Loading...
2019-10-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting October 9, 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 — 51 Avenue North. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (left at 8:00) Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby Cary Guenther ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Laurie Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Tom Walker STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There were no comments related to the Development Services Director Report JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DESIGN REVIEW ROLES AND PROCESS Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Planning Board and ADB discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and involvement in project reviews at a joint meeting on July 24', and the Planning Board discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and processes at a joint meeting with the City Council on September 241. The purpose of this meeting is to have continued discussion about the ADB's changing roles in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. It is anticipated that, at the end of the discussion, the two groups will provide direction to staff to draft code revisions to implement the changes. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ADB is concerned that the design standards are incomplete and do not always yield the results that the ADB and the Edmonds community want to see. The ADB feels it spends too much time approving already - designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process. They have expressed a desire to have an earlier role in the review process, as well as a role in reviewing and developing design standards. He referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with the ADB's desired roles and a list of recommendations from the ADB. He also referred to Attachment 2, which is a flowchart of the proposed new design review process. He reviewed the ADB's recommendations are as follows: 1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted. For the past 30 years, the ADB's work has focused on making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of a project review, and this has caused it to miss opportunities to participate in recent design work related to Westgate, Highway 99, Five Corners, etc. As was discussed at the last joint meeting, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of a project review cycle is not the best use of the ADB's time and expertise. In addition, the City Council, via Resolution 1367, has stated its intent to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial decision - making role. As envisioned, the ADB would have two touches of larger projects during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development, and the second would be during the application review as a recommendation to the final decision maker. A mandatory pre -application meeting would allow the ADB to provide guidance on a variety of elements, including massing, site context and open space, before an applicant spends significant time and money preparing design plans. The second review would allow the Board to take a second look at a project to see if the applicant addressed the Board's design vision from the pre -application meeting and propose design conditions if it did not. 2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects. Post -hoc reviews of completed projects would allow the ADB to see how projects age into sites and whether what was envisioned by the design standards and guidelines are working or if they need to be revised to ensure the community is getting the design it wants. 3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. The ADB would like to have a role in developing and recommending citywide design guidelines and standards, as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts such as Highway 99, Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owensby said the ADB hasn't had a lot of opportunity to discuss how the proposed recommendations would be implemented, but they all feel frustration with the current process and their inability to provide input relative to design. In some cases, the ADB has approved projects it normally wouldn't have simply because they meet all of the City's design standards and they had no choice. He said the ADB would like to play a larger role in developing policies and codes that affect design. There are currently a lot of design standards that appear to be requirements, when in fact, they are just guidelines and the ADB doesn't have the ability to enforce them. It would be good to have guidelines in place that are both consistent and enforceable. He suggested that, rather than one -size -fits -all design standards, the standards should recognize Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 2 that the setbacks, building modulation and other design standards need to based on the type of building, as well as its use and location. Chair Herr recalled that, just recently, an applicant presented a project that the ADB really liked but could not approve as presented. While the intent of the design standards is good, it wasn't possible to meet them without making significant structural engineering changes. The Board's hands were tied because it has no discretionary ability to modify the standards. If the ADB had been involved early in the design, perhaps it could have recommended some potential solutions. In the end, the applicant came back with a project that met all of the Board's recommendations, but a lot of time and money was required to get to that point. They could have got out in front of these issues if they had had an opportunity to meet with the applicant early in the design process. He summarized that the Board can recommend changes as part of its quasi-judicial review, but it has no authority to stop a project that meets all of the design guidelines and code standards. The fact that this developer took the ADB's recommendations to heart and redesigned the building was a bonus, but he didn't have to do it. Chair Herr explained that, with the current process, applicant's present projects and the Board reviews the Design Guideline Checklist and signs off on them without having an opportunity to provide significant input. They can make recommendations, but there are no teeth to require applicants to implement changes. If the ADB doesn't like a project, they have to approve it anyway if it meets all of the design guidelines and codes. The ADB would like to be involved earlier in design review to help guide projects. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB has never been invited to provide input on design elements when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He expressed his belief that the ADB needs to be more involved in both Comprehensive Plan policies and legislative code amendments related to design. Besides just approving projects, the ADB can offer a lot more. Board Member Rosen asked what the Planning Board's role will be in the process of changing the ADB's role and the design review process. Mr. Chave explained that, as per code, the Planning Board is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Development Code, including ADB procedures and responsibilities, and that is why the ADB is meeting jointly with the Planning Board to share its recommendation. Mr. Chave said the ADB has discussed having all of the design standards in one section of the code, and then having the ADB the body in charge of making recommendations to the City Council regarding design code changes. He suggested it would be awkward for the ADB to have study sessions and public hearings on proposed amendments, only for the Planning Board to have to repeat the process before making a recommendation to the City Council. The ADB is interested in having a stronger role in the development of design guidelines (Comprehensive Plan) and design standards (Development Code), and staff believes it would make sense for the ADB to submit their recommendations directly to the City Council. In an attempt to advance the recommendations with the best opportunity for success, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be better to have the recommended changes come from the Planning Board or from both boards together. Mr. Chave suggested that it would be appropriate to present the proposed changes to the City Council in a joint meeting. Regarding Board Member Guenther's comment about the ADB being left out of the Comprehensive Plan process, Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that there hasn't been a comprehensive review of the Comprehensive Plan for quite a while. The most recent amendments were unrelated to design. Board Member Guenther recalled that he was a member of the Planning Board when the design element of the Comprehensive Plan was updated, and the Planning Board did not solicit feedback or help from the ADB. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the ADB to participate the next time the design element is updated. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the City's process for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave said the City completes a comprehensive update of its Comprehensive Plan every seven years. In between, the City conducts an annual update to address minor changes that are needed for one reason or another. He said the ADB has suggested it would like to take a larger role in modifications to and development of the design guidelines, some of which are in the Comprehensive Plan. They would also like a larger role in creating and modifying the design standards in the Development Code. He noted that their input has been largely left out of previous updates. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 3 Board Member Monroe recalled that at the last joint meeting, the two boards talked about the need for a deviation process. He asked if the ADB had a chance to talk about the concept further. Board Member Owenby answered no. Mr. Chave explained that the proposal currently before the Board would modify the code to allow the ADB to be involved earlier in design review and to have a role in developing and modifying design guidelines, design standards and other code regulations related to design. If and when the current proposal is adopted by the City Council, the ADB can begin to discuss potential code amendments, including a provision that allows for deviations to the design standards. Vice Chair Robles recalled that at the joint meeting, he recognized that the ADB members are creative, technically -minded and safety conscious in taking care of details. At their joint meeting with the Council, the Planning Board expressed its belief that the ADB is being underutilized at this time. For example, it was pointed out that the ADB has some great ideas related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that could be beneficial to the Housing Commission. When the City Council made it clear that ADU's were under the purview of the Housing Commission, he pointed out that allowing the ADB to study the issue and recommend a set of specifications that can work for ADUs would help the Housing Commission move quicker. He said he can see how the ADB's work at the front end could actually lubricate the issue and allow it to run smoother rather than hold it back. He wholeheartedly agreed that having ADB participation closer to the front end of design review would be beneficial, as well. He asked what would be the best approach for pushing the ADB's recommended changes forward to the City Council. Chair Herr referred to Attachment 1, which outlines what the ADB is striving to accomplish. However, implementing all of the changes will take baby steps. The ADB's recommendation list only includes three items as a place to start. As the changes are implemented, the Board will get a better idea of how it can best serve and help applicants present their projects. If the ADB is allowed to comment earlier, their feedback will come more as a suggestion or recommendation. If they are presented at the end after a project has been fully designed, applicants are much less willing to consider the recommendations. Having the review come earlier in the process will benefit developers, the ADB, the City and the community. Vice Chair Robles stressed the need to clearly articulate the ADB's vision. If you flip the politics, it becomes an easy change. It is all about communicating the proposal to the City Council in a way that they are open to the rest of the changes. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 1, which lists the ADB's current powers and duties, noting that most of what the ADB currently does (reviewing projects) isn't even on the list. Their major job now is to act as the approval body for projects rather than providing design expertise for the development of design in the City. The ADB is suggesting going back to the powers and duties that the current code assigns to them. They would still have a role in project review, but it would be pushed much earlier in the process to better influence how design develops. Having a provision in place that allows for design standard modifications would encourage good design to happen. He summarized that if the Planning Board supports the ADB's recommendations, staff could schedule a joint meeting with the ADB, Planning Board and City Council. If the Council is receptive to the recommendation, staff could draft the appropriate code changes to make it happen. Board Member Owensby agreed that the proposal's success will depend on how it is presented to the City Council. He doesn't want to step on anyone's toes. As an architect, he has to gather and assimilate a variety of information (building codes, soil conditions, client desires, etc.) in order to do a good project. The ADB members excel at doing this. With regards to ADUs, the ADB could help the Housing Commission think through the process creatively so that Edmonds gets the type of housing it needs. Vice Chair Robles agreed that the Housing Commission is necessary, and the ADB could support their efforts so they don't get bogged down with details that would be easy for the ADB to address. Mr. Chave explained that the Housing Commission's role will be to come up with policies relative to ADUs and not to develop detailed standards for ADU's. Once the policies are in place, they will allow the Planning Board and/or ADB to come up with specific implementation standards to implement the policies. The City Council didn't want the Planning Board and ADB to "get too far into the weeds" before the Housing Commission comes up with the big picture policy direction. Board Member Rubenkonig said she watched the video of the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council and observed that there was a misrepresentation of the ADU concept and that some Board Members confused the issue. She appreciates that Mr. Chave has set the Board straight. She said the way the Board could impact the ADU discussion was also Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 4 misrepresented. It is her understanding that the Planning Board and ADB can look at the current criteria for detached ADUs and consider other criteria that would result in acceptable design for the City, and it is time for that to take place. There is no new policy being made at this time for detached ADU's, and it is not within their purview to discuss policy changes. However, the Planning Board can work with the ADB to see if there is another way for ADUs to look that might be more palatable for the neighborhoods and the City. The current regulations have been in place for a long time, and perhaps they no longer represent the present concerns or future needs. Discussing these regulations are well within the purview of the two Boards. She recalled previous discussions with the Development Services Director, indicating that the Planning Board could work with the ADB on the design issues related to ADU's. However, policies as to who can benefit from ADU's will come from the Housing Commission. That is what the City Council was trying to clarify. Board Member Rubenkonig concluded that, with this understanding and staff s support, the Planning Board can engage with the ADB in looking at the design standards for ADUs. However, they must be clear they can always do what they have been doing, which is making preferences known as to the benefit these structures could be for other people in the City aside from family members. The Planning Board is expected to represent different views and be part of the conversation. Striking a chord on the Board will require communication and that they are all in agreement when it comes to agenda setting for when they meet with the City Council. They need to be clearer, publicly, about how they discuss things as a Board. Once they make plans, they have to protect those plans and represent the Board in a fine manner. They have to be very clear tonight about the difference between the policies the Housing Commission will be setting and the Planning Board's future work with the ADB. She concluded that it was disconcerting to see the issue become so mottled, and she didn't want the confusion to continue at this meeting. Board Member Crank said she supports the ADB's recommendation and the flowchart that was attached to the Staff Report. The last thing that volunteers want to feel like is that their time and talent is not being utilized because their hands are being tied or that the work is not going down the right pathway for them to be effective. She recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council, Councilmember Johnson brought up that some items have been on the Planning Board's extended agenda for years. She would like these items to be revisited. She suggested that the 2020 Planning Board Chair should proactively work with staff to schedule these projects on the Board's extended agenda and find ways to incorporate the ADB where appropriate. Board Member Rosen said that whenever he considers potential changes, he tries to consider what issues might come up that will kill a new idea. He asked what are the worst things someone might say in opposition to the ADB's recommended changes. Chair Herr responded that, without the changes, good volunteers may decide to leave their position on the ADB. Board Member Rosen agreed that will be an outcome of the proposed change. Board Member Guenther commented that if the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will appear they are being promoted a level up the chain. The current process requires the ADB to make recommendations to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council. Along the way, recommendations get modified, and what is eventually adopted may not be consistent with the ADB's original recommendation. He said it makes sense for the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, but this change could raise some concerns. Board Member Owensby voiced concern that elements of an ADB recommendation can get lost in the translation as it is moved through the Planning Board and then to the City Council. The Planning Board may not have an adequate understanding of an ADB recommendation to clearly explain to the City Council why it is important. If the ADB, is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, they can clearly explain their reasoning. Board Member Rosen agreed that many good ideas have been derailed by the current process, which is a compelling argument in support of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said they may receive some pushback on the mandatory pre -application meeting requirement. He explained that pre -application meetings are not mandatory at this point. Quite a number of applicants do them anyway, but it is something else to make it mandatory. Some element of the development community is used to the current process, and adding a new step early in the process might cause some pushback. He said that, in his view, it isn't really a penalty to require a pre - application meeting; it just means that people will have to think of that earlier in the process. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 5 Board Member Rosen asked if other jurisdictions in the region require pre -application meetings. Chari Herr said he works in a lot of jurisdictions, and most have pre -application meetings. He said he doesn't think they will receive a lot of pushback from the development community because they are used to it in most jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that some of the local developers are not used to pre -application meetings, but they provide a potential benefit, particularly if the City has a process for deviations to the standards. A pre -application meeting will allow the ADB to engage a prospective developer early enough that they can see possibilities they may not have recognized themselves. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ENDORSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AND SET UP A TIME TO CO -PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, as proposed, the pre -application meeting would only be mandatory for significant projects and not every project. Developers of larger projects will have a different level of visibility anyway. Mr. Chave referred to the flowchart (Attachment 2) that was attached to the Staff Report, emphasizing that it is just a draft now. Once they get into the details of the process, they can set different thresholds, depending on where projects are located. For example, he can see that the threshold for mandatory pre -application meetings would be different for development in the downtown versus Highway 99, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owenby said he would like to make sure that any project that is publicly oriented should require a pre - application meeting. This would include development on Highway 99, downtown, Five Corners, etc. The threshold should be based on both size and location. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that it will be important to clearly define the threshold so it is easy for people on the outside to understand. The process outlined in the flowchart is simple, setting the threshold at projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Chair Herr agreed that would be a good place to start. However, the pre -application meeting could remain an option for all projects, and some developers might take advantage of the opportunity. Board Member Rubenkonig said she has no comments regarding the contents of the Staff Report, but she is concerned that the ADB hasn't had enough time to consider their recommendation and some of their members are not present. She observed no action is required at this time. They can reconvene the joint meeting on a future date if necessary for the ADB to have more preparation time. Chair Herr responded that the ADB has discussed the recommendation at length in prior meetings. All members of the ADB have participated in the discussion and all are in agreement with the recommendation. Board Member Owensby clarified that the intent of his earlier comment is that the ADB hasn't had time to go beyond the initial recommendation to look at the specific design guidelines and design standards they might recommend in the future. Once again, Chair Herr reminded them that it will take small steps, starting with outlining the framework and gaining the Planning Board and City Council support. As they move forward, the details will all be fleshed out. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the Planning Board members why they are comfortable moving the ADB's recommendation on to the City Council. Board Member Cloutier clarified that they are not recommending a complete rewrite of the code. They are simply endorsing the three recommendations provided in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which outline what they want the ADB to be doing. The proposed recommendations set a vision for where the ADB should be going, and then the recommendations will be implemented with new actions. Board Member Monroe commented that the ADB recommendation represents a thoughtful process and is exactly the process he wants to have for the design review board. The proposed changes offer a great way to keep the citizen boards engaged, and they need to be able to fix things that aren't working. He is open to hearing the ADB's ideas for implementing the changes in the future. Chair Cheung said he appreciates the ADB's recommendation and found their arguments to be compelling. He supports empowering the ADB to do work where they can help the most. Rather than the ADB making a recommendation to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council, he would support the ADB making their own recommendations to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 6 Vice Chair Robles said he is an engineer and works with architects. They rely on each other, and the working relationship is very important. It is also important that both boards represent the citizens. They need to take every opportunity to increase the weight of the citizen comments, and he trusts the architects on the ADB to do that. He looks forward to their active participation in forwarding the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of people and property. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the ADB is made up of a planner, a civil engineer, at least one architect, a design professional, and two representatives from the community. They are not all architects, but most are related to the design profession. She cautioned against an overemphasis on the ADB members all being architects when the reality is, they represent the design profession. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Rubenkonig left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CFP/CIP) Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, and it ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six - year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Projects: The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using funding from both the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs. The 89t1i Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street. The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. They were able to rebuild the rockery with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about $125,000. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 7 • The 841 Avenue Overlay Project started in the middle of September and is expected to be finished by mid -October. It is a combination of stormwater improvements plus 2-inch-grind overlay. It is a half -mile section between 2201 and 212' Streets. • The Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project was completed this year. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project is in progress. They are currently paving Dayton from 3rd to 5t1i Avenues, and all of the utilities within that segment are being replaced. The final pavement work will be done on Friday if weather permits. There will be a break in activity, and the project will resume in March on the segment between 5t' and 9r' Avenues. • Phase 1 of the Seaview Infiltration Project was completed this summer and was funded by a State grant. The infiltration facility was installed in Seaview Park, itself, and collects stormwater off the Perrinville system and infiltrates it into the ground. The goal is to minimize the impact to the Perrinville system and the existing creek. The cost of the project was about $350,000. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2020 Projects: • The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program will be funded at $1.2 million, which should provide for about 3 lane miles of street overlay. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project is funded with federal dollars and will upgrade safety at nine intersections in the City, primarily by upgrading pedestrian ramps and installing rapid flashing beacons at crossings. A Hawk Signal will be installed at the intersection of SR-524 and 81 Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104 near City Park. • The Highway 99 Revitalization Project will continue to go forward in 2020 using State funding. The corridor study has been completed and the City learned that the cost of upgrading Highway 99 with all of the streetscape and safety improvements would be well over $100 million, and the State's allocation was only $2 million. The City is working to pick the low -hanging fruit, installing center medians and taking out some of the turn lanes along the corridor to improve safety at high accident intersections. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements of the project forward. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project is also grant funded and part of the Main Street to 9t' Avenue Improvement Project. The portion between 5t' and 9r' Avenues will be constructed in 2020, and the portion between 3rd and 5' Avenues is currently in progress. • REET funding will be used for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which started last year and is proposed to continue in 2020. Projects include flashing beacons at 31 Avenue and Bell Street, a project that was funded in 2019. The equipment has been purchased but hasn't been installed. • Several Traffic Signal Upgrades will be done in 2020. They will make several improvements to the existing control cabinets on Highway 99, and the program will continue into 2020 with improvements to signal detections. • The Guardrail System Program will continue into 2020, with replacement of existing guardrails that need upgraded and adding new guardrails in areas where they are needed. • The Traffic Calming Program has been in place for several years and will be funded with REET dollars in 2020. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9r' Avenues. With the exception of the sewer line, all other utilities will be replaced. The existing sewer line will be refurbished with a cured -in -place pipe process, which is less costly. • The Water Utility Replacement Program will continue and the plan is to replace over 1,000 feet of watermain, including the work that is part of the Dayton Street Program. They will also overlay about .35 lanes miles of street, and most of that work is related to the Dayton Street Project. • The Stormwater Utility Program will replace 4,900 feet of pipe. • The Willow Creek Daylight Project will continue, with $750,000 identified for design. • Phase 2 of the Seaview Infiltration Facility Project will be another infiltration facility that adds capacity to the one that was completed in 2019. • The Ballinger Regional Facility Project is a predesign project that the City is evaluating the potential of building a new infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger Park to try and minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on Lake Ballinger. • The Perrinville Creek Flow Management Project will continue to look for opportunities to install raingardens within the drainage basin to reduce runoff into the system. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 8 • The Sewer Utility Program will replace 2,500 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,300 feet of sewer pipe using the cured -in -place method, overlay 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. • Design will start on the Pyrolysis Project at the Sewer Treatment Plant in 2020. Ms. Burley noted that most of the park projects identified in the CIP and CFP fall within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She shared highlights of 2019 projects: • The first inclusive playground in the City was installed this year at Seaview Park. • All of the tennis courts at Seaview Park were refinished and the restroom was refurbished. • The Olympic Beach Restrooms were completely revamped. The project was scoped to be done by a contractor, but it ended up being done in house by City staff. This resulted in a significant savings, and the project turned out nice. • The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is ongoing. Staff believes they found a solution, and they are working to put together the pieces to float the labor underneath to seal it up. They are optimistic the project will be completed in 2020. • The City Park Walkway Project will happen this fall and includes widening the exit to allow for better pedestrian access. The work will be completed in house by a parks crew. • Design work is complete for the Gateway Sign Project. Next, Ms. Burley shared highlights of the proposed 2020 projects: • Civic Park was designed in 2019. The City has secured funding necessary to build the park, including a $2 million request from the 2020 budget. The $2 million request originally included $500,000 from the general fund, but that is no longer needed. The entire $2 million will be funded with balances in the various park funds, including the Park Impact Fee and REET funds. Everything associated with issuing the bonds has been completed. She summarized that $3.1 million of the project funding is in carry-over funds, $3.7 million bonds, and $3.4 million grants. The goal is to get to 90% design in December and submit for permits in November of this year. This will enable the City to issue a Request for Proposals in February or March of 2020 and break ground in the spring. Construction is expected to take one year to complete. The Parks staff is working diligently on solutions to handle the ground water and address the high-water table. The grade needs to be raised significantly enough to allow water to dissipate and for the drainage system to be above the current grade but below the new grade. They are also working to address water mitigation, which is incredibly difficult in addition to taking care of the onsite water. They are exploring options at Yost Park, which is in the same watershed, just upstream. There is potential to do some water infiltration at Yost Park, which will provide four mitigation credits for the Civic Park Project. • The Marina Beach Park Project will continue in 2020 and go hand -in -hand with the Willow Creek Daylighting Project. The Park needs to be designed simultaneously. RCO grants are coming up in 2020, and the design money will be spent to get the project to a place where they can submit confidently for grants for the project. They plan to submit three grant applications for this particular project. • Funding was included to support ongoing maintenance and repair at Yost Pool. In 2020, replacing and rehabilitating the pool grates will be the largest maintenance project. They will also replace the acid/chlorine injector and the pool cover. • The 41 Avenue Cultural Corridor is a significant project that will take longer than some people like. The estimated cost to design the project is about $350,000, and $50,000 has been spent to date. Another $100,000 is allocated in 2020 to continue the design work. Design is critical for the City to secure grant funding. To get much further, they will also need to identify some funding sources. • The City has identified a 1-acre parcel for a Community Garden. They had hoped to purchase it in 2019, but the Purchase and Sale Agreement still hasn't been finalized. The funds will be rolled into the 2020 CIP. • The City has plans for two outdoor fitness zones, one of which was programed in 2019. They were unable to get to the project, so both are now programmed in 2020. One will be at Civic Park and the other at Mathay Ballinger Park. The City received grant funding for the projects. • The Waterfront Redevelopment Project will continue in 2020. About half of the funding for the project was programmed in 2019 and the remaining half in 2020. This is not really a funding request; it is just a carryover of the budget that was identified in 2019. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 9 Ms. Burley advised that the draft CIP and CFP also include a list of projects that go out beyond the 2020 timeline, such as relatively minor park improvements, ongoing maintenance, etc. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for October 23'. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 4', and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 121. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans before the end of December. Board Member Crank asked if the 234' Street/Highway 99 Traffic Signal Project would be done in tandem with the housing project that is supposed to take place at that intersection. Mr. English answered no. The traffic signal is part of a grant the City secured a few years ago for safety improvements and it is not tied to the housing development. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the $6.5 million that is identified in the CIP for professional service fees over the next five years. Mr. English responded that building maintenance is managed by the City's Facilities Manager. The allocation is intended to show the needed funding to maintain the facilities, and it won't necessarily all be used to fund engineering and design. It probably should be distributed to both construction and professional services, but the intent is to identify the dollar amount that needs to be programmed each year to maintain the City's facilities. Board Member Monroe noted that no funding is identified for traffic calming. Mr. English responded that the Traffic Calming Program was funded by the 112 Fund through 2019 via a General Fund contribution. Starting in 2020, the program will be funded with the REET 125 Fund at an amount of $15,000. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. English to explain the process for adding projects to the table on Page 187 of the Staff Report. Mr. English explained that there are several components that factor into when projects are added. The City Council has the ability to add projects, and staff can recommend projects to the City Council. Projects may be added because of maintenance reasons or because the City has an opportunity for grant funding. Citizen can also recommend projects. The projects on the list on Page 187 are new projects that were added throughout 2019 for potential funding. Chair Cheung requested an update on the Waterfront Walkway Project. Ms. Burley answered that the City is still in litigation. Chair Cheung asked how the delay will impact the Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Ms. Burley answered that while a few permits are connected, the projects are separate. They have cleared all of the milestones for the Waterfront Redevelopment Project and it will move forward. The City will continue with litigation on the connecting Waterfront Walkway. Student Representative Bryan said he had fun looking through all of the proposed sidewalk additions. He said he runs cross country for the high school, and he and his team run about 8 miles per day throughout the community. While he sees clear reasoning for many of the proposed projects, there were others where there is already a wide shoulder and very little vehicular traffic. He said he would prefer not being confined to a little sidewalk in these locations. He asked Mr. English to speak to the criteria that is used to identify projects for the CFP and CIP. Mr. English responded that a number of factors are considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP, including the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Transportation Plan that is updated every six years. Updating the Transportation Plan involves a public process where the City seeks input from the public on potential projects. A citizen committee is formed to evaluate and rank the projects. In 2015 the committee reviewed a long list of potential sidewalk projects that were categorized and ranked. The final list provides the basic groundwork for what shows up in the transportation section of the CFP. The priorities also help staff identify projects to seek funding for. He emphasized that there isn't a lot of funding. The capital program for streets is only $150,000, as most of the REET funding goes towards preservation work and parks projects. They have a long list of needs relative to walkway projects but a shortage of funding. The City's Transportation Engineer has been very successful in the past securing grant funding. Student Representative Bryan summarized that a major part of the prioritization is based on citizen input in monetary form. Mr. English explained that grants are typically issued by the Federal or State Government. Board Member Cloutier referred to the 196' Street/88' Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, noting that the recommendation for a signal in that location is based on a model that was done in 2009. He suggested that perhaps they Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 10 should review the improvement as a potential roundabout instead of yet another signal. He said he loves the roundabout at Five Corners. Mr. English advised that this project has a long history. It doesn't meet warrants for a signal, and that's why a signal has not been installed. One of the challenges with using a roundabout in that location is the line of sight and the inability to see all of the different movements within a roundabout. It will be a challenge on whatever improvement is built at the intersection, and he agreed that a roundabout should be one of the options considered. Board Member Cloutier suggested they also consider a roundabout at the intersection of Main Street and 9r' Avenue. Mr. English advised that, if the City is able to secure funding for improvements at that intersection, a roundabout would definitely be one of the options considered. Chair Cheung pointed out that traffic backs up at the Intersection of 761 Avenue and 1961 Street. At certain times, traffic backs up on 76r'', and he has witnessed several accidents when people try to turn left out of the QFC parking lot. He asked if the intersection is in Lynnwood or Edmonds. Mr. English answered that the intersection is controlled by the City of Lynnwood, and he can take the concern to the City's Traffic Engineer to pass on to the City of Lynnwood. Chair Cheung asked if it would be possible to widen 76' Avenue as it approaches the intersection. Mr. English responded that the Edmonds portion of 76t1i Avenue is south of the QFC, but it becomes Edmonds again north of the intersection. Again, he agreed to pass on the concern. However, he acknowledged that doing a widening project at the intersection would be very costly. Perhaps they could look at the operation of the signal to see if anything can be done with channelization to address the concern. Vice Chair Robles referred to the SR-104/951 Place West Intersection Improvement Project and asked what participation the State would have and how much empathy they have for what is going on at the four corners of the intersection where more population density is planned. He asked what $420,000 would buy to mitigate for all that is going on at that intersection. Mr. English pointed out that the 2281 Street Improvement Project would tie into the improvements at this location because it will provide direct access to the transit station in Mountlake Terrace. When they get to the stage of improving 2281 Street, they could potentially redesign the intersection to make it function better in both its connection to residential communities and the transit station. He acknowledged that the $420,000 shown in the CIP will not solve the problem. The scheduled improvements are just trying to improve access management at the intersection by putting in C curbs, creating ramps at intersections, and improving pedestrian safety at crossings. He agreed to forward Vice Chair Robles' question to the Transportation Engineer with a request to provide more information about the scope of the improvements. Vice Chair Robles asked if future problems at the intersection could be blamed on inactivity on the part of the City because it failed to attend to the issues. Mr. English said there is nothing on the near horizon for doing any city -sponsored work at the intersection. However, there is a private development on the south side of SR-104 that could result in some changes to access. Vice Chair Robles asked if there is a proposed action that involves all four corners of the intersection, or just two corners. Mr. English said there is an active proposal for the south side, but he isn't sure about the status of the north side. Chair Cheung said he likes the crosswalk light on 212r' Street near the high school. He asked if they are expensive to install. Mr. English said they cost between $15,000 and $20,000 per system. Chair Cheung suggested that the City consider providing the systems around schools where there is heavy pedestrian traffic. Mr. English agreed and said the Traffic Engineer is always looking for opportunities to install the systems. He noted that a system would be added on 84' Avenue as part of a project that is currently under construction, and another would be added at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Dayton Street. In addition, seven of the nine locations included in the Citywide Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program will have rapid flashing beacons added at the crosswalks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL) Mr. Chave explained that there are various implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan relative to housing. One in the Housing Element talks about developing a Housing Strategy by 2019. He recalled that the City considered a Housing Strategy at the end of 2018, but the City Council elected not to adopt it. Instead, they formed a Housing Commission. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019 and 2020, the Council felt it was appropriate to modify the related implementation action that identified 2019 as the date for developing the Housing Strategy. Council - adopted Resolution 1420 identified two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan, and staff Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 11 has also identified a third option. He explained that the first two options were developed by the Council by resolution prior to the establishment of the Housing Commission. Option 3 was developed by staff in response to the Housing Commission being started. It reads, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. " He noted that the Housing Commission's work is supposed to be done by the end of 2020. Staff s recommendation is that the Board choose one of the three options to forward to the city Council so that the Comprehensive Plan can be appropriately updated. Board Member Monroe asked what happens if they get to the end of 2020 and the work has still not been completed. Would they have to go through the same process again to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the date to 2021. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Monroe suggested that a better approach would be to use the language in Option 2, but eliminate the date. The amendment would read, "Develop a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Board Member Crank said her understanding was that the City Council determined that the Housing Commission would sunset at the end of 2020. If the recommendation exceeds that date, it could get push back because it goes beyond what the City Council has already identified as a sunset date. Board Member Monroe said his suggestion was to eliminate the date entirely. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendment is scheduled for October 23ra REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the Board's October 23ra meeting agenda will include a Housing Commission Update, a public hearing on the 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding housing implementation. The November 13' meeting agenda will include a presentation on potential amendments to the Commercial Waterfront Zone to allow lodging or hotels as permitted uses, a presentation and potential amendments to the unit lot subdivision application procedure, and an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies. The December 11' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on potential amendments to the Commercial Waterfront Zone to allow lodging or hotels as permitted uses, and a public hearing on potential amendments to the unit lot subdivision application procedure. The November 27t1i and December 25t' meetings were cancelled. The Board agreed to add "Election of 2020 Officers" to the November 13' agenda. Board Member Rosen recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board reviewed a list of agenda items that they hoped could be placed on the extended agenda. The agenda items were identified in the Board's discussions with the City Council at the joint meeting. Chair Cheung said he would like to work with the 2020 Planning Board Officers and staff to schedule the items into the 2020 agenda. The Board agreed that the items should be listed as "pending" on the next Extended Agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Planning Board comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 12