensely developed with a mixed use of commercial, port facilities, multi -modal transit facilities, railroad facilities and limited light industrial uses. With the recently updated SMP (2017), the shoreline designation was changed to Aquatic I. The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment is to protect, restore and manage the unique characteristic and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). The City initiated the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the designation to a more appropriate designation consistent with the SMP. At the request of Board Member Lovell, Mr. Lien shared information about the properties that were developed under a Planned Residential Development and a Contract Rezone. Board Member Monroe requested clarification about what property the existing building is located on, and Mr. Lien answered that part of it is on private property and part is on state tidelands. The current tideland lease with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is month -to -month. He explained that before the wooden structure deteriorated, the property owner applied for a shoreline permit to refurbish the site. The structure was non -conforming under both the current and previous SMP. The property owner obtained a shoreline permit from the City but was unable to get a permit from the other government agencies. At this time, nothing is being pursued. Board Member Monroe asked if the other permits would have been required if the structure was located entirely on the private property. Mr. Lien responded that a variety of state agency permits would be required because the structure is located within navigable waters. To further clarify the proposal, Mr. Lien explained that zoning overlay, shoreline designation and Comprehensive Plan designation are different designations that apply to the site. The zoning designation has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed -Use Commercial, and both the zoning designation and Comprehensive Plan designation must be consistent with the SMP. Currently, the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations are not consistent, and staff is proposing that the Comprehensive Plan Map designation be changed from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space (OS), which is consistent with rest of the tidelands next to the residential areas in North Edmonds (from the subject parcels all the way to Brackett's Landing South). Mr. Lien reminded the Commission that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can only be adopted if the following findings are made: • Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 2 • Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? • Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? • Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining and uses and absence of physical constraints. Mr. Lien explained that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to develop and implement the SMP consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and that is the purpose of the proposed amendment. When the amendment comes back to the Board for a public hearing, he will present a staff report to further explain how the proposed change is consistent with the four criteria. He summarized his presentation by stating that the next step would be a public hearing by the Planning Board in March, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell observed that one sliver of the property is owned by the City and the other three are privately owned, and the entire Haines Wharf complex is crumbling into the Sound and causing pollution. He asked if the Corps of Engineers has anything to say about the future of this property and the existing structure. Mr. Lien responded that number of agencies have been watching the structure decay over the years with nobody really stepping up and taking the lead. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has stepped in from time to time, as has the DNR because of the lease. After a significant storm a few years ago, the City made the property owners remove the wood portion and stabilize the rest of the structure. Pollution no longer occurs during high tide and/or significant storms. However, it is still a nonconforming structure that is inconsistent with the SMP, and not a lot can be done with the site beyond maintaining it in its current condition. Board Member Lovell asked if the properties would be considered undevelopable if the Comprehensive Plan Map designation is changed to OS. Mr. Lien shared a zoning map and explained that, currently, the Haines Wharf properties are designated as Commercial Waterfront, and the properties from Haines Wharf down to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant are zoned OS. The properties between the treatment plant and the ferry terminal are zoned RSW-12. The RSW-12 zone was primarily developed for Lake Ballinger, so it has setbacks that are described from the lake edge. The Zoning Code has a chapter for the Marine Resource (MR) zone. Based on his research, the MR zone is supposed to apply to the OS and RSW zones in the tidelands, but it has not been applied to any properties on the zoning map. When it was initially adopted, it was applied to the tidelands outside of the City limits. However, when the City created the new electronic maps, the zone disappeared from the zoning map. Mr. Lien shared details about the MR zone, noting that its purpose is to regulate uses at the tidelands and other lands covered by saltwater, to preserve and enhance the natural marine environment along the shoreline in Edmonds, and to provide local control over the natural marine environment to the extent that state and federal regulations allow. The MR zone allows for permitted uses such as commercial fishing, sports fishing, movement of vessels, swimming, and snorkeling. It also allows uses that require a Conditional Use Permit such as submerged power and communication cables, filling, dredging, submerged construction, breakwaters, bulkheads, scientific installation, marine extraction, mineral extraction from water, marine agriculture and propagation, and educational and recreational facilities. He said that he plans to review this zone further at some point in the future to determine how it could potentially be amended and applied to properties along the shoreline in Edmonds. Mr. Lien again emphasized that the property has three separate designations: Shoreline Environment, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The current proposal would only amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject parcels from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space, which is consistent with the rest of the waterfront. The proposed amendment would make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the SMP. Changing the zoning will be a separate action that would follow the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Board Member Lovell summarized that a future zoning amendment would involve a look at all of the rest of the zones along the waterfront relative to tidelands and previous zoning designations, but zoning is not part of the current proposal. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would consider potential impacts to the property owners as part of any proposed zoning change. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Again, he said he has notified the property owners of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, but he has not heard back from any of them. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 3 Board Member Rubenkonig asked for more information about how the federal and state agencies are also involved, given that the properties are classified as tidelands. Mr. Lien explained that a variety of permitting agencies have responsibilities associated with the properties. For example, if the property owners were to apply for a permit, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife would have permit authority and not the City of Edmonds. The DNR would also have permit authority, as would the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which would coordinate with the Natural Marine Fisheries Services. Each of these agencies have different permitting requirements. Only the City of Edmonds implements the SMP and the zoning, but the DNR has a tideland lease. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the DNR would find the proposed change suitable to its mission, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. He said he has had numerous conversations with representatives from the DNR over the years as the site has deteriorated. Board Member Rubenkonig asked when the last time the property was commercially viable. Mr. Lien answered that he does not believe there was a commercial operation going on in 2008 when the property owners last applied for a Shoreline Permit. Board Member Rubenkonig asked what is stopping the site from being commercially viable. Mr. Lien explained that the property owners have not secured access from Burlington Northern Santa Fe, so there is no safe crossing across the tracks to the subject parcels. The location is another factor. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that there were viable businesses on the properties at one point in time. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the owners would be compensated if the properties are rezoned. Mr. Lien said the structure is non -conforming now, and it would remain non -conforming if the proposed amendment is approved. Therefore, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent rezone would not really change what is allowed to be there. He further explained that under the current SMP, a covered, over -water structure would not be allowed and the use would be considered non -conforming, as well. If a non -conforming use ceases to exist for a period of time, only conforming uses and structures would be allowed going forward. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the structure's commercial viability has been significantly reduced over the past decade. Mr. Lien emphasized that the structure was considered non- conforming under the previous SMP, which was adopted in 2000, so it has been non -conforming for the past 19 years. The intent is not to continue the non-conformance forever, but ultimately for the use to go away. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized her understanding that the proposed amendment would not take away from the property owners' ability to have a business, but they will have to jump through hoops to get it to be viable. This is no different than for any other business in Edmonds. Mr. Lien clarified that the structure can be maintained. However, he is not aware of any commercial activity at the site at this time. He read from the non -conforming section of the code that if a non- conforming use is discontinued for 6 consecutive months of for 12 months during any 2-year period, any subsequent use must be conforming. Board Member Monroe asked if structures could be built on the other properties under the Commercial Waterfront designation. Mr. Lien answered that the property owners would not be allowed to construct a building over the water now. The current SMP no longer allows covered structures over water. Board Member Monroe observed that the value of the properties was significantly reduced when the previous SMP was adopted in 2000. Mr. Lien said all he knows is that the structure was non -conforming when the City issued approval of a Shoreline Permit in 2008 under the old SMP that was adopted in 2000. At least since 2000, the structure type was not allowed and the existing structure was non -conforming. Board Member Monroe asked about the advantage of changing the Comprehensive Plan designation if the existing Mixed Commercial Use designation does not allow development, either. Mr. Lien said the purpose is to make the SMP and Comprehensive Plan consistent with each other. Board Member Monroe clarified that, in functionality, the proposed change would not cause any additional impacts that were not present in 2000. Mr. Lien concurred. Mr. Lien advised that the proposed amendments will come back to the Board for a public hearing in March. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the February 13t1i agenda will include a continued discussion on the Wireless Facilities Ordinance for small cell standards. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 4 The Board briefly reviewed what took place at their 2018 retreat, which was more of an information -gathering session with the City Attorney than a goal -setting session. They agreed it would be helpful to have their 2019 retreat earlier in the year so it could be used as a goal -setting session. They decided to push the public hearing for the Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to April so the 2019 retreat could be scheduled for March 27' Mr. Lien advised that another item that will be added to the extended agenda is a discussion on the Architectural Design Review Board's (ADB) role. The ADB will be discussing this issue at their next meeting and look forward to a joint meeting with the Planning Board, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled the items she brought forward at their last meeting for possible inclusion on the extended agenda. She pointed out that, previously, the Board received a yearly report on activity on Highway 99, but it was not included on the current extended agenda. In addition, the Board often has joint meetings with other City Boards and Commissions. The Board also appreciates periodic Parks and Recreation Reports and reports from the Development Services Director regarding development activity in the City. Chair Cheung suggested that perhaps the Development Services Director could be invited to provide a report on Highway 99 activity at their February 13' meeting. Mr. Lien advised that the Development Services Director provides an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity in the City. Following her presentation to the City Council, the information is also presented to the Planning Board. The Board discussed whether or not an additional study session is needed before the public hearing on the Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance. Board Member Lovell reviewed that the subject was introduced to the City Council last week, and staff is working on proposed code changes that will be presented to the City Council as an interim ordinance. Mr. Lien said his understanding is that an interim ordinance will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing and adoption on February 51, which is before the Board's next meeting. On February 131, staff would introduce the Board to the proposed code changes and the interim ordinance. Vice Chair Robles commented that no further Board discussion is needed prior to the public hearing unless they have an opportunity to discuss the issue with scientists who have expertise in the field. Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that the City does not have the ability to regulate wireless facilities for safety since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already deemed them to be safe. Vice Chair Robles said he felt it was appropriate to get public safety concerns on the record even if they are outside the City's purview to regulate. He reminded them that the City's current moratorium on crumb rubber was based on unsettled science, and if small cell wireless facilities can also be classified as unsettled science, the City could take a similar approach. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that Vice Chair Robles' concerns were included in the January 91 minutes. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to review the ordinance prior to the public hearing since that is the best time for them to affect change. Mr. Lien also recommended the Board have a study session to review the interim ordinance and proposed permanent ordinance and provide feedback to the staff prior to the public hearing. Chair Cheung asked if the Board will be expected to make a recommendation at the same meeting following the public hearing. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the April 13' deadline. Board Member Lovell commented that the Board would have plenty of time to discuss the draft ordinance following the public hearing and prior to making their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien said his understanding is that staff will provide more pictures and information regarding small cell wireless facilities at their next meeting, as well as the interim ordinance and draft language (design guidance) for a permanent ordinance. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that her neighborhood has below ground power lines, and allowing small cell facilities on standalone poles would end up introducing more above ground wires and equipment. She felt it was important to look carefully at the design standards for the facilities which can be up to 50 feet in height. She recalled that the Board requested staff provide photographs of where they have been installed elsewhere, since there are none in Edmonds at this time. It would also be helpful to see examples from the manufacturers. She acknowledged that the City does not have a lot of ability to control small cell wireless facilities, but she is concerned that it is a bigger issue than it appears to be. Design seems to be the only opportunity the City has to provide guidance for the local community. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 5 Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that, although most items on the Board's agenda come from the City Council, the Board can add items to its agenda, as well. This usually happens via the Chair working with the Mayor. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to add other study items when their agendas are light. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Robles observed that there are a lot of hot topics, especially surrounding affordable housing. Many of the topics are showing up on social media and many of the comments are adversarial and unfounded. Recently, he has commented, as well, in an attempt to direct the conversation towards encouraging citizens to participate in the public meetings. He suggested it might be appropriate for the Board to have a social media policy of its own. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the January 16t' Economic Development Commission meeting. He announced that Scott Merrick recently joined the Commission. His background is in healthcare, but he has also been involved in a lot of development matters over the course of his professional life. He is currently a professor at Central Washington University and is based at the University of Washington. Board Member Lovell reported that the focus of the January 161 meeting was to review priorities for 2019 and hear reports from the three major subcommittees: business attraction, arts and tourism, and development feasibility. The role and responsibility of the three subcommittees is to study various issues that might directly impact the economic health of the City and make recommendations to the City Council accordingly. Upon hearing the recommendations, the City Council will decide whether to take action or not. Recommendations related to land use and zoning could eventually trickle down to the Planning Board for additional work. There was quite a discussion about the final report outlining the status of the Strategic Action Plan. He noted that a draft report was distributed at the Board's last meeting, and the final report is very similar except that it highlights items that are within the realm of economic development. There seemed to be a particular interest in revising some of the items that were very low priorities in the initial Strategic Action Plan, as well as those that have been put aside or abandoned for lack of incentive or as a result of changes in the makeup, interest and concern in the City. They also voiced interest in starting new categories. The list of new items includes: • Consider ways to improve cast/west transportation. • Look at programs to increase parking capability and parking enforcement. • Look at 5G related business opportunities. • Look at final development of Civic Park. • Lend support to the Creative District designation that the City just achieved (1st in the State). • Look at other types of like businesses that might want to relocate and center their operations in Edmonds. • Collaborate more with the Port of Edmonds. • Collaborate more with Edmonds Community College. Board Member Lovell asked if another Board Member would be interested in taking his place as a liaison to the Economic Development Commission. The Board Members agreed to consider the opportunity, and Board Member Lovell agreed to continue to serve as liaison for the time being. Board Member Crank announced that the quarterly Snohomish County Paine Field Airport Commission Meeting is on January 24'. She advised that, due to the government shutdown, the commission has been unable to get final approval from the Federal Aviation Administration so commercial service out of the new terminal has been postponed. Alaska Airlines was scheduled to start flights on February 11', and the date has been pushed out to March 4'. She commended Alaska Airlines for being expedient about reaching out to people who had already purchased tickets to change their flights to SeaTac. She briefly described the various impacts associated with the government shutdown. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 6 Board Member Monroe said he attended a meeting to help finalize the Urban Forest Management Plan. The intent of the meeting was to add specificity for Edmonds and make the plan less generic. The big thing he learned was that trees have a lifecycle, and given when Edmonds was established, many are reaching the end of their lifecycle and are starting to fall down. While the plan cannot solve the problem, it can at least start to address it. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 7