Edmonds Planning Board Meeting - April 17, 2026
Edmonds Planning Board Meeting - April 17, 2026
Note: The agenda and transcript indicate the meeting was held on April 8, 2026, while the provided timestamp states April 17, 2026. This summary uses the latter date for the title but reflects the actual meeting date in the body.
The meeting covered approvals of previous minutes, a detailed discussion on middle housing code amendments in the LDR zone (frontage types and building orientation), and a new business item regarding the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Docket for Westgate parcel zoning corrections. No decisions were made on the major discussion items, and the board deferred action on the zoning changes pending further information.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (March 25, 2026): The board approved the minutes with edits as read aloud, including corrections to Nick's absence (changed to excused) and clarifications on tree code discussions regarding nuisance vs. hazard trees and regulation of significant trees. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke, either in person or online.
Discussion Items
- Middle Housing Code Amendments in LDR Zone (Frontage Types & Building Orientation): Staff presented a detailed overview of frontage types (porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, common entry, stoop) and building orientation issues, highlighting known code discrepancies such as the lack of a street hierarchy for determining primary frontage when a lot faces multiple streets. The board debated the appropriate level of regulation, balancing walkability, traffic safety, neighborhood character, and homeowner preferences. Several members supported creating a street-priority map or frontage zones keyed to street classifications and distance from the street, rather than a one-size-fits-all rule. Staff noted that no decisions were needed that night; the topic will return for further discussion and eventual recommendation.
- 2026 Comprehensive Plan Docket (Westgate Parcel Zoning Correction): Staff presented a mapping error that left four parcels (including Taco Bell and a vacant lot) without a permanent zoning designation, currently under interim BP (Planned Business) zoning. Two options were discussed: leaving the parcels as BP (matching interim zoning) or amending the Comprehensive Plan to include them in the NCH (Neighborhood Center Hub) designation, which allows taller buildings and smaller setbacks. The board deferred a decision to a future meeting to review additional comparison data between the two zoning options.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes approved as amended.
- No action on the middle housing code amendments; staff will bring revised proposals incorporating the board’s input on street hierarchy and frontage zones.
- No decision on the Westgate parcel zoning; staff will provide a detailed comparison table of BP vs. NCH zoning impacts.
- Resignation: Board member Isabel Jones announced her resignation due to increased work commitments, effective immediately.
- Upcoming meetings: The board will focus on tree code discussions over the next several months, starting with the next meeting on May 13, 2026 (staff will be absent).
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. I will call this April 8th planning Edmunds Planning Board meeting to order. We will start with the land acknowledgement. Uh leaf. Yes, we're I'm already, I'm starting off good. Lee, if you would mind, wouldn't mind. I would be more than honored. Thank you. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, this no homish people and their successors of the two Lelup tribes who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination. We honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Thank you. Our agenda for the evening, we have approval of the minutes from our March 25th meeting. Now that it's there, now that it's there. Right. No administrative reports, no public hearings. No un or we have our unfinished business is middle housing code amendments in LDR zone that we have bumped many a times. We're finally getting to that tonight. New business is the 2026 comprehensive plan docket. And then we will go over our extended agenda of comments and be out of here on time, I suspect tonight. So with that, we will move into our approval of minutes. So for example, the ones that we have for our last meeting are pretty concise, so we can read them aloud in the future. If there are a lot of edits, we won't go through the effort of reading them aloud, and we will ask for a motion to just table the approval until those can be incorporated into a future one. So we're not going through everything, you know, with finite detail in the meeting, but uh that way we have those changes recorded rather than just reported in the portal online. So um so with that trying to find Judy's minutes. Okay, so per Judy's email, the uh requested revisions to the March 25th meeting minutes are a question about Nick's absence that should be corrected to excuse. We did receive notification from Nick, and I think I just neglected to say it during the meeting. Um we see plenty of advanced notifications. She recommends nuisance trees not to be equated with hazard trees and be included as part of any tree replacement method. And then under our discussion of the tree code, questions for the board number one, healthy and nuisance tree removal can be removed without a permit. Questions for the board number four, delete the first sentence that is not in the question. The discussion documented focuses on question number three, and the general direction on question four about regulating significant trees is that they should be regulated. So for for purposes of edits probably needs to say that the actually most of number four would be deleted because the first question is not the question for number four. Because the first question is not the question for number four. Then this several sentences that follow should be deleted as well because they are the discussion for number three, not for number four. And so number four, the question is the second question. And then it just needs to say that significant tree should be regular. That was the general direction. Okay. The board. So that's efficient. I think so. Okay. Um I'm just I'm looking at it now to under questions. If a hazard or nuisance tree comes down, will there be a replacement required? Should we regulate significant tree removals through the allowance system? Is the should we regulate significant tree removals through the allowance system? Actually, I think the question, and I unfortunately don't have the available, but I think the question actually should we regulate significant tree removals? I'm not even sure that question, and Deb's not here to confirm it, said through the allowance system. I'm not even sure that was part of the original question, right?
openpublica.com