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.
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?