Loading...
2019-07-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting July 10, 2019 Vice Chair Robles 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 Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Roger Pence Nathan Monroe Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to speak about the proposed street vacation code amendment. As a citizen whose life was dramatically impacted by a recent street vacation, he has a great interest in the proposed change. He said it is important for the Board to understand that, with streets and alleyways, the City has easement rights, but the fee titles belong to the adjacent property owners in most cases. The City's right is called the dominate estate, which is the right to use the easement for egress/ingress. The property owner's right is called the servient estate. Prior to the City opening a street or alleyway, the servient estate gets to use the easement just as they use the rest of their property. This is a constitutional right and the law is well settled. He is concerned that the proposed amendment does not differentiate between street vacations of unopened and opened easements. If the City hasn't used the easement rights for a long period of time, the street vacation should be treated differently. Mr. Reidy recommended that the process be slowed down so that the citizens have an opportunity to be more involved in the rewrite of this specific code section. It is too important and they need to get it right. He said he has had very little time to review the proposed amendments. He explained that, historically, the City has a provision that, when vacating a street or alley easement, the City can either require a replacement easement for utilities or charge monetary compensation. The Code is very clear that this is an either/or provision. However, the proposed amendment would allow the City to do both. He expressed his belief that the citizens of Edmonds would prefer the either/or provision and not both. He provided copies of an email he sent to the City Council, asking that the process be slowed down. Again, he asked the Board to read the email and afford the citizens a chance to be involved in the process. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Director's Report. UPDATE ON CLIMATE GOALS PROJECT Mr. Lien provided a status report on each of the goals contained in Resolution 1389, which was adopted by the City Council in 2017. • Goal 1 -- The City Council fully supports the Mayor's endorsement of the Mayor's National Climate Action Agenda. This goal has already been accomplished. • Goal 2 -- The City Council has rededicated itself to partner with the City administration and Edmonds citizens to identify benefits and costs of adopting policies and programs for long-term reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Work on this goal is ongoing. • Goal 3 — Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will report annually to City Council on municipal and community -wide GHG inventory, starting in 2018. A report on the GHC inventory was provided to the City Council in 2018. Rather than focusing on the inventory, future reports will focus on different projects or implementations to meet the GHG targets. • Goal 4 — By July 1, 2018, the Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will establish and recommend GHG emissions reduction targets for both near and long-term. This work is ongoing. The work to establish the targets and make a recommendation to the City Council is very complex. The Climate Protection Committee has been meeting monthly with a consultant to discuss what the target should be and what it will take to meet the target. • Goal 5 — The Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will update the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and review specific strategies for meeting the GHG emissions reduction target while tying mitigation with adopting measures where possible. This goal is currently ongoing. The current CAP and GHG emissions reduction targets and strategies have been reviewed and more information will be provided later in the presentation. • Goal 6a — The City accomplishes 100% renewal energy goal for electricity supply to municipal facilities by 2019. This goal has been accomplished via an energy credit pilot project with the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD). All the energy the City purchases from the PUD in 2019 will come from renewable resources. The plan is to continue this work next year, as well. • Goal 6b — Community -wide goal of 100% renewable energy for electricity supply to be achieved by 2025. This target will be difficult to meet, but recent action by the State Legislature (Senate Bill 5116) includes specific and aggressive targets for being carbon neutral by 2030 and carbon free by 2045. PUD incentives and more public awareness will also help the City accomplish this goal. • Goal 7 — Planning Division and Climate Protection Committee will develop a work plan by November 2018 to include options, methods and financial resources, along with a timeline and milestones to achieve the renewable energy goals. Goal 6a has been accomplished through the PUD's energy credit pilot project and Goal 6b can be accomplished via State legislation, PUD incentives, and more public awareness. Mr. Lien advised that the City completed the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory in 2009 and the Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2010, along with policies in other City documents. He explained that GHGs are gases that trap heat in the Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 2 Board Member Rubenkonig recalled a volunteer service called Waste Warriors that worked the festivals around the area to divert the organic waste from the food waste. Not only did they collect a sizeable amount of compostable waste, but they were also able to educate people on how to sort out what is and is not recyclable. This is an easy strategy, yet it has lost momentum. She suggested that an additional strategy should be added to promote local programs that educate and help citizens make better decisions. She cautioned against making the Climate Action Plan so lofty that it does not accommodate smaller, more realistic programs. Vice Chair Robles said he is a strong advocate of seeding the record so that people searching the City's website can find the terms that are being discussed by the Board. Regarding Board Member Cloutier's earlier comment related to reducing the amount of energy used for heating and cooling the air, he suggested the City have a policy that the air conditioning does not come on until the temperature reaches 80°. Vice Chair Robles noted that methane, pentane, hexane and octane are all hydrocarbons, and it is difficult to find equivalency unless a strictly carbon measurement is used. This approach would make it easier to manage the equivalencies. He also suggested that there are other economic methods that could be applied to the trade of carbon, etc. Regarding Board Member Rubenkonig's earlier question, Vice Chair Robles pointed out that activists are working hard to address this subject. They need to all work together, but it seems like programs often fall away due to lack of funding. However, there are opportunities for communities to exchange value in ways that are not dollars. Vice Chair Robles commented that the data provided in the report is interesting. He recalled that the Board was recently invited to develop its wish list of metrics for measuring a healthy city that could be injected into the Healthy City Report. With regard to zoning, he pointed out that some commercial zones do not allow live -work spaces on the ground floor. The zoning code also restricts retail uses in neighborhoods causing people to have to drive elsewhere to get what they need. He pointed out that subterranean construction is also an opportunity to address temperature fluctuations. Also, he observed that plastic does not decay for 10,000 years and is made out of carbon, which means that it is sequestering carbon extremely effectively. He suggested the City consider shifting its war on plastic to actually embrace the carbon sequestering capacity of plastics for uses such as plumbing. Polypropylene plumbing can replace copper all day long. The energy required to create and recycle it is superior to copper, yet the City's current code prohibits its use. He summarized that there is a lot the City can do from a code standpoint to address climate control. They need to embrace new technologies and encourage the experts to stretch further. INTRODUCTION TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 STREET VACATION Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendment would move the street vacation amendments from Chapter 20 to Chapter 18. Chapter 18 is the Public Works Section and already includes provisions related to right-of-way, the street map, etc. The amendment clarifies, reorganizes and adds a definition section. The appraisal process and timing for when an appraisal is required was revised, as what the applicability of the monetary compensation aspect of a street vacation. Lastly, the amendment revises the timeframe required to satisfy conditions. Ms. McConnell explained that a street vacation is a process used to release a public street, alley, pedestrian and/or vehicular easement that is currently being used or established as something that could be used in the future for a street, alley or easement if it is no longer needed for those purposes. A street vacation could happen through a petition of adjacent property owners or initiated by the City Council. Street vacations do not come before the Planning Board for review. Ms. McConnell said City staff often receives questions about the potential vacation of unopened alleys so they can be fully used by adjacent property owners rather than being preserved as potential rights -of -way access to be used by the City. She shared an example of an unopened alley and explained that a street vacation is the process that would be used for releasing the right-of-way to a private property owner. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the difference between an unopened alley and an unopened easement. Ms. McConnell said an alley is classified as a right -of way, and easements are located on top of or encumber a private property. An easement Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 6 reserves a portion of private property for a specific use, where the City actually has rights to alley and street rights -of way. If an adjacent property owner wants to use the right-of-way for private use, he/she would submit a street vacation request in order to have it transfer back to the title for their own property. Ms. McConnell explained that, while processing several street vacations within the last year, the staff and City Council found that the lack of information in the code and the way the code is laid out has made the process inefficient and even unfair in some cases. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the provisions for both the public and private property owners. Ms. McConnell advised that, as per the current code, if a street vacation is being proposed via a petition by an adjacent property owner, two-thirds of the adjacent property owners abutting the right-of-way must sign the petition in order for the City to accept the application. In addition, an appraisal is required as part of the application submittal, and the appraiser is selected by the applicant. That means an appraisal must be done before staff has reviewed the application submittal, before it has been determined whether or not an easement needs to be reserved, before it has been determined whether or not a right- of-way would need to be set aside in a different area and before it has been determined if the City Council would even consider the vacation. Because applicants select their own appraisers, each appraisal is different and there is no consistency. Ms. McConnell said the proposed amendment would push the appraisal further out in the process, after staff has reviewed the application and determined whether an easement needs to be reserved or a right-of-way needs to be set aside in a different area. The appraisal would also be postponed until after the City Council has reviewed and approved the request through a Resolution of Intent to Vacate. In order to make the appraisal process consistent across the board, the amendment would require a Yd party consultant review. The applicant would deposit funds to the City to cover the cost of appraisal and the City would send out for the appraisal to be completed. Unused funds that were set aside as a deposit would be refunded to the applicant. If a more extensive appraisal is required, the applicant may be required to provide additional funding. She summarized that any cost to the applicant would cover just the cost of the appraisal and nothing more. She summarized that pushing the appraisal further out in the process would allow the appraiser to consider easements and anything else that might be happening on the property or how else it might be used. Board Member Monroe asked what the appraisal is used for, and Ms. McConnell answered that it is used to determine whether or not there should be monetary compensation in order for the right-of-way to be transferred to adjacent properties. Currently, the compensation would be equal to 'h of the appraised value. Ms. McConnell clarified that an unopened alley is considered right -of way. It is not property an adjacent property owner can use because the City has jurisdiction over it. However, a property owner would be expected to maintain any vegetation within the alley. Board Member Pence questioned the policy behind requiring abutting property owners to pay the City compensation in the case of an unopened alley that has no value to the City. For example, when the block at 71 and Alder was platted, the right- of-way was gifted to the City for a potential future alley. The City did not purchase the land, and it was never developed as an alley. It is now a burden to the abutting property owners to the extent that it must be maintained. Ms. McConnell said the compensation requirement would depend on whether or not the land has value to the City. She explained that, even if the topography does not allow for actual travel, oftentimes, current or future utilities will run through the alleyways. It is important to keep in mind that the original intent was to have vehicular travel. However, as development occurred and other main corridor streets improved, the alleys were not always developed. The value of the property is looked at through the appraisal process. The regulations in the City's code mimic State law with regard to vacation of streets. Board Member Pence commented that a property being vacated ought to have some functional value to the City in order to justify charging a property owner for obtaining title to the land. In the case of an unopened alley, which has never provided any utility to the City and is unlikely to do so in the future, he would say the value of the property to the City is zero. That should be reflected by the appraiser. Ms. McConnell responded that if an appraiser did find value to a property, the City would not be able to gift public land to an adjacent property owner. Therefore, monetary compensation is a necessary component in many street vacations. Ms. McConnell advised that the current code allows the City to either accept monetary compensation or reservation of an easement to the City. For example, if the City needs to retain an easement for utilities running through the property, there is no ability to require monetary compensation, too. She explained that through the review and appraisal process it may be Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 7 determined there are reasons for monetary compensation in addition to an easement, and the proposed amendment would allow for both if determined necessary or appropriate. Ms. McConnell explained that with a Resolution of Intent to Vacate there are often certain conditions that must be met. For example, utilities may run through a right-of-way, in which case it would make sense to do a vacation with a reservation of an easement. In this case, the easement would show up in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. Currently, the code states that any conditions must be met within 90 days after approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment would retain the 90-day compliance requirement, but add "unless otherwise stated in the resolution." The amendment leaves the compliance timeline open for more complicated street vacations that involve elements that take more time. The resolution can establish a timeframe that is achievable. Board Member Monroe asked if the applicant is responsible for determining the easements the City needs. Ms. McConnell answered that they do not determine the easements, but conditions may be placed in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate that require certain easements to be established. They are not always easements for the City; sometimes other utility districts need access easements to neighboring properties. It can take time to secure the easements, and sometimes legwork is required by the applicant to meet the conditions. Board Member Crank asked if the proposed amendment would allow the timeline to be restated or is it established at the time the resolution is adopted. Ms. McConnell said it is established by the resolution and cannot be restated later if the applicant needs more time to meet the conditions. Ms. McConnell said staff anticipates the Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments on August 141, followed by a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also hold a public hearing before taking final action. Board Member Pence asked Ms. McConnell to respond to the concerns raised earlier in the meeting by Mr. Reidy. Ms. McConnell said she hopes that his concerns and questions were answered during the presentation. There will be opportunities for public comment at the public hearings before both the Board and the City Council. Board Member Monroe asked if the City has selected a third -party appraiser. Ms. McConnell answered that a third -party appraiser has not yet been selected. As per the current peer -review process, the City puts out a proposal for various consultants. The proposals are then reviewed and a consultant is selected for an on -call contract. Board Member Monroe observed that the consultant would work for the City. Ms. McConnell said the appraiser would work for both parties and provide a consistent review for every application that the City receives. Board Member Monroe commented that the appraiser would likely view the City as his/her client rather than the applicant. Ms. McConnell said the goal is consistency and the ability to review every application in the same manner. Board Member Monroe asked about the typical cost of an appraisal, and Ms. McConnell answered that the deposit amount is around $5,000, but the appraisal could be less or more, depending on the variables. Board Member Monroe commented that, typically when a property changes hands, both the buyer and the seller get an appraisal. They compare the two appraisals and negotiate a deal. Based on the proposed amendment, the City would hire the expert. He asked if the property owner would have any recourse if he/she disagrees with the appraisal done by the City's consultant. Ms. McConnell said that is not currently addressed in the code, and Board Member Monroe suggested that a provision be added. Board Member Monroe said he is not comfortable with the City requiring compensation for a right-of-way it does not use. The proposed amendment could require both easements and compensation. He asked how much compensation the City received in 2018 for street vacations. Ms. McConnell agreed to provide that information to the Board prior to the public hearing on August 14'. Board Member Pence said when he interprets the term "3rd party appraiser" to mean the appraiser would not be a tool of either the I't or the 2nd party. He/she would be a neutral person. He suggested the best way to achieve a 3rd party appraiser would be to have one agreed to by both the applicant and the City. Otherwise, it's not a 3' party, but just the City's appraiser. Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 8 Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that the existing code allows the City to require either monetary compensation or the reservation of easement to the City, and the proposed code would allow the City to require both. She suggested it would be better to use "and/or" instead of "and." Ms. McConnell said the intent was to allow one or the other or both. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Ms. McConnell to explain the difference between an open easement and an unopen easement. Ms. McConnell said the City does not distinguish between open and unopen easements. Easements typically encumber a private property and establish the area for use for a specific purpose such as a utility line. When they talk about alleys and streets, they are talking about right-of-way versus easements. She provided an example of an alley right-of-way that is not opened to vehicular traffic. Because there is no street that connects 71 Avenue to 8r' Avenue, the City would consider it an unopened right-of-way because vehicles cannot pass from one end to the other. To clarify further, Ms. McConnell said the street vacation process specifically deals with vacating right-of-way. It could deal with vacating an easement if the easement was used specifically for pedestrian or vehicular travel, but these requests are uncommon. Most street vacation requests are for actual right-of-way to be vacated. Vice Chair Robles said he was impressed with Mr. Reidy's proactive approach. That is how he wishes notifications could occur. He wants to avoid situations where multiple public meetings have been held, but citizens don't show up to provide input until the last public hearing. Information needs to be provided to the community way in advance so citizens have a clear understanding of how an issue might impact them. Perhaps they need a better notification process. Ms. McConnell asked if he is referring to a better notification process for code amendments specifically or notification when a street vacation application comes in. Vice Chair Robles said he was referring to the public review process for code changes. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECDC 20.03 outlines the public notice requirements that apply to development projects and code updates. For public hearings, notice is provided at least 14 days before the hearing. Notices are published in the newspaper of record (The Everett Herald) and posted at City Hall, the Public Safety Building, the library, and on the City's website. Public notice is also required for street vacations. The notices are posted in the places mentioned above. For project specific applications, notices are posted on site and sent to property owners within 300 feet. Vice Chair Robles suggested that the notification process should be modernized to include electronic notification. He encouraged the City to reach out a little deeper and find other ways to notify the public. Vice Chair Robles commented that technology allows for shared data bases that can be accessed securely by broad groups of people. However, it will take some bold visioning on the part of the City to accommodate. The idea that they need one appraiser to streamline the process could be challenged now where it wasn't in the past. Ms. McConnell said she is unfamiliar with the appraisal database he is referring to and cannot speak to that. Vice Chair Robles agreed to provide information about the technology he referenced. Vice Chair Robles asked if current easements and rights -of -way will accommodate 5G equipment. If so, will utilities require payment for the use of the 5G access. He asked if there are other ancillary revenue streams that would taint the revenue model on the easements. Ms. McConnell said the 5G process is a completely different process, and anything related to it would be handled under a completely different code chapter. The proposed amendments are specific to street vacations. With any use of the right-of-way by a utility, the continued use of the right-of-way or area would be reviewed during a street vacation process and easements would be established as needed. Board Member Rosen said his understanding is that the City Council, in general, is going to take the publication engagement process on a much more global scale. Council Members Teitzel and Mesaros have agreed to lead this effort. Perhaps the Board's thoughts could be part of that discussion. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that once a street vacation agreement is approved, the City can tax the property owner for the additional land they own. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Robles reminded the Board of their joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24t1i. The August 14t' meeting will include an update on the Ruckelshaus Center Report (RoadMap Project) and a public hearing on the street Planning Board Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 9