Loading...
2012.08.06 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012             7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   1.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.Roll Call   B.AM-5006 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 31, 2012.   C.AM-5003 Approval of claim checks #133431 through #133553 dated August 2, 2012 for $722,240.66. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51541 through #51578 for $486,948.29 and benefit checks #51579 through #51591 & wire payments for $204,357.78 for the period July 16, 2012 through July 31, 2012.   D.AM-4998 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Bonnie Thomas ($602.25) and Gregory Doughty ($639.86).   3.(20 Minutes) AM-5001 Report on the State of the Edmonds Senior Center.   4.(10 Minutes) AM-5002 Update on the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat.   5.(10 Minutes) AM-4988 Public Hearing on an ordinance designating the Allen House located at 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning map with an “HR” designation.   6.(45 Minutes) AM-5010 Public hearing updating the City of Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 and portions of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 16 to allow Motorized Mobile Vendors. (File No. AMD20100012)   08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 1 of 380 7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings .   8.(30 Minutes) AM-5007 Police Services Contract - Town of Woodway   9.(30 Minutes) AM-4997 Discussion regarding retail only zone in BD1.   10.(30 Minutes) AM-5005 Discussion regarding step-backs.   11.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   12.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   ADJOURN   08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 2 of 380    AM-5006     2. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 31, 2012. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 07-31-12 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/03/2012 08:40 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 08:59 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/02/2012 02:44 PM Final Approval Date: 08/03/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 3 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 31, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Joan Bloom, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2012. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #133204 THROUGH #133430 DATED JULY 26, 2012 FOR $915,252.98. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #51540 FOR $230.10 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH JULY 15, 2012. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented that he came across campaign materials from a candidate for mayor in 1987. That candidate’s first priority was preventing adult entertainment; that was accomplished. His second issue was moving the ferry terminal by 2020; the ferry terminal has not been moved. The candidate’s third issue was property taxes; taxes were not raised for three years. The citizens’ main concern at that time was controlling growth. The City was rated #1 in safety. The final issue in the candidate’s materials was term limits for the Mayor and Council; voters are allowed to establish term limits for Councilmembers and Mayor. Next, Mr. Rutledge announced the final report on the Edmonds Food Bank car show will be available on August 20. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 4 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 2 4. EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLANNING AND VISIONING RETREAT #6 (CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION). In addition to the above elected officials and staff, the following Board and Commission members were present for this item: ECONOMIC DEVEVLOPMENT COMMISSIONERS John Eckert Kevin Garrett Don Hall Darrol Haug Marc Knauss Evan Pierce Nathan Proudfoot Doug Purcell John Rubenkonig Gail Sarvis Rich Senderoff Karen Shively Evelyn Wellington Bruce Witenberg PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Phil Lovell (Chair) Valerie Stewart (Vice Chair) Neil Tibbott Kevin Clark John Reed Mayor Earling welcomed new Economic Development Commissioners. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton welcomed everyone and referred to materials provided to the Council, Planning Board, Economic Development Commission (EDC), and the public: Strategic Planning Retreat #6 Agenda, Strategic Plan Actions, Survey Results and Actions, Responsibilities and Performance Measures. He explained tonight Mr. Beckwith will present 1) information regarding how the registered voter telephone survey was conducted, 2) characteristics of survey respondents, 3) limitations to the survey sample, 4) survey results and, 5) implications of the rank order and lead agent contained in the matrix. Mr. Clifton introduced Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, and Eric Hovee and Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group, introduced themselves. Mr. Beckwith explained this is the last retreat; the next step will be formal meetings with the Planning Board and EDC and then a formal meeting with the City Council. He displayed the timeline, identifying Retreat #6 in the process. During the next month, they will meet with staff to scope the timeline and budget of some of the potential actions. Mr. Beckwith explained their presentation will include the following: 1. Registered voter survey – process 2. Registered voter survey – respondent characteristics 3. Strategic Plan Actions – by ranked priorities (4-5) score and lead agent 4. Strategic Plan Actions - Implementation Registered voter survey – process • Participants – 1,383 registered voters were randomly recruited by telephone (land line and cell) from the voter registration list (17,846 unique households (2,546 with cell phones) in Edmonds = 8%) • Refusals – 188 registered voters (14%) contacted refused to participate for a variety of reasons. That is a very low refusal rate for this type of survey. Reasons given for refusal ranged from too old, not informed, don’t have time, don’t think it will make a difference, do not wish to disclose address, and no reason given. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 5 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 3 • Background – posted “Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures” document on-line for survey participant review • Distribution – depending on participant preference: o 805 were mailed a hard copy of the survey to be completed and returned by mail (provided envelope and stamp) o 577 were sent an email that provided access to the online survey • Return – 466 or 34% were completed including: o 255 or 32% by mailed-back (12 returned for address problems) o 211 or 37% by completion online Mr. Beckwith explained a mail survey is considered successful if has at least a 15% response rate, very successful with a 20-25% response rate; 34% is a very high response rate, particularly for the length and complexity of this survey. He noted this is the not the longest or most complex survey they have done but it is in the top five and took a fair amount of time to complete. Registered voter survey – respondent characteristics • Respondent personalities included: o Pollyana – agree with everything giving high scores to all questions – there were very few in this sample o Grinch – disagree with everything giving low scores to all questions – there were quite a few in this sample o Typical – responses were generally measured including lowest and highest depending on question • Characteristics – generally respondents were: o New to the process – had not participated before o Retired – though some responded with multiple answers likely including previous place of work or other household members o Smaller households – individuals, couples o Long to very long time residents o Homeowners o Older – 50 years and up o Of all income ranges • Representative – of citizens who will likely vote or participate in implementation issues of the strategic plan compared with general population. Groups who do not participate in these types of surveys tend to be young or those very involved with family. Respondents to survey tend to be more conservative than voters in general depending on the issue and when the election is held. Mr. Beckwith reviewed results of the registered voter survey with regard to the following specific characteristics: • Have you participated in this process before? • Where do you work? • How many people in your household? • Where do you live in Edmonds? • How many years have you lived in Edmonds? • Which type of housing do you live in? • What is your gender? • Which age group are you in? • What is your household income range? 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 6 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Hovee commented that given the composition of people who responded, older, retired or close to retirement, suggests they may be active in the community. They are thinking about their own issues as well as the legacy they may leave to the community. Mr. Beckwith reviewed responses ranked in priority order: Strategic Plan Actions Very High Priority Rankings 1-2 3 4-5 Strategic Plan Actions Lead Agent(s) 12% 20% 68% 4: Economic Sustainability – recruit businesses that employ technical, professional, and managerial skills offered by Edmonds residents to facilitate live/work sustainability in Edmonds Port - Chamber 8% 24% 67% 6: Medical and health industries – retain and recruit businesses that support and can expand health related services and products within the general area of Swedish Hospital Edmonds Chamber – Swedish Hospital 9% 24% 66% 63: Fiscal sustainability – implement Budgeting for Objectives process that incorporates public input to establish community priorities, resolves a balance between revenues and expenditures, and encourages innovative and alternative delivery methods. City Council 12% 26% 63% 68: Permitting processes – consolidate and simplify the business license, land use and building permit review process to incorporate electronic application procedures, pre-submittal workshops, and concurrent reviews. City 11% 26% 62% 5: High tech industries – retain and recruit businesses that depend on, and can take advantage of, Edmonds superior fiber optics capability. Port - Chamber 22% 16% 62% 62: BNSF – participate in the environmental impact assessment process related to a proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point in Bellingham. Identify required improvements in Edmonds to mitigate extra tracks, train volumes, dust, noise, and potential conflicts with ferry terminal and waterfront pedestrian, bike, and vehicular traffic City 15% 25% 60% 14: Employment - create a young adult job placement service to help find part and full-time employment opportunities with Edmonds businesses, schools and organizations. Chamber 12% 30% 59% 41a: Senior Center – develop long term solution for maintaining and updating the Senior Center. City – Senior Center 14% 27% 59% 15: Participation – work with public and private organizations to provide mentoring opportunities for young adults through events or social outreach, projects, environmental stewardship, arts and culture and job/career networking. Chamber 15% 26% 59% 20: Harbor Square – review and approve a long term master plan and agreement for the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square property that enhances the waterfront environment, public access and promotes mixed use development. Port 13% 29% 72: Assess performance results – assess, on an annual basis, State of the City programs, projects, and budget. Regularly conduct City 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 7 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 5 58% public, customer, and business surveys to determine the effectiveness, performance, and priorities of adopted Strategic Plan actions. 18% 24% 58% 19: Shoreline/Waterfront – develop a strategy for the combined shoreline (east/west of rail lines) from the Port to the Underwater Dive Park and from the waterfront to the downtown that increases public access and recreational opportunities. City - Port 15% 29% 57% 8: Marketing – identify and recruit retailers to fill critical gaps in retail sales and services such as basic needs (clothing downtown, professional services) within the business districts of downtown, Westgate, Firdale Village, 5-Corners, and Perrinville, as well as larger department stores and specialty retailers on Highway 99. Port – Chamber – Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc – 99 Intnl 15% 28% 57% 53: Street maintenance – create a financing mechanism to generate approximately $1,400,000 per year which is needed annually to maintain City streets. City 17% 26% 57% 47: Recycling –expand reuse and recycling programs in current City operations and in waste management outreach activities by Edmonds households and businesses. Sustainable Edmonds 18% 27% 56% 13: Interim storefront uses – encourage temporary artist exhibits or similar uses in vacant storefronts or buildings in order to provide visual interest and activity while the building is being marketed for a future tenant or owner. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc 18% 26% 56% 37: Downtown restrooms – develop a public restroom facility to serve pedestrians, customers, and tourists in the downtown district. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc 19% 25% 56% 21: Antique Mall – encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site. City - Port 11% 35% 54% 40: Frances Anderson Center – refine long range strategy to enhance, maintain and update life cycle maintenance, repair requirements and functional program needs. City 15% 32% 54% 49: Walkways – institute sidewalk maintenance and construction program to complete key connections to the waterfront, downtown, business districts, schools, parks, and other major walking destinations. City – Edmonds School District 16% 30% 54% 35: Greenways – develop a system of coordinated open spaces, conservation corridors, and greenways with trail access along the shoreline, waterfront, wetlands, hillsides, and parks to preserve the natural setting and increase public awareness and access. Sustainable Edmonds 23% 23% 54% 33: Farmers/Public Market – expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out-of-area customers and tourists. Edmonds Summer Market 17% 31% 53% 23: Swedish Hospital –update the Hospital District master plan to meet hospital needs while mitigating impacts to adjacent nonmedical land uses. Swedish Hospital 16% 31% 53% 38a: Yost Pool - create and implement a long term financial and operational strategy for the updating/upgrading, refurbishment and retrofitting of the current Yost Pool facility. City 17% 30% 53% 16: Activities - create young adult social and recreation oriented activities and facilities that offer evening and after school peer group interactions and events. Boys & Girls Club 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 8 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 6 12% 36% 52% 71: Strategy development – adopt and implement a Strategic Plan in partnership with public and private organizations. City 17% 31% 52% 10: Promotion – initiate and expand retail sales and other events and activities including sidewalk cafes and vendors within the business districts of downtown, Westgate, Firdale Village, 5- Corners, Perrinville and Highway 99. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc – 99 Intnl 17% 33% 51% 45c: Stormwater – resolve flooding on SR-104 and Dayton. City 17% 32% 51% 2: Business outreach – integrate City, Port, Chamber, Edmonds Community College, Edmonds School District, and private business efforts and communications for the benefit of economic recruitment. Port - Chamber Mr. Beckwith commented he had never done a survey where so many actions were above 50%. Out of 72 actions, 40% are high priorities. Mr. Price commented most of the high priorities are new initiatives or reinvigorating previous initiatives. Only a few are routine City responsibilities such as street maintenance and parks. High-Moderate Priority 19% 31% 49% 25: Design – continue to include arts and historical themes in the Edmonds brand and install artworks, gateways, wayfinding signage, and streetscape improvements at key entrances to Edmonds, e.g., the waterfront, downtown, Highway 99, State Route-104 and other business districts. City - Arts 21% 30% 49% 58: Sounder – increase the schedule and number of Sound Transit commuter rail trains between downtown Seattle and Edmonds to promote development of transit oriented development at Harbor Square, the waterfront, and downtown. Sound Transit 22% 30% 48% 59: Sound Transit – develop Community Transit links with the proposed Sound Transit LINK light rail corridor alignment along Interstate 5. Sound Transit 25% 27% 48% 3: Economic incentives – adopt economic incentives for key business or development recruitment targets. These may include reduced or deferred business license fees, permit fees, utility connection charges, latecomer fees, park or traffic impact fees, property tax reduction or deferral, and/or expedited building permit review. City Council 14% 39% 47% 70: Public access – conduct frequent town halls, public open houses, and other events at locations throughout the City to improve public access and facilitate dialogue on policies, programs, projects, and budgets. City 22% 30% 47% 43: Native habitat – plant street trees, restore native habitat in disturbed areas, remove invasive species and update the landscape ordinance to promote use of native and drought resistant plants and restoration of wildlife habitat. Backyard Wildlife Habitat 23% 30% 47% 48: Trails – complete an off-road multipurpose trail network linking the shoreline and waterfront, Edmonds Marsh, downtown, business districts, parks and open spaces, bus and rail transit connections, and the Interurban Trail in Edmonds. City 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 9 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 7 20% 35% 46% 64: Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) participation – integrate NGOs such as the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Business Improvement District, and others into the operation and implementation of BFO and Strategic Plan actions. Chamber 21% 33% 46% 34: Fiscal sustainability – create an alternative mechanism other than the City of Edmonds General Fund with which to finance parks and recreation programs and services. City Council 25% 30% 46% 54: Highway 99 – create transportation improvement program and project for Highway 99 to improve traffic flow, transit connections, pedestrian streetscape and to encourage mixed use project developments similar to what has been recently completed in Shoreline and is planned in Everett and Lynnwood. City – WSDOT – Community Transit 21% 35% 45% 27: Organization – create a central clearinghouse to coordinate scheduling and promotion of events in Edmonds. City – Arts - Chamber 25% 31% 45% 65: Public view corridors and visual preservations – identify public view corridors and view sheds in the Bowl and create appropriate public view protection overlay districts, ordinances, and other measures to preserve and protect them. City 18% 38% 44% 69: Communication – establish effective public information and feedback methods including websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outreach. City 22% 34% 44% 45b: Stormwater – resolve on-going flooding and water quality issues in Lake Ballinger. City 25% 31% 44% 46: Energy – reduce Edmond’s carbon footprint through solar installations and other energy conservation practices in current City operations, updating development codes, and utilizing Sustainable Works energy audits and retrofits. Sustainable Edmonds 22% 35% 43% 26: Promotion – create an Edmonds arts website and utilize social media including Google maps, Facebook, and Twitter to promote and attract visitors to an expanded year-round calendar of events and festivals for performing, literary, culinary, fine, and other arts interests. City – Arts - Chamber 27% 29% 43% 61: Intermodal Station – develop an integrated Amtrak, Sounder, Community Transit, shuttle, ferry, bike, and pedestrian transfer facility on the waterfront to promote accessibility and connectivity to and within Edmonds. Sound Transit – Community Transit - Amtrak 29% 28% 43% 51: Waterfront connection – work to establish an emergency and everyday access over the railroad tracks and ferry terminal lanes for pedestrians bound for shoreline and waterfront attractions from Harbor Square, Antique Mall, and the downtown. City – WSDOT Ferry - BNSF 22% 36% 42% 28: Edmonds Center for the Arts (Edmonds Center Arts) – complete a strategic plan identifying financial strategies for debt payment, redevelopment and reuse of the remaining un-renovated property, including a potential parking garage. Edmonds Center for the Arts 26% 32% 42% 60: Ferry terminal –create an interim ferry waiting and loading strategy that reduces conflicts between trains, automobiles and pedestrians while improving ferry rider access to the waterfront and downtown services and amenities. WSDOT Ferry 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 10 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 8 26% 34% 41% 9: Design – develop a process to identify ways to enhance retail storefronts within the business districts of downtown, Westgate, Firdale Village, 5- Corners, Perrinville and Highway 99. For example, this could include identifying competitive grants and low cost loan programs. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc – 99 Intnl 31% 27% 41% 44: Food production – encourage community gardens and pea patches, plant fruit tree orchards, harvest and deliver food products to food banks and other sources to promote natural systems in Edmonds. Sustainable Edmonds 25% 35% 40% 66a3: Development regulations – Highway 99 City Moderate-Low Priority 22% 39% 39% 45a: Stormwater and Habitat - daylight Willow Creek to help with restoring saltwater access to Edmonds Marsh. City 30% 31% 39% 45d: Stormwater – encourage the development of rain gardens, green roofs and walls, bio-filtration swales, and other green development features in Edmonds projects and development codes. City 33% 27% 39% 38b: Yost Pool - develop and/or expand Yost Pool to include outdoor and indoor leisure pool elements, therapy pool, party rooms and concessions, and possibly other recreation physical conditioning, courts, and gymnasium uses. City 23% 41% 37% 66b: Development regulations – address ground floor retail requirements to reflect demand in different retail corridors and locations. City 28% 34% 37% 50: Crosswalks – install special paving materials, flashing light crossing strips, pedestrian activated signals, median and curb extensions as appropriate to improve pedestrian safety, increase visibility, and calm traffic at major intersections on SR-104 and Highway 99. City 33% 30% 37% 29: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor/Linear Park – fund and complete construction of a linear park streetscape between the downtown and Edmonds Center Arts in order to create a walkable corridor that preserves the historical character of the area, and promotes retail/art opportunities. City 21% 43% 36% 11: Organization – institute the “Main Street” Program 4-Point approach which includes economic restructuring, promotion, design and organization for the downtown and Highway 99 business districts. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc – 99 Intnl 23% 41% 36% 1: Database – create and maintain a database to identify opportunities for business and developer recruitment efforts. The database may include an inventory of available properties, buildings, and resources in Edmonds business districts and zones. Chamber 25% 39% 36% 39a: Civic Field – address long term property ownership and upgrade field, stadium, lighting, and other features to support competitive play including tournaments. City – Edmonds School District 27% 38% 36% 67: Design standards – illustrate site, building, landscape, and signage design objectives using examples to achieve public quality design objectives. City 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 11 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 9 30% 34% 36% 57: SR-104 transit – expand Community Transit’s schedule and hours to support Edmonds employees and residents, particularly at the waterfront, downtown, Westgate, and Highway 99 including connections to the Highway 99 International District. Community Transit 28% 36% 35% 22: Highway 99 International District – create a plan and design theme for this unique area, initiate promotional events and activities, and recruit additional anchors or destination stores. City – 99 Intnl 28% 38% 34% 12: Financing – create a downtown Business Improvement District (BID) to benefit properties and businesses for the purpose of instituting marketing, design, and promotional activities within the downtown business district. City Council – Downtown Business Improvement District 31% 35% 34% 66a2: Development regulations – Westgate City 44% 24% 33% 66a1: Development regulations – Downtown/Waterfront City 30% 38% 32% 17: Diversify housing options – increase housing choice by type, price, and proximity to employment centers, transit corridors, and recreational sites in order to provide live/work/play opportunities in Edmonds. City Low Priority 33% 35% 32% 66a5: Development regulations – Perrinville City 33% 34% 32% 31: Artist live/work – explore ways to develop affordable artist live-workteach- display-sell spaces to attract young and emerging talent to Edmonds similar to the Schack Center in Everett. Housing Authority 34% 36% 31% 66a6: Development regulations – Firdale Village City 43% 26% 31% 18: Affordable housing – promote the creation of rental and sale workforce housing for moderate income working households through incentives that may include additional density, reduced parking requirements, reduced permit fees, and/or other measures. City Council 29% 41% 30% 39b: Woodway Fields - address long term property ownership and upgrade field, lighting, and other features to support competitive play including tournaments. City – Edmonds School District 34% 36% 30% 66a4: Development regulations – Five Corners City 32% 38% 29% 24: Marketing – conduct surveys of visitors to determine their characteristics, expenditure patterns, sources of information, and other behavior to better understand the economic benefits and what attracts visitors to Edmonds. City – Arts – Edmonds Center for the Arts 43% 29% 28% 66a: Development regulations – amend mixed use development standards to allow higher, mixed use density in general and in each of the following commercial districts: City 43% 28% 52: Bikeway network – institute an on-street network of bike lanes, shoulders, and sharrows (shared lanes) to complete key connections City – Bike Groups; 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 12 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 10 28% to the waterfront, downtown, business districts, schools, parks, and other major commuter and recreational destinations including the interurban trail. 46% 27% 28% 36: Dog park – identify a suitable relocation site and develop a dedicated dog park consisting of fenced social yards with spectator seating and amenities, and off-leash exercise areas and trails. OLAE Stewardship 43% 30% 27% 55b: Shuttle service – initiate seasonal or possibly year-round shuttle service between downtown and Community Transit’s Swift BRT transit stations along Highway 99. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc 41% 35% 24% 30: Art and history walking tours – create signage, audio and phone apps, and web based information to expand art and history walking tours of waterfront and downtown historical sites and buildings, artworks, and other visually interesting and significant landmarks. City 35% 43% 23% 42: Coordination – establish a central clearinghouse to coordinate environmental education and sustainability funding, programs, and volunteers. Sustainable Edmonds 42% 35% 23% 32: Fine Arts Museum – explore ways to develop a museum to exhibit local, emerging, and traveling fine arts possibly in combination with Edmonds Center Arts and/or the proposed artist live/work project. Edmonds Arts Foundation 43% 37% 21% 56: Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – enhance Community Transit’s route along Highway 99 from Everett to the King County Metro transfer station at Aurora Village by designating transit lanes and pull-outs, transit traffic signal activation, all-weather shelters, and other improvements. Community Transit Very Low Priority 63% 19% 19% 41b: Senior Center – relocate the Senior Center to another location. City – Senior Center 51% 31% 18% 7: Car dealerships – encourage development of auto sales facilities that include decked display and storage lots, multistory sales and service facilities in order to retain this important source of retail sales revenue in the City and maximize land use. Auto dealers 60% 27% 13% 55a: Shuttle service - initiate seasonal or possibly year-round shuttle service between the waterfront area and downtown. Downtown Edmonds Merch Assoc Strategic Plan Actions – Implementation • Considerations o Responsibilities – a large number of the potential Strategic Plan actions will be assumed by parties other than the City (with City concurrence) o Financial implications – the 72 potential actions outlined in the survey will not compete for the same source of City funds - many of the potential actions will be accomplished by parties with funds other than the City o Elimination – it is not necessary to eliminate an action if it scores a moderate to low priority if there is an interest group who is willing to implement the action without unduly using City funds or resources • Implementation Process o Responsibilities – determine who will be affected and therefore who should be included in implementing a proposed action 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 13 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 11 o Assign lead role – determine who will be the lead agent who will be responsible for coordinating the work and parties necessary to complete a proposed action including agents other than the City o Schedule – organize the actions for each lead agent into a 6-year work program accounting for actions which can be accomplished immediately and those which will require longer, possibly ongoing, processes o Financing – budget the 6 year work program for each lead ad supporting agent using non-City funds as well as City funds allocated from the Budgeting for Objectives (BFO) process o Performance – conduct annual performance measurements to determine progress and consider whether proposed actions need to be refined to be effective o Update – refine the strategic plan based on annual performance measurements and conduct a comprehensive reassessment at the end of 6 years prior to initiating an update to the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Price recommended getting something going quickly and successfully so that the public who participated in the process can see some tangible outcome. He also recommended advancing multiple projects, as one never knows how a project will move forward, what difficulties will arise or what principles of opportunity may arise that make a project take off. Mr. Hovee recommended beginning conversations with organizations who can be the lead agent on actions. Mr. Beckwith explained the last step in the process will be to meet with directors, scope out a schedule for each priority and where possible identify a budget if the City is the lead agent. The next step will also include quantifying the lead agents. That information will then be formalized in a report and presented to the Planning Board and the EDC for review, comment and recommendation and then presented to the City Council. Mayor Earling invited questions from those present. Planning Board Member Kevin Clark was surprised that of the 7 responses that are 60% or greater, 4 are related to employment. The wording appears to indicate respondents want to retain and recruit employers to Edmonds rather than change the infrastructure so residents can reach their jobs in other communities more easily. And the lead agents are not the City but the Chamber or Port. He asked if that was unusual, was a reflection of the economic times, or a reflection of the people who live here. Mr. Beckwith answered there has been a change in the idea of separating where you work from where you live. Given how difficult it is to reach the place you work, there is some interest in living where you work. There is also interest in the economic potential, revenue as well as jobs, that working in the community provides. That is a change occurring nationally and is not unique to Edmonds. A large percentage of the survey respondents work in Edmonds and want to make Edmonds more self-sufficient which is a large part of sustainability. That is very different from surveys taken 5 years ago in Edmonds or any other city. Mr. Hovee agreed the national perspective is changing toward living and working locally. However, in the pie chart that shows where respondents work, 60% are retired and 14% work in Edmonds; nearly ¾ of the respondents are retired or work in Edmonds, only ¼ work outside Edmonds. That may be indicative of people who are active in the community but he questioned whether it reflected how Edmonds would be 10-15 years in the future. As the process moves into implementation, that issue will warrant some refinement. Councilmember Petso asked the preferred method for providing input on the organizations designated as the lead agent responsible for high priorities. She cited greenways as an example where the identified lead agent is Sustainable Edmonds. Mr. Beckwith answered that feedback could be provided at any time; the leads are somewhat arbitrary. Step 3 of BFO is to ask for proposals from departments. In the case of NGOs, a meeting would be convened of everyone interested in greenways to determine how they would 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 14 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 12 be organized to implement the greenway strategy; the agents will then organize themselves. The City will be involved in some of them as the coordinating agent. For example in greenways, likely the Parks Department would be involved although the Parks Department would not necessarily be the lead. If the identified lead agent does not want to be involved, possibly another organization will take the lead. In some communities new organizations have been formed around a specific strategy or project. Council President Peterson asked if it was typical, especially with high priority items, not to see a lot of negatives. Mr. Beckwith answered not to this degree; he has never seen as many actions in the high category noting there were few polarized issues. Economic Development Commissioner John Rubenkonig asked about the mechanism for having a conversation with the identified lead agents. Mr. Beckwith answered for the City, it is the budgetary process. For non-City agents, he recommended grouping common topics and having a roundtable to discuss priority projects and determine how to facilitate accomplishing them. Those agencies would then begin their own BFO process. If an agency does not want to take the lead, it may be necessary to identify a different lead. Economic Development Commissioner Marc Knauss referred to Question 14, Employment - create a young adult job placement service. He asked if that was related to internships for high school, college, and young professionals. He asked for examples of other cities employing those strategies and how it has been done. Mr. Beckwith answered some Chambers have started a Young Professionals program that is a combination of social networking, and jobs. Mt. Vernon/Skagit Chamber of Commerce has a Young Professionals program. Mr. Price relayed the Young Professionals program in Kennewick does social events, mentoring, networking, etc. Mr. Hovee said in Vancouver there are work force development councils in high schools. Economic Development Commissioner Gail Sarvis asked how the highest priorities in the list of high priorities are identified. Mr. Beckwith explained the process will move from a priority list to what it takes to accomplish them. Considerations include the schedule, budget, staff and resource limitations. There is a six year work program; the next phase is to identify the schedule and implications. That is step 3 of the BFO process. Economic Development Commissioner Sarvis asked if there is one group that oversees all the priorities. Mr. Beckwith answered the City asked the community for input regarding priorities, not how they should be accomplished. The next step is who undertakes each one. Although the City is not responsible for accomplishing each, it behooves the City to ensure they get done. That is the goal and mission of the City Council, Mayor and departments. Planning Board Member Clark observed the top four priorities involve the Chamber and Port. The EDC is the only group that has representatives from both the Chamber and Port. He asked whether the EDC should work on the high priorities that identify the Chamber and Port as lead. Mr. Beckwith agreed the EDC could monitor how things are getting accomplished. He cited the example of Rotary where individuals are tasked with certain items and at each meeting asked to report their progress. Mr. Hovee remarked on how many economic development issues there are in the top priorities. Economic Development Commissioner Darrol Haug referred to Question 63 regarding implementing BFO and 72, access performance results, commenting it seems the public is saying many of the items in the survey are nice but the City has budget issues. He asked whether the survey indicated the public wanted to get more involved in the details of the budgeting process. Mr. Beckwith answered they do not necessarily want to get involved in the details; BFO identifies the community’s objectives and budgets to 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 15 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 13 achieve them rather than simply increasing last year’s budget by a certain percent. Citizens want to see how resources are being allocated to the objectives. Mr. Beckwith summarized there was a 34% participation rate; 15% is an acceptable rate in a mail out survey and 20-25% is considered good. Community involvement is evident by the 466 people who took the time to take the survey. The challenge is to show the community what happens now. Economic Development Commissioner Evan Pierce referred to the 60% of respondents who are retired and asked if that skews the results. Mr. Beckwith answered normally the more retired and the older the age group of the participants, the more conservative they are in the actions. That was not true in this survey; there was a lot of participation from that group and a lot of high priorities identified. Younger populations are not necessarily more liberal in what they want achieved; they may have different priorities such as parks and recreation, redevelopment, etc. Based on the predominant age of the participants and their employment status and length of time in the community, these are very aggressive survey results. There was also a great deal of participation in other surveys, charrettes, open houses, etc. Economic Development Commissioner Sarvis asked whether the respondents identified where in Edmonds they lived. Mr. Beckwith answered they were distributed across the city. Responses to the question, where do you live in Edmonds, identifies where they live. Economic Development Commissioner Doug Purcell noted many of the people who participated to this point were self-selected rather than recruited. He sensed people who self-select bring more energy than those who are recruited. He asked if there was a significant difference in the priorities of the people in the focus group and open houses compared to the survey. Mr. Beckwith replied one of the risks of this type of process is the activists who self-select may have an agenda or a propensity to achieve things. That would be an issue if that was the only group to provide input. That is the reason the random sample voter survey was done; to take a broad sample of the community. A similar survey was conducted at the open house. Planning Board Chair Phil Lovell commented a lot of priorities will require funds. He noted several levies failed last year. He asked how to reconcile that with the passion to get things done. Mr. Beckwith cited two examples, first, street maintenance which is City funded. The next step is to identify different funding methods and then test those proposals to determine which is most satisfactory to the public. Another example is a waterfront connection across railroad tracks, which is a high priority but very expensive. One of the considerations would be to identify sources other than the City and then inform citizens to determine which are the most acceptable/feasible. Mr. Clifton explained the next steps will be to work with staff and the Mayor, the EDC and Planning Board on a recommendation to forward to the City Council. He clarified the 72 preliminary plan actions were the result of the consultant’s interviews with the Mayor, current and past, Councilmembers, stakeholder groups, the open houses, the charrettes and earlier surveys. At Retreat #5, he put together a team of Economic Development Commissioners, Planning Board Members and City Councilmembers to review and refine the 72 preliminary plan actions before the phone survey was released. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported a few years ago Mayor Haakenson started a community newsletter that was mailed to Edmonds households. Due to budget cuts, distribution was reduced to 400 email addresses. In fall 2010 the newsletter was discontinued. A quarterly newsletter was launched today that will be sent out electronically to 11,000 email addresses. He invited anyone who did not receive the newsletter to contact his office and ask to be added to the email list. The newsletter is coordinated by his Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave and CIO Carl Nelson. Mayor Earling also reported he has withdrawn his nomination for the Architectural Design Board. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 16 of 380 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 31, 2012 Page 14 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported the presentation made to the Planning Board on July 25 regarding Harbor Square redevelopment is aired daily at 9:00 a.m. the government access channel. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended Edmonds Night Out prior to the Council meeting. She thanked everyone who sponsored and worked at the event. Council President Peterson explained Councilmembers Bloom and Buckshnis informed him they were unable to attend tonight’s meeting; Councilmember Bloom was ill and Councilmember Buckshnis has family in town. Both are very interested and involved in the process. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 17 of 380    AM-5003     2. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #133431 through #133553 dated August 2, 2012 for $722,240.66. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51541 through #51578 for $486,948.29 and benefit checks #51579 through #51591 & wire payments for $204,357.78 for the period July 16, 2012 through July 31, 2012. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks & wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue: Expenditure:1,413,546.73 Fiscal Impact: Claims $722,240.66 Payroll Employee checks & direct deposit $486,948.29 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $204,357.78 Total Payroll $691,306.07 Attachments claim checks 08-02-12 Project numbers 08-02-12 Payroll July 16-31 benefit 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 18 of 380 Payroll July 16-31 benefit Payroll July 16-31 Earning Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Shawn Hunstock 08/02/2012 10:20 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 02:39 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/03/2012 08:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 08:59 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/02/2012 09:37 AM Final Approval Date: 08/03/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 19 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133431 8/2/2012 072627 911 ETC INC 20253 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 100.00 Total :100.00 133432 8/2/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 309017 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56 Total :75.56 133433 8/2/2012 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 712339 DAYCAMP T SHIRTS DAYCAMP T SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 77.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 7.32 SISTER CITY T SHIRTS712453 SISTER CITY T-SHIRTS FOR MARKETING 138.100.210.557.210.310.00 1,134.08 9.5% Sales Tax 138.100.210.557.210.310.00 107.74 Total :1,326.15 133434 8/2/2012 000195 ACCENT DESIGN 1020581 FAC - Tension Pulleys (5) FAC - Tension Pulleys (5) 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.85 Total :32.85 133435 8/2/2012 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC 1005232 POS WEB PROJECT PLANNING POS Web Project Planning 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 1Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 20 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133435 8/2/2012 (Continued)068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 9.50 Total :109.50 133436 8/2/2012 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 11-1209 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 Total :334.00 133437 8/2/2012 074097 ALL TRAFFIC DATA 7095 EDMONDS FERRY VIDEO COLLECTION Edmonds Ferry Video Collection 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 133438 8/2/2012 001528 AM TEST INC 71217 METAL ANALYSIS METAL ANALYSIS 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 100.00 Total :100.00 133439 8/2/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6308452 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.61 Total :30.06 133440 8/2/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6296448 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 57.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.46 21580001655-6308458 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 57.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.46 2Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 21 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :125.92133440 8/2/2012 069751 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 133441 8/2/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0326125-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,767.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 357.95 Total :4,125.83 133442 8/2/2012 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST August 2012 AWC AUGUST 2012 AWC PREMIUMS 08-12 Fire Pension Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,011.32 08-12 Retirees Premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 30,064.63 08-12 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 277,115.31 Total :311,191.26 133443 8/2/2012 074053 BAKKEN, MAGGIE BAKKEN073012 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 200.00 Total :200.00 133444 8/2/2012 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 8728 DISPLAY AD/CEMETERY DISPLAY AD - EDMONDS BEACON 7 130.000.640.536.200.440.00 108.00 Total :108.00 133445 8/2/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 935494 INV#935494 - EDMONDS PD -SMITH 2ND CHANCE SUMMIT II VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88 Total :793.88 133446 8/2/2012 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 333997 Unit 680 - Rebuild Seat Unit 680 - Rebuild Seat 3Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 22 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133446 8/2/2012 (Continued)065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 350.00 8.9% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 31.10 Total :381.10 133447 8/2/2012 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN15559 YOGA CLASSES YOGA #15559 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 250.56 PILATES YOGA FUSION #15571 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 288.23 YOGA #15550 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 365.40 YOGA #15556 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 434.70 YOGA #15547 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 317.70 YOGA #15553 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 287.10 Total :1,943.69 133448 8/2/2012 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14172874 142519 ODOR SCRUBBER EVALUATION 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 139.98 Total :139.98 133449 8/2/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12025288 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 84.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 1.52 Total :85.80 133450 8/2/2012 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON15357 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING MINI CAMP ADVENTURES IN DRAWING MINI CAMP 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 422.50 4Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 23 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :422.50133450 8/2/2012 071816 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 133451 8/2/2012 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT15527 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #15527 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 61.64 Total :61.64 133452 8/2/2012 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 35036447 INV#35036447 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 131.88 CAR WASH FOR NARC CAR 6/22 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 8.00 CAR WASH FOR NARC CAR 7/17 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 5.99 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 1.46 Total :147.33 133453 8/2/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9545 INV#9545 CUST#47 -EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B JUNE 2012 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,250.83 CREDIT FOR MAY 20129545 CREDIT MAY 2012 - MINTZ 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -75.00 Total :2,175.83 133454 8/2/2012 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 2203 N 205 ST 2203 N 205 ST 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 17.64 Total :17.64 133455 8/2/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2451544 005302 PAPER TOWELS/TP/BIGFOLD TOWELS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 176.62 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 16.78 5Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 24 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :193.40133455 8/2/2012 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS 133456 8/2/2012 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 41261 CODE UPDATING City Code Update 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 2,526.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 240.06 Total :2,766.96 133457 8/2/2012 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JULY 2012 DRY CLEANING JUNE/JULY -EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY JUNE-JULY 2012 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 910.85 MISSING DRY CLEANING SLIPS-EDMONDS PDMAY 2012-MISSING MISSING SLIPS FROM MAY 2012 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 155.82 Total :1,066.67 133458 8/2/2012 073759 CRITERION PICTURES USA INC 379718 LICENSING FEE FOR 7/27/12 OUTDOOR MOVIE LICENSING FEE FOR "RIO"~ 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 425.00 Total :425.00 133459 8/2/2012 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3264591 7717 REROOF PROJECT ADVERTISING 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 362.60 Total :362.60 133460 8/2/2012 072189 DATASITE 74766 COURT SHREDDING DOCUMENTS COURT SHREDDING DOCUMENTS 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 50.00 Total :50.00 133461 8/2/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 6/26/12 - 8/1/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 333.00 Total :333.00 6Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 25 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133462 8/2/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3292 MINUTE TAKING 7/24 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 237.00 Total :237.00 133463 8/2/2012 073772 DIRECT MATTERS 52081 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 240.32 SUPPLIES52118 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 226.99 Total :467.31 133464 8/2/2012 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 12-2026.1 E2FB.TASK ORDER 12-03 SERVICES THRU E2FB.Task Order 12-03 Services thru 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3,980.00 Total :3,980.00 133465 8/2/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 13019 SUPPLIES FUEL FILTER, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.87 Total :10.02 133466 8/2/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 13254 Sewer - Truck Air Fresheners Sewer - Truck Air Fresheners 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.96 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.38 Total :4.34 133467 8/2/2012 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP CORDOVA0627 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:THIAGO CORDOVA 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 62.00 Total :62.00 7Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 26 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133468 8/2/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W 16113 75TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.19 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57 23823 76TH AVE W5-10351 23823 76TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.11 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 195.14 CITY FISHING DOCK &RESTROOM6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK &RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 500.20 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 237.92 MINI PARK6-00475 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 692.95 CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 111.32 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,191.35 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 192.75 310 6TH AVE N6-02727 310 6TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 182.42 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD -SPRINKLER6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD -SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 8Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 27 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133468 8/2/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 393.25 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 330.98 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 111.32 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 202.30 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 8100 185TH PL SW6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 363.20 SIERRA PARK6-04450 SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 246.42 BALLINGER PARK6-07775 BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 216.94 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 808.46 YOST PARK POOL6-08525 YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,572.82 Total :8,011.05 133469 8/2/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 9Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 28 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133469 8/2/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 252.28 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 Total :493.48 133470 8/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078164 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.450.00 76.11 Total :76.11 133471 8/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078069 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE Maintenance for printers 07/21/12 - 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER078301 Meter charges 06/30/12 - 07/30/12 B 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 52.67 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 5.00 10Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 29 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :399.31133471 8/2/2012 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 133472 8/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078134 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 16.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1.59 COPIER LEASE078300 COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 128.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 12.25 Total :159.52 133473 8/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078018 METER READING Recept. desk copier 3/21 to 4/21 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 9.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 0.86 METER READING078314 7/30 to 8/30 Meter Reading 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 141.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 13.41 Total :164.40 133474 8/2/2012 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG15384 TAEKWON DO CLASSES TAEKWON DO #15384 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 133475 8/2/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU126291 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.28 11Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 30 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133475 8/2/2012 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY Fleet SuppliesWAMOU26229 Fleet Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 5.01 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 0.48 Total :20.28 133476 8/2/2012 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELFIX15497 WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS #15497 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 436.00 Total :436.00 133477 8/2/2012 074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC XFIT 0726 XFIT CAMP NUTRITION CLASS XFIT CAMP NUTRITION CLASS 7/26 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 300.00 Total :300.00 133478 8/2/2012 063181 FITTINGS INC 00113764 CIT011 WEATHERHEAD HOSE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 421.05 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 41.16 Total :474.40 133479 8/2/2012 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH15469 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #15469 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 19.00 IRISH DANCE 13+ #15476 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 175.00 Total :194.00 133480 8/2/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 12Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 31 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133480 8/2/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 168.72 Total :168.72 133481 8/2/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 47.00 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.38 Total :160.38 133482 8/2/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 AUTO DIALER AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 46.41 AUTO DIALER253-017-7256 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 222.51 AUTO DIALER425-771-5553 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 99.65 Total :368.57 133483 8/2/2012 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA15388 TAEKWON DO TAEKWON DO #15388 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 37.50 TAEKWON DO #15392 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 177.50 Total :215.00 133484 8/2/2012 072001 GOOD EYE DESIGN 0727123 DESIGN SNO CO VISITOR GUIDE TOURISM AD Design of Sno Co Visitor's Guide ad for 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 95.00 Total :95.00 133485 8/2/2012 061410 GRCC/WETRC 7162012 TRAINING/AMBURGEY TRAINING/AMBURGEY 13Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 32 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133485 8/2/2012 (Continued)061410 GRCC/WETRC 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 335.00 Total :335.00 133486 8/2/2012 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 130673/1 Water - Meter Boxes non inventory Water - Meter Boxes non inventory 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,220.70 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 362.98 Water - Non Inventory Mtr Box Lids130894/1 Water - Non Inventory Mtr Box Lids 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 593.28 Water Inventory - 2" Meter Boxes #0573 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 961.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 56.36 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 91.35 Water Resevoir - 8503 Bowdoin -Repair130967/1 Water Resevoir - 8503 Bowdoin -Repair 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,269.72 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 124.34 Total :7,719.39 133487 8/2/2012 012560 HACH COMPANY 7854784 112830 PIPET TIPS 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 76.05 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 7.22 Total :83.27 133488 8/2/2012 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007D5436 036570 PRIMER PVC/SOLVENT CEMENT 14Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 33 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133488 8/2/2012 (Continued)060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 307.68 Total :307.68 133489 8/2/2012 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 0011648-B C-385 SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE C-385 SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 9,633.32 Total :9,633.32 133490 8/2/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1065652 0205 BIBBS, ADAPTERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 96.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.13 0205263485 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.82 02053044909 LUMBER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.67 020545712 LARGE BROOM, DUST PAN 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.28 02055044557 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.82 02055074249 SUPPLIES 15Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 34 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133490 8/2/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 94.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.00 02055095726 TAILPIECES, WHEELS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.06 02056074261 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.10 02057030699 SHRUBHEADS, ELBOWS, PIPES,ETC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 135.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.85 02058044700 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 155.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.79 Total :651.41 133491 8/2/2012 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Mr Clean Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Mr Clean 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 259.63 Total :259.63 133492 8/2/2012 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 274793T Unit 95 - Filter Kit Unit 95 - Filter Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 47.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.56 16Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 35 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :52.51133492 8/2/2012 067171 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 133493 8/2/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2118657 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 173.54 Total :173.54 133494 8/2/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2119323 KEYBOARD/PLANNING KEYBOARD/PLANNING 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 131.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 12.47 Total :143.70 133495 8/2/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 553639 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,174.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 299.53 Total :3,474.50 133496 8/2/2012 065056 JOHNSON, TROY TJOHNSON0728 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/28/12 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total :105.00 133497 8/2/2012 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD15518 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY KID'S DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00 Total :140.00 133498 8/2/2012 074005 KING CO GIS CENTER 12-115 AERIAL MAPPING 2012 REGIONAL 2012 Regional Aerial Mapping Project 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 545.20 2012 Regional Aerial Mapping Project 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 545.20 2012 Regional Aerial Mapping Project 17Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 36 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133498 8/2/2012 (Continued)074005 KING CO GIS CENTER 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 545.20 2012 Regional Aerial Mapping Project 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 817.80 2012 Regional Aerial Mapping Project 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 272.60 Total :2,726.00 133499 8/2/2012 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Lawler, Patrick Work Boot Reimbursement Work Boot Reimbursement 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 121.80 Total :121.80 133500 8/2/2012 068619 LINDA SWENSON 1237 FALL CRAZE DESIGN FALL CRAZE DESIGN 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,461.00 Total :1,461.00 133501 8/2/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1000 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1001 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEES1002 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEES722 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEES723 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEES727 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32 18Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 37 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133501 8/2/2012 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE728 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEES731 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32 Total :706.56 133502 8/2/2012 074099 MARTIN, GARY MARTIN0628 YOGA INSTRUCTOR YOGA INSTRUCTOR 6/28/12 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 62.64 Total :62.64 133503 8/2/2012 073641 MCCLURE, GLENDA MCCLURE0727 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/27/12 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 40.00 Total :40.00 133504 8/2/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 30055103 123106800 RESPIRATOR MASK/CLAMP/HOLE SAW 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 221.73 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 7.76 12310680031593343 HOOK & LOOP STRAP/HEX NUT/WASHER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 385.83 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.02 12310680031663290 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.36 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.88 12310680032205598 HOSE COUPLING/COUPLING WITH LOCKING 19Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 38 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133504 8/2/2012 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 28.20 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.88 Total :691.66 133505 8/2/2012 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P-12071410 WEIGHT ROOM EQUIPMENT SERVICE WEIGHT ROOM EQUIPMENT SERVICING 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 202.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 19.20 Total :221.20 133506 8/2/2012 073918 MINTON, SHARON MINTON15543 PRENATAL YOGA CLASSES PRENATAL YOGA #15543 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 138.00 Total :138.00 133507 8/2/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-496895 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:YOST PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 310.99 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-4970056 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77 Total :531.76 133508 8/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 662864 INV#662864 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD MONITOR STANDS 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 34.54 STAPLES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.92 MAXELL DVD-R DISCS 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 22.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 5.43 9.5% Sales Tax 20Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 39 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133508 8/2/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.37 INV#683894 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD683894 SHARPIES MARKERS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 10.15 STAPLES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 3.92 DUCK TAPE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.32 PACKAGE TAPE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.80 STAPLERS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.15 Total :126.29 133509 8/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 652105 PAPER, RUBBER BANDS COLORED PAPER,RUBBER BANDS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.72 RULED PADS685841 LEGAL RULED PADS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 23.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.28 KLEENEX705852 SUPPLY OF KLEENEX TISSUES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 15.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.49 Total :63.29 133510 8/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 568663 OFFICE SUPPLIES office supplies 21Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 40 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133510 8/2/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 53.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 5.08 NEWSPAPER AD614753 Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 141.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 13.40 Total :213.05 133511 8/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 485059 Sewer - HP Ink Sewer - HP Ink 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 134.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.80 PW - Copy Cover Sheets491428 PW - Copy Cover Sheets 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 16.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.59 Sewer - HP Ink Correction503728 Sewer - HP Ink Correction 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -67.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -6.43 Water Quality - HP Toner659594 Water Quality - HP Toner 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 140.85 PW Admin Office Supplies -Glue Stix 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 7.67 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 0.73 PW Admin - Envelopes661692 22Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 41 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133511 8/2/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC PW Admin - Envelopes 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 57.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.44 Total :317.08 133512 8/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 643673 DVD's, env., labels for videotaping DVD's, env., labels for videotaping 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 190.37 Total :190.37 133513 8/2/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 35915435 Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36 Total :525.36 133514 8/2/2012 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 213170 Street New Vehicle EQ85SD Street New Vehicle EQ85SD 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 206,523.00 misc sales tax % 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 20,239.25 Total :226,762.25 133515 8/2/2012 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT15488 WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP #15488 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 131.52 Total :131.52 133516 8/2/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 136719 DUMP FEES DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.00 DUMP FEES136733 DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.00 Total :126.00 23Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 42 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133517 8/2/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.000-12 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 07/01/12 E2DB.Services thru 07/01/12 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 3,861.98 Total :3,861.98 133518 8/2/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ15507 FELDENKRAIS WEEKLY CLASS FEFLDENKRAIS WEEKLY CLASS #15507 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 224.00 Total :224.00 133519 8/2/2012 073858 PUBLIC SECTOR PERSONNEL CONSUL 2228 Final payment of NRC study work Final payment of NRC study work 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 6,500.00 Total :6,500.00 133520 8/2/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,178.00 Total :3,178.00 133521 8/2/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 010-187-400-6 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 53.31 FACILITY MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3023-075-700-7 FACILITY MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 70.99 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST191-676-600-7 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N275-316-600-4 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 276.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW277-636-500-5 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 6.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 24Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 43 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133521 8/2/2012 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 23.40 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 23.40 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.40 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 23.40 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 23.41 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST368-997-600-3 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 63.26 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD525-492-600-8 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 103.00 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW532-232-313-9 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 126.32 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR567-289-500-9 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 35.65 FLEET MAINTENANCE SHOP 21105 72590-308-500-8 FLEET MAINTENANCE SHOP 21105 72 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 65.56 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N643-956-600-8 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 142.79 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700649-032-700-1 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 792.70 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE885-190-800-7 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W991-966-110-9 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 25Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 44 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133521 8/2/2012 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 59.30 Total :2,000.87 133522 8/2/2012 006841 RICOH USA INC 5023327433 Additional Images - Ricoh #MP171SPF Additional Images - Ricoh #MP171SPF 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 9.63 Total :9.63 133523 8/2/2012 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L AQ15127 Overtime not bought back (6/25 - Overtime not bought back (6/25 - 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 1,026.20 Total :1,026.20 133524 8/2/2012 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 10936 INV#10936 - EDMONDS PD PROPELLING CHG IMPACT BATON 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 181.03 IMPACT BATON-STANDARD 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 282.00 IMPACT BATON-LESS ENERGY 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 634.50 OC CRUSH NOSE CHEM BATON 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 911.25 OC CRUSH NOSE CHEM BATON-LE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 911.25 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 255.00 Total :3,175.03 133525 8/2/2012 073959 SALGADO, ANGELICA SALGADO15579 ZUMBA CLASSES ZUMBA #15579 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 80.10 Total :80.10 133526 8/2/2012 073931 SHUSTER, JERALD Shuster.APWA SHUSTER.APWA CERTIFICATION STMWTR MGR Shuster.APWA Certification Stormwater 26Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 45 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133526 8/2/2012 (Continued)073931 SHUSTER, JERALD 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 195.00 Total :195.00 133527 8/2/2012 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-254101 Unit 139 - Sidewind Jack Unit 139 - Sidewind Jack 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 93.87 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.92 Total :102.79 133528 8/2/2012 036955 SKY NURSERY 991175 Water Hydrant - Planting Mix Water Hydrant - Planting Mix 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 126.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.97 Total :137.97 133529 8/2/2012 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 12-114 Q2-12 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q2-12 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.390.526.100.410.00 11,701.00 Total :11,701.00 133530 8/2/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201762101 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 104.28 Total :104.28 133531 8/2/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.50 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 92.61 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7002004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,423.62 27Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 46 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133531 8/2/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 289.45 TRAFFIC LIGHT 599 MAIN ST2012-8389-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 599 MAIN ST 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.71 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.87 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.29 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.20 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT 413 MAIN ST 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 339.27 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 1002017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 43.28 LOG CABIN 120 5TH AVE N2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN 120 5TH AVE N 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 113.41 VEHICLE CHARGE STATION 552 MAIN ST2042-9221-3 VEHICLE CHARGE STATION 552 MAIN ST 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.20 Total :3,552.41 133532 8/2/2012 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000306071 SOLID WASTE CHARGES SOLID WASTE CHARGES~ 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 841.00 Total :841.00 133533 8/2/2012 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 7/24/2012 SCC Dinner Meeting for Fraley-Monillas 28Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 47 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133533 8/2/2012 (Continued)067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES SCC Dinner Meeting for Fraley-Monillas 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 40.00 Total :40.00 133534 8/2/2012 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 33251 FS 17 - Door transmitter/receiver FS 17 - Door transmitter/receiver 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 82.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.79 Total :89.79 133535 8/2/2012 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L94232 JUNE 2012 AUDIT FEES June 2012 Audit Fees 001.000.390.519.900.510.00 9,836.89 June 2012 Audit Fees 411.000.652.542.900.510.00 491.85 June 2012 Audit Fees 411.000.654.534.800.510.00 1,639.48 June 2012 Audit Fees 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 1,639.48 June 2012 Audit Fees 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 1,639.48 June 2012 Audit Fees 111.000.653.543.300.510.00 491.85 June 2012 Audit Fees 511.000.657.548.680.510.00 655.79 Total :16,394.82 133536 8/2/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100205996.001 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 58.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.57 Total :64.17 29Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 48 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133537 8/2/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100251282.001 Fac Maint - Elect Parts Fac Maint - Elect Parts 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 350.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.33 Total :384.15 133538 8/2/2012 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO3MUSIC15513 KINDERMUSIK FAIRY CAMP KINDERMUSIK FAIRY CAMP #15513 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 440.00 KINDERMUSIK #15536 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 391.60 KINDERMUSIK #15538 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 203.28 Total :1,034.88 133539 8/2/2012 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSETBAY15314 BEACH CAMPS OVERNIGHT BEACH CAMP #15314 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,150.00 BEACH CAMP #15303 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 7,200.00 Total :10,350.00 133540 8/2/2012 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011445519 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 07/02/12 - 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 440001307733440011445536 07/2012 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 Total :69.90 133541 8/2/2012 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 13802 S12E39 C-322 ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADE 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 10,983.40 Total :10,983.40 30Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 49 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133542 8/2/2012 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN0731 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT~ 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 605.00 Total :605.00 133543 8/2/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101786473-07122012 231356 REROOF PROJECT ADVERTISING 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 165.12 Total :165.12 133544 8/2/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1787712 NEWSPAPER AD Ord. 3891 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.08 NEWSPAPER AD1787713 Ord. 3890 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.08 NEWSPAPER AD1787858 Hearing-3rd Sunset 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 48.16 NEWSPAPER AD1787861 Hearing- Mobile Vendors 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 41.28 Total :137.60 133545 8/2/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1788219 Legal Notice: Megenity APL 2012.0005 Legal Notice: Megenity APL 2012.0005 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 56.76 Total :56.76 133546 8/2/2012 074069 THE MOODSWINGS JAZZ BAND MOODSWINGS0805 CITY PARK CONCERT CITY PARK CONCERT: 8/5/12 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 400.00 Total :400.00 133547 8/2/2012 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 195IE01255 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 211.34 31Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 50 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133547 8/2/2012 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 20.08 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY195IF00792 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 924.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 87.80 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F.ANDERSON CENTER195IF00836 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 932.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 88.58 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER195IF05837 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 792.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 75.34 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER195IF06766 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 172.82 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 16.42 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER195IM09195 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 46.73 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING LIBRARY195IM09709 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SNO 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 71.53 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER195IM09891 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.06 Total :3,454.23 133548 8/2/2012 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 768977 Unit 126 - Supplies Unit 126 - Supplies 32Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 51 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133548 8/2/2012 (Continued)061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 140.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.31 Total :153.31 133549 8/2/2012 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS 12-0136 VISITORS GUIDE LISTING -ARTS PAGE VISITORS GUIDE LISTING -ARTS PAGE 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 250.00 Total :250.00 133550 8/2/2012 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.00056126 INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS PD ANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 40.00 Total :40.00 133551 8/2/2012 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 1602 TREES FOR 7TH AVENUE CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEARS FOR 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 220.00 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 20.90 Total :240.90 133552 8/2/2012 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 71552 EDMO CI DEWATERING SUMP PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7,610.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 206.03 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 742.52 Total :8,558.55 133553 8/2/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1006 JUNE-12 RETAINER Monthly Retainer - June 2012 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00 JULY-12 RETAINER1007 33Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 52 of 380 08/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:14:09AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133553 8/2/2012 (Continued)070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC Monthly Retainer - July 2012 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00 Total :26,000.00 Bank total :722,240.66123Vouchers for bank code :front 722,240.66Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report123 34Page: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 53 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 54 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 55 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR E2CA c388 2012 Street Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair WTR E2CC c399 5th Avenue Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 56 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 57 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 58 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Street Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR c399 E2CC 5th Avenue Overlay Project STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 59 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC WTR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 60 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 8/2/201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 61 of 380 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division) Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right-of-Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm str Engineering Staff Time-Street swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water prk Engineering Staff Time-Park 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 62 of 380 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 553 - 07/16/2012 to 07/31/2012 Bank: front - Union Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 51582 08/03/2012 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 51583 08/03/2012 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 464.17 0.00 51584 08/03/2012 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,593.46 0.00 51585 08/03/2012 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,329.05 0.00 51586 08/03/2012 cope SEIU COPE 72.00 0.00 51587 08/03/2012 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,252.68 0.00 51588 08/03/2012 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00 51589 08/03/2012 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 264.00 0.00 51590 08/03/2012 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,433.33 0.00 51591 08/03/2012 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 14,336.00 0.00 51579 08/03/2012 acsi ACSI 450.00 0.00 51580 08/03/2012 mebt AST TTEE 77,618.08 0.00 51581 08/03/2012 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,219.00 0.00 104,398.77 0.00 Bank: wire - FRONTIER BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 1948 08/03/2012 aflac AFLAC 4,294.92 0.00 1951 08/03/2012 front FRONTIER BANK 95,455.59 0.00 1952 08/03/2012 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00 99,959.01 0.00 204,357.78 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 18/2/2012 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 63 of 380 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 553 (07/16/2012 to 07/31/2012) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Salary Correction for DetREGULAR HOURS-det 0.00 -82.46 NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 7.00 0.00 SICK LEAVESICK121 419.25 12,129.17 VACATIONVACATION122 2,394.50 76,579.65 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 51.50 1,711.06 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 16.00 413.08 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 162.75 4,846.03 Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 248.00 7,623.00 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 14.00 455.46 BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 43.00 1,538.93 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 130.00 4,261.84 COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS152 4.64 101.05 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 44.02 1,733.28 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 0.00 4,200.00 COUNCIL MEETING PAYREGULAR HOURS171 104.00 1,300.00 COUNCIL OTHER MEETINGREGULAR HOURS172 56.00 700.00 COUNCIL AGENDA PAYREGULAR HOURS173 0.00 100.00 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 100.00 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 19,850.25 528,530.82 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 3,542.87 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 96.00 3,087.00 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 139.00 4,397.69 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 1,598.75 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 17.00 1,464.32 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 141.00 7,441.13 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 3.00 211.80 OUT OF CLASS - POLICEACTING PAY405 0.00 -14.04 WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 154.48 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 894.53 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 4,080.66 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 31.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 84.75 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 22.76 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 152.29 08/02/2012 Page 1 of 3 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 64 of 380 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 553 (07/16/2012 to 07/31/2012) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 78.48 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 132.76 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 667.88 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 92.61 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 768.66 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 753.49 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 805.66 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 5,128.77 FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 15.00 0.00 FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 92.00 2,367.16 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 8.00 201.23 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 187.74 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY PAYlg1 0.00 1,931.74 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 1,336.38 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 4,908.09 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 555.56 Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 64.70 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 223.94 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 320.83 Longevity HourlyLONGEVITYlgh 0.00 0.00 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 185.22 5% OUT OF CLASSREGULAR HOURSooc 0.00 236.79 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 43.13 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,691.19 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 141.98 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 262.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 141.98 SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 551.23 0.00 Street CrimesMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 388.94 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 291.71 08/02/2012 Page 2 of 3 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 65 of 380 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 553 (07/16/2012 to 07/31/2012) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Total Net Pay:$486,948.29 $697,183.77 24,762.89 08/02/2012 Page 3 of 3 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 66 of 380    AM-4998     2. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Bonnie Thomas ($602.25) and Gregory Doughty ($639.86). Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following: Bonnie Thomas 125 9th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 ($602.25) Gregory Doughty 7307 213th Pl. SW #110 Edmonds, WA 98026 ($639.66) Attachments Thomas Claim for Damages Doughty Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/01/2012 01:51 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/01/2012 02:26 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 08/01/2012 12:12 PM Final Approval Date: 08/01/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 67 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 68 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 69 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 70 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 71 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 72 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 73 of 380    AM-5001     3.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Report on the State of the Edmonds Senior Center. Recommendation Information only. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Farrell Fleming, Executive Director of the Edmonds Senior Center, will be present at the meeting to provide a report to the City Council. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/02/2012 08:51 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 08:59 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/02/2012 08:45 AM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 74 of 380    AM-5002     4.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Update on the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat. Recommendation Information only. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Representatives of "Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat" will be present at the meeting to provide an update on their organization. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/02/2012 10:24 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 02:40 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/02/2012 08:49 AM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 75 of 380    AM-4988     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on an ordinance designating the Allen House located at 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning map with an “HR” designation. Recommendation Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The current owners of the Allen House, located at 310 Sunset Avenue North, have nominated the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (Exhibit 2) and signed the property owners' written consent (Exhibit 5) for listing the property. The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Allen House on the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on July 12, 2012 and concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 4).  Attachments Exhibit 1 - Ordinance designating the Allen House for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form Exhibit 3 - BOLA Report on Allen House Exhibit 4 - July 12, 2012 HPC Minutes Exhibit 5 - Property Owners Authorization Exhibit 6 - Allen House Historic Preservation Staff Report Exhibit 7 - Pauls' History Summary of the Allen House Exhibit 8 - Allen House Power Point Presentation 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 76 of 380 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/01/2012 02:25 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/01/2012 02:37 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 08:59 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 07/24/2012 09:38 AM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 77 of 380 - 1 - Exhibit 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE ALLEN HOUSE LOCATED AT 310 SUNSET AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the residence known as the Allen House located at 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on July 12, 2012, to consider the eligibility of the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the residence be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation; and 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 78 of 380 - 2 - Exhibit 1 WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The residence known as the Allen House located at 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant. Section 2. The Community Services Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation. This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 79 of 380 - 3 - Exhibit 1 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____ 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 80 of 380 - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 6th day of August, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE ALLEN HOUSE LOCATED AT 310 SUNSET AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ___ day of August, 2012. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 81 of 380 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 6 o f 3 8 0 DRAFT Subject to August 9th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES July 12, 2012 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:32 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. He read the Commission’s mission statement. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Larry Vogel, Chair John Dewhirst, Vice Chair Andy Eccleshall Meg Keogh Bill Muller Eric Norenberg (arrived at 5:36 p.m.) Tim Raetzloff Jerry Tays Steve Waite Laura Petso, City Council Member COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Fred Bell Christine Deiner-Karr (excused) STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant OTHERS PRESENT Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member Shirley Pauls John Pauls Todd Clayton Emily Scott READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER DEWHIRST MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2012 AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER TAYS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES An update on the next edition of THE PRESERVATIONIST was added to the agenda as part of the Education and Outreach Committee Report. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY OF THE “ALLEN HOUSE” LOCATED AT 310 SUNSET AVENUE NORTH FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report for the Allen House, which was constructed by Zachary T. Allen, a former owner of the Olympic Hotel who lived in the hotel prior to moving into the subject house. He briefly explained the effects of listing the house on the Register. He also reviewed how the Queen Anne Free Classic Style house meets the designation criteria and pointed out the significant features associated with the exterior of the house. He noted that the interior of the house is not being considered for designation. He concluded that the nomination meets the designation criteria and the exterior of the house is eligible for designation. He said staff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 87 of 380 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 12, 2012 Page 2 that the house be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He provided pictures of the subject house, as well as another house that was built by Mr. Allen. Commissioner Waite asked if staff is recommending approval of the entire exterior of the structure, including the 1929 addition. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Commissioner Waite asked if there is an outbuilding, and Mr. Lien answered that the outbuilding is not being considered for inclusion on the Register. Commissioner Tays suggested that when future properties are considered for the Register, the notification should make it clear that the proposal is to preserve, not redevelop the property. Commissioner Tays asked if significant changes have been made to the interior of the structure. Mr. Paul said the interior is largely intact. The original portion of the house is close to the first floor plan, but the new addition includes a bathroom and kitchen. Commissioner Raetzloff asked if the term “rehabilitation” is used in the strictest sense when considering a property’s eligibility for a special tax valuation. He pointed out that rehabilitation is just one of four types of processes a property can go through. Mr. Lien said this term came directly from the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). He agreed to research how the RCW defines this term. Commissioner Waite asked when the outbuilding was last rehabilitated. Mr. Pauls answered that he and his wife added a foundation beneath the outbuilding years ago. He expressed his belief that the outbuilding does not contribute to the historic significance of the building, and Mr. Lien noted that it was not included in either of the City’s surveys of historic properties. COMMISSIONER DEWHIRST MOVED TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPERTY BE LISTED ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WITH THE OWNER’S CONSENT. COMMISSIONER MULLER SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Cunningham announced that the nomination is scheduled to go before the City Council for a public hearing and final action on August 6, 2012. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continued Discussion on Student Representatives Council Member Johnson reviewed a proposal presented by the City Attorney to the City Council’s Public Safety and Personnel Committee that provides guidance for all City boards and commissions to use when developing guidelines and processes for appointing student representatives. She noted that each board and commission would be responsible for identifying the role their student representatives would serve, and she suggested they consider the work that has already been done by Planning Board Member Valerie Stewart. Chair Vogel agreed to review the information from the City Attorney and the Planning Board and develop some ideas about what a student representative’s role would be on the Historic Preservation Commission. Business Cards Ms. Cunningham said Commissioner Deiner-Karr provided paper to print the business cards, but she did not provide a word document to create the business cards for each individual Commissioner. Commissioner Vogel agreed to prepare a digital file of the business card for Ms. Cunningham, and the Commissioners filled out a form to identify the exact names they wanted printed on their business cards. ACTION ITEMS Scheduling Volunteers for Weekly Summer Market (July 14th through August 26th) The Commission discussed that the purpose of their participation in the Summer Market is to educate the public and promote historic preservation. They agreed it is important to articulate the difference between the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission and the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society. They also agreed it would be helpful to have a 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 88 of 380 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 8 9 o f 3 8 0 Allen HouseHistPres designation staff report.docx Page 1 Meeting Date: July 12, 2012 Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Allen House located at 310 Sunset Avenue North as eligible for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Property Information Site Name/Location: Allen House 310 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Account #: 27032300101300 Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec Construction date: 1901 (BOLA Report), 1906 (Snohomish County Assessor) Owner/Applicant Information Person(s) Nominating Site: John and Shirley Pauls Property Owner: John and Shirley Pauls Report Summary Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the Allen House meets the criteria for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments 1. Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds… The house was constructed by Zachary T. Allen, a former owner of the Olympic Hotel who lived in the hotel prior to moving into this house. The house is also associated with the early pioneer settlement of Edmonds. City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Designation Staff Report 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 90 of 380 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments 2. Has integrity… The house is a largely intact example of the Queen Anne Free Classic style. The rear of the house was enlarged circa 1929, but the front of the house retains its original appearance from Sunset Avenue. 3. Age at least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less than 50 years old… The BOLA report states the house was constructed in 1901, while the Snohomish County Assessor information indicates the house was constructed in 1906. In either case, the house is at least 50 years old. 4. Falls into at least one of the following designation categories: Designation Category a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house is associated with the early pioneer settlement of Edmonds. b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The house is an example of the Queen Anne Free Classic style. c. Is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. d. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. e. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 91 of 380 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments g. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. i. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events or cultural patterns. j. Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. k. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical, the designation shall include description of the boundaries of categories. Significant Features 1. Shape: The house is a cross-gabled two-story house with a square tower embraced with the L-shaped mass. 2. Roof and Roof Features: A pyramidal roof caps the roof of the tower, the full width partially wrapped front porch has a shed roof and a pediment marks the main entrance. 3. Openings (entries, etc.): Windows are generally one over one, light double-hung types, with some set in pairs. At the side wall toward the front of the house is a small square fixed window. The main entry faces Sunset Avenue and is marked with a pediment. 4. Projections: A full width front porch partially wraps around the north side of the house. The roof of the porch is supported by four classical columns. The porch once featured a low railing with vertical pickets. 5. Trim & secondary features N/A 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 92 of 380 6. Materials: Wood clapboard is the sheathing used on the first story, with wood shingles above. 7. Setting: The house is located on Sunset Avenue North, a popular street for walkers , runners, sightseers and people out for a drive. There are several other older homes located in the vicinity of the Allen house and along Sunset Avenue North. 8. Materials at close range N/A 9. Craft details: N/A 10. Individual rooms/spaces: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination. 11. Related spaces or sequences: N/A 12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination 13. Surface finishes & materials: The cladding appears in historic photos to have been stained originally, and it is presently painted. 14. Exposed structure: N/A 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 93 of 380 Allen House 310 Sunset Avenue: Left to right; Seraphina Allen, Zachery Allen, Charles Allen Circa 1906 (Photo from Pauls) 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 94 of 380 Allen House 310 Sunset Avenue Circa 1906 – Seraphina Allen in the yard (Photo from Pauls) 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 95 of 380 Current View of west façade from Sunset Avenue (Photo from BOLA Report) Notes on historic register nominations: Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent. According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission. Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register. Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation. * Edmonds Community Development Code 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 96 of 380 Allen House 310 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Seraphina Allen in the Yard of 310 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1906 Looking at the Waterfront and Ferry Dock from 310 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1950 Graphic Designed by: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 97 of 380 House History 310 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Compiled by John Pauls Page 1 of 2 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 98 of 380 House History 310 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Compiled by John Pauls Page 2 of 2 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 99 of 380 Unknown Resident, Side Porch of 320 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1906 May Allen on South Lawn of 310 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1921 Front Porch of 320 Sunset Looking at the Old Kitchen of 310 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1929 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 100 of 380 Original Owners Seraphina (Minnie) Van Vleet Allen 1850 - 1913 Original Owners Zachary Taylor Allen 1850 - 1919 (Left to Right) Seraphina Allen, Zachery Allen, His Brother Charles at 310 Sunset Edmonds, WA Circa 1906 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 101 of 380 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds WA Circa 2012 Circa 1990 Circa 1906 Original owners Minnie Van Vleet Allen, Zachary Taylor Allen and his brother Charles Allen are photographed from left to right in the historical photo from 1906. This picture shows the house as it looked in Circa 1990. The 310 Sunset Ave NW house was purchased in 1977 by John and Shirley Pauls from May Allen Reddington and John Ira Reddington. Circa 2012 current picture of house. Currently Sunset Avenue is one of Edmonds’ most popular streets for walkers, runners, sightseers and people out for a drive. Today the area is known for many beautiful old historical homes. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 102 of 380 (Left to Right) John Reddington and May Allen Reddington, Granddaughter of Seraphina and Zachary Allen Circa 1977 (Left to Right) Shirley and John Pauls Current Residents Circa 201208-06-12 City Council Packet Page 103 of 380 301 SUNSET © 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 104 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 105 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 106 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 107 of 380 Ph o t o C o u r t e s y o f P a u l s Al l e n H o u s e No m i n a t i o n f o r E d m o n d s R e g i s t e r o f Hi s t o r i c P l a c e s Pb l i H i P u bl i c H ea r i ng Au g u s t 6 , 2 0 1 2 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 10 8 of 38 0 Al l e n H o u s e 31 0 S A N h 31 0 S un s e t A ve n u e N or t h • N o m i n a t e d f o r co n s i d e r a t i o n f o r pl a c e m e n t o n t h e Ed m o n d s R e g i s t e r o f Hi s t o r i c P l a c e s • P r o p e r t y o w n e r s id h d no m i na t e d h ou s e a n d si g n e d a u t h o r i z a t i o n fo r m fo r m Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 10 9 of 38 0 Ef f e c t s o f l i s t i n g o n t h e r e g i s t e r Ef f e c t s of li s t i n g on th e re g i s t e r • Ho n o r a r y d e s i g n a t i o n d e n o t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t Ho n o r a r y de s i g n a t i o n de n o t i n g si g n i f i c a n t as s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e h i s t o r y o f E d m o n d s • Pr i o r t o c o m m e n c i n g a n y w o r k o n a Pr i o r to co m m e n c i n g an y wo r k on a re g i s t e r p r o p e r t y ( e x c l u d i n g r e p a i r a n d ma i n t e n a n c e ), o w n e r m u s t r e q ue s t a n d )q re c e i v e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s fr o m t h e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n • M a y b e e l i g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l t a x v a l u a t i o n o n th e i r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 0 of 38 0 Se t t i n g Se t t i n g 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 1 of 38 0 De s i g n a t i o n C r i t e r i a De s i g n a t i o n Cr i t e r i a • S i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d it h t h h i t w it h th e hi s t or y , ar c h i t e c t u r e , a r c h a e o l o g y , en g i n e e r i n g o r c u l t u r a l he r i t a g e o f E d m o n d s he r i t a g e of Ed m o n d s • H a s i n t e g r i t y • A t l e a s t 5 0 y e a r s o l d , o r ha s e x c e p t i o n a l Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s ha s ex c e p t i o n a l im p o r t a n c e i f l e s s t h e 5 0 ye a r s o l d • Fa l l s i n t o a t l e a s t o n e o f • Fa l l s in t o at le a s t on e of de s i g n a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s , EC D C 2 0 . 4 5 . 0 1 0 . A - K Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f E d m o n d s H i s t o r i c a l M u s e u m 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 2 of 38 0 De s i g n a t i o n C a t e g o r i e s De s i g n a t i o n Ca t e g o r i e s • As s o c i a t e d w i t h As s o c i a t e d wi t h en v e n t s t h a t h a v e ma d e a s i g n i f i c a n t co n t r i b u t i o n … • E m b o d i e s t h e Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s di s t i n c t i v e ar c h i t e c t u r a l ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a ty p e , p e r i o d , s t y l e o r me t h o d o f d e s i g n me t h o d of de s i g n … Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 3 of 38 0 Si g n i f i c a n t F e a t u r e s Si g n i f i c a n t Fe a t u r e s Ph o t o c o u r t e s y E d m o n d s H i s t o r i c a l M u s e u m Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s Ph o t o f r o m 2 0 0 4 B O L A R e p o r t Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 4 of 38 0 Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n • N o m i n a t i o n m e e t s t h e cr i t e r i a a n d i s e l i g i b l e f o r de s i g n a t i o n i n t h e Ed m o n d s R e g is t e r o f g Hi s t o r i c P l a c e s . • T h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e st r u c t u r e c o n t a i n s t h e st r u c t u r e co n t a i n s th e si g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e s . • M a k e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o Ci t y C o u n c i l t h a t t h e Ci t y Co u n c i l th a t th e pr o p e r t y b e l i s t e d i n t h e re g i s t e r w i t h t h e o w n e r s co n s e n t Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f P a u l s co n s e n t 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 5 of 38 0 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 6 of 38 0    AM-5010     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Public hearing updating the City of Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 and portions of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 16 to allow Motorized Mobile Vendors. (File No. AMD20100012) Recommendation Review proposed changes to the ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16 and depending on number of changes, continue Public Hearing or approve changes and direct staff (City Attorney) to draft an ordinance. Previous Council Action This issue was discussed at the July 19, 2011 Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to provide updates to the code that would specifically allow for motorized mobile vendors in the City of Edmonds.  The City Council held a work session on the Planning Board's recommended changes to ECC 4.12 and portions of ECDC Title 16 on June 26th, 2012 (Attachment 7). Narrative The City of Edmonds continues to receive requests from persons who wish to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within Edmonds (Attachment 1).  The City Council directed staff to update relevant sections of City Code and Development Code to make it clear that motorized mobile vendors are permitted within the City of Edmonds at the July 19, 2011 Council meeting (Attachment 2). Since changes to the zoning code are required, these must be reviewed by the Planning Board. While the Planning Board would not normally review changes to ECC, there is significant overlap between allowing motorized mobile vending units in ECC 4.12 and how that use relates to other provisions within the development code (parking requirements, use restrictions, what zones allowed). As such, Planning Board reviewed proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16. The Planning Board discussed possible amendments to allow motorized mobile vending units at the February 18, 2012 and March 28, 2012 meetings (Attachments 3 and 4).  A public hearing before the Planning Board was held on May 9, 2012 and continued to June 13, 2012 (Attachments 5 and 6).  The Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16 to the City Council. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 117 of 380 At the June 26, 2012 work session before City Council, Council President Peterson suggested Council Members send suggested changes to staff to incorporate into the draft ECC 4.12 (Attachment 7).  Council Member Buckshnis and Petso submitted written suggestions to staff.  These suggestions are discussed in the memorandum included as Attachment 8.  The draft ECC 4.12 is included as Attachment 9 and the proposed changes to ECDC Title 16 are included as attachment 10. Attachment 11 is an email received from Randy and Brooke Baker (Chanterelle Restaurant) regarding the proposed updates.  This email was sent to the junk mail folder by the City's spam filter, as a result, it was not received until after the public hearing before the Planning Board and the Planning Board did not see this email.  An email received by Mrs. D. Ross is included as Attachment 12. Attachments Attachment 1 - July 14, 2011 Staff Memo Attachment 2 - July 19, 2011 Council Minutes Excerpt Attachment 3 - February 8, 2012 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 4 - March 28, 2012 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5 - May 9, 2012 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 6 - June 13, 2012 Planning Board Draft Minutes Excerpt Attachment 7 - June 26, 2012 Council Minutes Excerpt Attachment 8 - Staff Memo on Proposed Changes to ECC 4.12 Attachment 9 - Public Hearing Draft of ECC 4.12 Attachment 10 - Public Hearing Draft of Proposed Changes to ECDC Title 16 Attachment 11 - Email from Randy and Brooke Baker Attachment 12 - Email from Mrs. D. Ross Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 10:20 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/03/2012 12:25 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 12:30 PM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 08/03/2012 09:24 AM Final Approval Date: 08/03/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 118 of 380 City of Edmonds Date: July 14, 2011 To: City Council From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Subject: Motorized Mobile Vendors ________________________________________________________________________ Background Mobile food vendors are a growing trend across the United States. Some of these vendors move from location to location (such as parking lots or vacant lots) without staying at any one location for a significant period of time; others park at one specific location to setup shop and may even leave the vehicle at the location over night, while others may take the vehicle home at night but return to the same location day after day. The City of Edmonds has had some recent requests from persons who wished to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within Edmonds. Existing Code Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. 1. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or peddlers are included; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed applicable to any salesman or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers in the city. 2. Any person who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, services or anything of value, stands in a doorway, any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land, or in any other place not used by such person as a permanent place of business shall be deemed a solicitor or peddler within the meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection B of this section. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the MEMORANDUM 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 119 of 380 commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds, including unzoned property or right-of- way adjacent to or abutting on commercially zoned areas, shall be deemed a street vendor subject to the regulations contained in this chapter. The commercially zoned areas are those zoned Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2). C. “Mobile vending unit” means a cart, kiosk or other device capable of being pushed by one person, with at least two functional wheels and positive wheel-locking devices. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. So under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitors license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” with different exceptions depending on the zone. ECDC 21.10 defines a building as “any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized.” So while a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitors license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently stands, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. Questions and Options Does the City want to allow Motorized Mobile Vendors within the City? If yes, some items to consider while drafting regulations for motorized mobile vendors include:  What zones are appropriate for this type of use.  Should access to restrooms be required.  Are items used for the operation allowed to stay on location overnight, or should they be removed each day.  If the vendor is located over existing parking stalls, the overall site should be verified for compliance with required number of parking stalls.  Should permits be required for temporary structures.  Should design review be required for the motorized mobile vending units. If no, we recommend clarifying in ECC 4.12 that motorized mobile vending units are prohibited. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 120 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 19 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested seeking input from the committee members regarding their selections. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING BUSINESS IN PARKS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this was first discussed at the CS/DS Committee who directed it be presented to the full Council for exploration. Business in parks was discussed by the Planning Board last week; the Board was very supportive of some of the ideas. Business in parks is a priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Her counterparts in the National Recreation and Parks Association and Washington Recreation and Parks Association are having similar discussions because of budget difficulties. Parks are not mandated services and there is an effort to continue service levels to citizens without new taxes. She highlighted ideas outlined in her memo and invited the Council to provide feedback with regard to their interest in further exploration: • Non-resident fees for recreation programs – the City currently charges the same rate for residents and non-residents. 20-25% of program participants are not residents of Edmonds. Non-resident fees are very common. The goal is to recover the cost of recreation programs but there are some subsidies which are funded via the General Fund, thus a justification for differential pricing for non-residents who participate in programs. A common differential is 20%, either via a discount of resident fees or increase in non-resident fees. Given current registration rates for 2010, the additional revenue from a 20% additional fee is estimated to be $90,000 - $100,000/year or $70,000 - $75,000/year with attrition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on how amazing Ms. Hite and her department are and she appreciated their suggestions for increased revenue. Councilmember Buckshnis commented all the ideas in Ms. Hite’s memo were great, innovative and outside the box. She commended Ms. Hite for providing ways to enhance the revenue stream. She suggested if a parking fee were implemented, citizens be allowed to purchase a less expensive yearly pass. She noted during the Waterfront Festival, dog park users paid $10 to park and use the dog park. Council President Pro Tem Petso was not as excited about many of the revenue enhancing ideas as some other Councilmembers. She asked if neighboring jurisdictions charged a non-resident fee. Ms. Hite answered they do but Edmonds currently does not. Council President Pro Tem Petso was more receptive to the non- resident fee than some of the other ideas. She suggested food vendors be restricted to community parks and not allowed in neighborhood parks. She was not interested in citizens paying for parks and then being asked to pay for parking. She suggested charging non-residents and providing residents a free parking pass. She encouraged staff to allow for a great deal of public input on the concepts and not invest a lot of staff time until they received feedback from the Council and the Planning Board. She was also not interested in raising field rental fees beyond what it costs to maintain and provide the fields. She did not want to sacrifice participation for revenue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the CS/DS Committee considered all the ideas. She anticipated food vendors, particularly in Yost Park and City Park, would attract tourism and encouraged people to visit Edmonds and stay all day. She cited her experience with training people with disabilities to vend food at Juanita Beach and Matthews Beach during the summer. Vendors would either have their own facility or possibly if it was successful enough, the City could provide space. There was no intent to have food vending in the smaller parks in the City. With regard to the dive permits, she pointed out Edmonds’s Dive Park, the only saltwater dive park on Puget Sound, attracts a lot of divers from out of town and is a great potential 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 121 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 20 source of revenue. She was uncertain whether a fee for parking is feasible and it needs further discussion and public input. If a levy does not pass and the choice is fencing parks, a parking fee may be the only choice. Councilmember Bernheim did not support a parking fee. A dive permit or dive park parking is an opportunity to make a lot of money. The dive park attracts people from out of town and is a unique experience. He was also interested in food venders in places such as the dog park and Marina Beach that are located far from restaurants and other services. With regard to a dive permit, Ms. Hite explained there are some inherent risks with charging an entrance fee or permit for diving. The City has immunity when providing parks for recreation without charging a fee. There are other ways to institute a fee such as a parking permit. She explained staff would like to consider not only food concessions but also recreation concessions; an individual recently approached the City about renting standing paddleboards at Marina Beach Park. The existing code allows concessions in a park with the posting of three public notices at the entrance of the park and a public hearing. She suggested staff return to Council with code amendments that make concessions in parks a less staff intensive process. Councilmembers indicated their interest in staff providing code amendments. Planner Kernen Lien explained every year there are inquiries from mobile food vendors interested in locating in the City. There is one mobile food vender operating in the City now but there is conflicting language in the code. ECC 4.12 provides a framework for licensing peddlers and solicitors. Mobile food vendors fit those definitions somewhat in that they are a solicitor and can move around. ECC 4.12 also provides a framework for street vendors. There is a definition for a mobile vending unit but that is pushed and not motorized. Mr. Lien explained there are conflicts in the zoning code. Several of the business zones have operating restrictions such as all uses shall be carried out entirely within a completely enclosed building. The definition of building does not include vehicles. Therefore a mobile food vendor could obtain a solicitors license but due to the operating restrictions, they could only operate in residential, public and planned business zones. He invited the Council to provide feedback regarding their interest in clarifying the code. Questions the Council would need to consider include what zones mobile food vendors should be allowed in, whether they should be required to park in a parking lot or would be allowed in the right-of-way, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis commented mobile food vendors are a great idea; anything that attracts people to Edmonds is a good thing. She asked whether the City collected any money from mobile food vendors. Mr. Lien answered they would be required to pay for a solicitors license which City Clerk Sandy Chase indicated is a modest cost. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about mobile food vendors in other cities, recalling Portland has parking lots with several street food vendors. Mr. Lien was uncertain about Portland’s licensing requirements. Regulations vary by city; some do not allow mobile food venders in the right-of-way and require they be located on private property. Seattle recently passed regulations regarding distance from a restaurant. Mayor Cooper relayed in the past Seattle required mobile food vendors be located on private property and have the permission of the property owner. The Seattle City Council passed a new ordinance yesterday that allows food vendors to park on the street and pay the same parking fee a vehicle pays. Mobile food vendors cannot be located within 50 feet of a restaurant in a building. Council President Pro Tem Petso commented staff will need to look into the issue regardless of Council direction due to the discrepancies in the code and existing food vendors. She commented on a person in her area selling produce from a vehicle who locates on both private property and the right-of-way. Councilmember Plunkett referred to questions posed in Mr. Lien’s memo such as whether permits should be required for temporary structures. He asked whether the mobile unit would be considered a temporary 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 122 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 21 structure. Mr. Lien answered when this issue was discussed last year, then-City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested considering them temporary structures because they may park overnight in a parking lot. Councilmember Plunkett provided responses to other questions in Mr. Lien’s memo: • What zones are appropriate for this type of use? Business zones • Should access to restrooms be required? No • Allowed to park overnight? No • Should the site where the vendor is parked be verified for compliance with the required number of parking stalls? Yes • Temporary structure? Does not apply • Design review required? No. Ms. Hite advised staff will bring information back to the Council including code changes. She would like to implement the concessions by next summer. She will also provide the Council a proposal for non-resident fees. She encouraged the Council to provide other park-related revenue ideas for staff to explore. Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff to return with code language. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the suggestion regarding business partnerships in Ms. Hite’s memo. He asked if that was naming rights. Ms. Hite answered it could include naming rights, sponsorships, etc.; it is a policy that allows public-private partnerships within the City that does not involve a gift of public funds. Councilmember Plunkett referred to parks and fields in Medford, Oregon, that are all named after large companies. Mayor Cooper advised the Council could expect some of the revenue options to be reflected in his budget message for consideration in the 2012 budget. 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this agenda item is a proposed consulting contract with David Evans and Associates to complete the design for the Five Corners roundabout. The contract is for $310,000 and staff requests the Council also authorize a $15,000 management reserve for unanticipated issues in the design. He provided information on the Five Corners roundabout project: • Existing conditions o All-way stop controlled intersection • Creates driver confusion o Existing level of service (LOS) F with 110 second intersection delay and 204 second delay in 2025 (during PM peak hours) o Pedestrian/bicycle transportation safety concerns • Proposed Improvements o Modern landscaped roundabout o LOS B with 12 second intersection delay and 14 seconds in 2025 (during PM peak hours) • Additional Benefits o Non-motorized transportation • Pedestrians – Refuge island – High pedestrian activity » Proximity of two schools and commercial area • Cyclists – Bike lanes 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 123 of 380 APPROVED MARCH 28, 2012 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 8, 2012 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Kristiana Johnson Neil Tibbott (arrived at 7:13 p.m.) Bill Ellis STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DISCUSSION ON UPDATING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) AND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS (FILE NUMBER AMD 20100012) Mr. Lien advised that the City continues to receive requests from persons who wish to operate motorized mobile vending (MMV) services within the City. However, there is currently confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether they are allowed in the City. He explained that ECC 4.12 provides the framework for licensing peddlers, solicitors and street vendors. While MMVs fit within the broad definition of “solicitor” in that they sell goods from place to place, they do not fit in the more narrow definition of street vendor, which refers to non-motorized mobile vending units such as hot dog carts. Under the definitions in ECC 4.12, an MMV may operate under a solicitor’s license obtained from the City Clerk. However, ECDC 16 requires that all uses within commercial zones be carried on within a completely enclosed building, with some exceptions depending on the zone. ECDC 21.10 defines a building as any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 124 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2012 Page 2 immobilized. He concluded that while a MMV may be allowed to operate under a solicitor’s license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict the use to buildings only. Mr. Lien said on July 19, 2011, the City Council directed staff to update relevant sections of the ECC and ECDC to make it clear that MMV units are permitted within the City of Edmonds. The City Attorney drafted changes to ECC 4.12 to specifically allow motorized mobile vendors. However, amendments must also be made to ECDC 16 to resolve conflicts, and these amendments must be reviewed by the Planning Board. He explained that while the Planning Board would not normally review changes to the ECC, there is a significant overlap between allowing MMV units in ECC 4.12 and how that use relates to other provisions within the ECDC. Therefore, staff believes that Board review of both the amendments to the ECC and the ECDC is warranted. Mr. Lien referred the Board to the proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 (Attachment 3) and reviewed each one as follows:  EEC 4.12.010.B – This section was highlighted because the City may want to designate different allowable zoning for motorized versus non-motorized vending units. In addition, it might be appropriate to add some or all of the new commercial zones that have been created in recent years.  ECC 4.12.010.C – This section was modified to provide a definition for both “motorized mobile vending units” and “non-motorized mobile vending units.”  ECC 4.12.055 – The language throughout this section was changed to indicate that it applies to both motorized and non-motorized mobile vending units.  ECC 4.12.055.A – If Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval is required for motorized and non-motorized mobile vending units, the code should provide criteria by which the ADB can base their review. Staff recommends that this section be deleted and that no design review be required.  ECC 4.12.055.D – As currently proposed, no portion of the vendor’s inventory, sales equipment or any other structure or equipment can be left overnight. The Board may want to consider allowing motorized mobile vending units to remain overnight in certain locations.  ECC 4.12.055.G – As currently written, this provision prohibits street vendors from locating within the portion of improved street right-of-way designed for vehicular traffic or parking. This section could be revised to allow MMVs to locate in the right-of-way and/or in parking lots across parking spaces. However, the City may want to require that the overall site still complies with the required number of parking stalls for the existing business.  ECC 4.12.055.J – This provision currently prohibits street vendors from occupying parking spaces on City property or in improved City rights-of-way reserved for vehicular traffic, parking or other transportation. The City may want to allow MMVs to parking next to the sidewalk in the downtown area and near the waterfront, so people can be served from the sidewalk.  ECC 4.12.055. – This section identifies the maximum permissible size of a mobile vending unit. The language may need to be updated to accommodate current dimensions of an MMV. Staff plans to visit sites and conduct additional research to identify more appropriate dimension limitations. Mr. Lien summarized that the City Attorney’s proposed changes to ECC 4.12 are minimal to make it clear that MMVs would be allowed. In order to make the ECDC consistent with the proposed amendments to ECC 4:12, staff is recommending that ECDC 16 be amended to accurately identify the commercial zones in which MMVs would be allowed. Mr. Lien referred to ECC 4.12.010.B and explained that additional commercial zones have been created since the current ordinance was adopted. He asked the Board to provide direction as to whether or not MMVs should also be allowed in the Downtown Business (BD) zone, the Firdale Village Mixed-Use (MU-FV) zone, and the Business Commercial Edmonds Way (EW-BD) zone. Mr. Chave advised that staff reviewed code language from other jurisdictions and found that regulations vary. Some jurisdictions encourage MMVs in all commercial zones; others allow them, but limit where they can be located. Some allow them only in designated areas. He noted that restaurants with fixed locations can become concerned if MMVs are allowed to operate close to their businesses. It is difficult for them to compete with MMVs because they have to account for overhead costs that MMVs do not have. Mr. Lien added that the City of Seattle’s code language limits how close an MMV can be located to an existing restaurant. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 125 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2012 Page 3 Chair Lovell asked if the proposed amendments are associated with the amendments proposed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director to allow concession vendors in parks as an additional source of revenue for the City. Mr. Lien answered that the two issues are somewhat related and were presented to the City Council at the same time. However, the concession vendor amendments have already been approved by the City Council because no development code amendment was required. He reminded the Board of the City Council’s charge to amend both the ECC and the ECDC to make it clear that MMVs are allowed in the City’s commercial zones. Again, he explained that the Board does not typically review ECC amendments. However, because an ECDC amendment is also necessary, the Board has been asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on both items. Mr. Chave advised that the issue of MMVs has come up numerous times related to coffee locations. The current code does not allow carts and trailers, and the solution has been to place a skirting around the structure to make it look like a small building. However, many potential MMV operators have not been interested in pursuing this approach. Mr. Lien referred to the bulleted list of questions (see Staff Report) that were initially presented to the City Council and suggested this would be an appropriate place for the Board to start their discussion. He said staff is particularly seeking direction about which commercial zones would be appropriate for MMVs. For example, does the Board believe it would be appropriate to allow MMVs in the BD zones? Vice Chair Stewart reminded the Board that the BD1 zone talks about promoting restaurants. She expressed her opinion that allowing MMVs in this district could harm the restaurant businesses. She said she is opposed to allowing MMVs in the BD1 zone, but she would support the use in all other commercial zones as long as they are regulated appropriately. She said that, typically, a solicitor’s license requires a background check, and vendors are required to display their licenses. Mr. Lien agreed that a background check would be conducted prior to issuance of a solicitor’s license. Board Member Clarke asked if the code would adequately address traffic flow and safety issues associated with MMVs locating in parking lots. Mr. Lien agreed that this is an important aspect to address. It is also important to ensure that MMVs and their customers do not take up parking space that is necessary for the business to meet code requirements. Mr. Chave advised that both of these issues would likely be addressed as part of the solicitor’s licensing process. The applicant would have to identify a proposed location and provide a circulation plan. MMV’s would not typically be allowed to occupy in parking spaces that are required for the existing use. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that if MMVs are allowed to park in regularly striped parking spaces, customers waiting to get food could obstruct the flow of traffic through the parking lot. He suggested that this concern could be addressed by requiring that food only be served through windows facing the sidewalk. Mr. Lien said that, typically, MMVs locate in the corner of parking lots where there is generally less traffic. However, he acknowledged that traffic safety is not specifically addressed in the code language. Board Member Clarke asked if it would be possible to designate a specific space in a parking lot where MMVs are allowed to locate. Mr. Chave answered that during the license review process, the applicant would be required to specifically designate where the MMV would be located. Board Member Clarke voiced concern that this requirement would not ensure the location is the best and safest. Mr. Lien suggested that language could be added to the review criteria to ensure there is adequate parking for both the existing and mobile business. A provision could also be added to allow the City to review and evaluate the site plan to address traffic flow and safety. Board Member Clarke noted that during events such as the Taste of Edmonds, Arts Festival, etc., food vendors pay a fee to locate within the venue area. He asked if the proposed code language would allow MMVs to locate within close proximity of an event venue. Not only would these vendors be able to avoid the participation fee, they could also disrupt the traffic flow and create safety issues. Mr. Lien agreed it would be reasonable to add some restrictions to address this issue. Board Member Ellis asked if an MMV operator would be allowed to set up chairs and tables outside to serve customers. Mr. Lien said this is not addressed in the proposed language. However, the proposed language does require MMV operators to pack up all their belongings and leave the area at the end of the day. Board Member Tibbott asked if the proposed language limits the number of parking stalls an MMV could occupy. Mr. Lien answered that it does not. Board Member Tibbott observed that it would be possible for a vendor to park sideways across two stalls and then set up an awning and other equipment that occupies several more stalls. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 126 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2012 Page 4 Board Member Clarke asked if it would be possible to approve the MMV provisions on a temporary basis, subject to a review after a one-year period. Mr. Lien said that some regulations are adopted with the provision that staff review the ordinance and report back to the City Council after one year. The Board could recommend this same approach for the MMV provisions. Chair Lovell suggested that because the City Council has indicated their desire to allow MMV activities, the Board should discuss whether they should be allowed on private property, public property, or both. They need to provide some specific guidelines for each situation to address such issues as location, traffic flow, and parking requirements. They also need to discuss which zones should allow MMVs. He referred to Council Member Plunkett’s response to the list of questions presented by staff on July 19, 2011 (see Attachment 2) and said he agrees that MMVs should not be allowed to stay overnight, and they should not be required to obtain design approval from the ADB or provide restroom facilities. However, he suggested the Board should have further discussion about whether or not MMVs should be allowed in all commercial zones. Board Member Tibbott questioned if it would be appropriate to limit MMVs to only those parking spaces that are along streets and sidewalks as opposed to parking lots. If MMVs are allowed in parking lots, they can occupy multiple stalls and create traffic and pedestrian safety issues. Vice Chair Stewart cautioned against excluding parking lots altogether because the use could work well in some parking lot situations. If MMVs are only allowed to park along streets, they could take up valuable parking space that is used by the existing businesses. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that before obtaining a solicitor’s license to locate in a privately-owned parking lot, an MMV operator would have to obtain permission from the property owner. A property owner would not likely grant this permission if it would negatively impact the business. On the other hand, no such approval would be required for an MMV operator to obtain a solicitor’s license to park along a public right-of-way. If the Board decides it would be appropriate to limit the use to public rights-of-way, he suggested they should designate certain areas where the units could be located. This approach would also address distance requirements from existing restaurants. Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that MMVs should not be allowed to park along streets in the BD1 zone. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that if the City chooses to limit MMVs to designated streets, a map should be provided with the solicitor’s license application to inform potential vendors of where they can locate. Mr. Lien said this approach would be a way to limit the number of MMVs allowed within the City’s right-of-way, but it would not address MMVs on private property. Board Member Clarke asked if MMVs would be allowed to use “human” signs to advertise their businesses. Mr. Lien answered that sign related issues are addressed by the sign code. Mr. Chave added that some jurisdictions have tried to single out this use, but they have run into freedom of speech issues. Mr. Lien said that MMVs typically only have one or two employees on site at any given time because the actual units are small. Board Member Tibbott asked if the proposed language assumes the MMVs will be owner operated or would employees other than the owner be allowed to operate the unit. Mr. Lien said the majority of MMVs are owner operated, but some are successful enough that they have two or three units and hire employees. Board Member Tibbott asked if a background check is required for all employees or just the owner. Mr. Lien answered that ECC 4.12.040.B requires a background check for anyone who works inside an MMV. Vice Chair Stewart asked about the City Council’s reasons for wanting to promote MMVs. She expressed her belief that MMVs could offer an opportunity for additional revenue for the City. She asked what other cities charge for solicitor’s licenses and street use permits. Mr. Lien pointed out that a street use permit would not be required for an MMV that is located on private property. Vice Chair Stewart asked if the City receives tax revenue from the items that are sold at MMVs located within the City. Chair Lovell once again referred to the minutes from the July 19th City Council meeting, at which the City Council expressed general support for MMVs to increase the livelihood of the City. Tonight’s discussion should focus on how to make the ECC and ECDC language consistent as it relates to MMVs. He suggested the Board should specifically focus their discussion on which zones MMVs should be allowed to locate in. Board Member Clarke suggested it would be helpful for staff to provide 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 127 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2012 Page 5 examples of how other jurisdictions address MMVs. Mr. Lien said the City of Seattle recently updated their MMV provisions, but they are probably more complex than what the City Council is looking for. The City of Portland allow MMVs, but they are clustered in specific locations. He said he found examples from a few jurisdictions in Texas that were not too complex, but addressed some of the issues raised by the Board. Board Member Johnson suggested that the first step is for the Board to decide exactly what they want the code language to achieve. If they want a lively street and sidewalk scene, the current proposed language is overly prohibitive because MMVs would only be allowed in a few limited locations. She suggested they answer the basic question of whether they want to promote MMVs for the liveliness of the street and the vivaciousness of the City or if they want to limit MMVS as much as possible and only allow the use where it would have minimal adverse impact. She observed that, as currently written, the language is contradictory. It talks about allowing MMVs, but then says they cannot park on the street. It requires that they be oriented towards the sidewalk, which will be difficult if they are not allowed to park in the street. Again, she said that until the Board identifies what it is they want to achieve, it will be difficult to address the details. Board Member Johnson said it would be helpful to understand MMVs from a business standpoint. For example, would the City receive sales tax revenue from a catering business that is licensed in the City of Lynwood but operates in the City of Edmonds a few days a week? If there is no benefit to the City from an economic standpoint, perhaps the real benefit is providing ambiance and opportunities. Chair Lovell agreed with Board Member Johnson. Rather than over structuring the MMV provisions, they should create some basic guidelines for where and how MMVs can operate in the City. Mr. Lien agreed to review the comments provided by the Board and update the draft ordinance. He also agreed to solicit feedback from the Engineering and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. When he presents the updated code language to the Board for continued discussion, he would provide maps to illustrate where MMVs could potentially locate. He said staff’s goal is to have the MMV provisions adopted before summer. Board Member Tibbott said another option is to identify specific areas in the City where MMVs can locate for a daily reservation rate. MMV operators could reserve the sites in advance and the City would receive revenue from the daily fee. STAFF PRESENTATION OF 2012 EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) UPDATE Mr. Chave reported that staff presented an approach to updating the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) at the recent City Council retreat. He said the intent is for a team of staff members to attempt a comprehensive rewrite of the ECDC this year, given that this is probably staff’s last opportunity for the foreseeable future and it is a critical item to accomplish. Mr. Chave emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The ECC consists of Titles 1 through 10 and addresses issues such as health, safety, finance, officials, boards and commissions. The ECDC consists of Titles 15 through 23 and addresses issues such as building, planning and land use, public works, design and natural resources. Mr. Chave said the current ECDC is a combination of legal documents and mystery. There is no entry point and no roadmap or guide. It is not easy to read and understand, and there are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions because it has been amended frequently. Staff is proposing a comprehensive structural change in the way the ECDC is written; the document will be reconfigured so it is easier for staff to administer and for the public to access and understand. Mr. Chave said that the current ECDC is a written manual that is organized topic by topic, and the new version will be a hyperlinked roadmap that is integrated according to project and purpose. He explained that people using the code do not typically care which department administers a permit. They are most interested in learning about the requirements and process associated with a particular project. Using the current code, it is difficult to figure out which parts are applicable to any given project. There are few cross references so it is difficult for people to figure out where to start, and defined and undefined terms are dispersed throughout the document. For example sometimes the code talks about a dictionary definition for height, and other times it talks about a specific mechanism for calculating height. It is often difficult to determine which one applies. The new ECDC will clarify when and how the terms are used. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 128 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 28, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Johnson observed that ECDC 20.20.010.C.2.a and ECDC 20.20.010.C.3 appear to say the same thing. She suggested, and the Board concurred, that ECDC 20.20.010.C.2.a should be clarified and ECDC 20.20.010.C.3 should be eliminated. Vice Chair Stewart said it makes sense to eliminate the permit requirement to be consistent with state law. However, she is concerned about allowing someone to grow and sell produce using someone else’s land, which is what the CSA concept would allow. Mr. Mearns said their goal is to eventually establish a CSA, but he understands that the proposed amendment would not address this issue. Board Member Tibbott questioned what potential problems could result from allowing someone to bring produce from another property to sell at their stand. Chair Lovell said it is possible that the produce could be contaminated and make someone sick. It would also be possible for a small neighborhood stand to grow into a local produce market. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that the proposed language would require an applicant to submit a site plan showing how visitors to the site could be accommodated without creating a traffic hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties. Ms. Machuga agreed that if a stand was too big, the property owners would probably not be able to adequately accommodate traffic. While he understands that the City must consider what could possibly happen, Mr. Mearns suggested the Board keep in mind how much produce could reasonably be grown on a property in Edmonds. He said it would be impossible for him to create a farmer’s market. His 3,000 square foot garden is just enough to feed his neighborhood, and his stand is just one table. Board Member Tibbott asked if the Mearns anticipate their produce stand could grow in the future. Mr. Mearns said that would be fantastic. However, once it reaches a certain size, it would make more sense to purchase space at the Edmonds Summer Market. He said that, in addition to providing his neighbors with good food, the community building that occurs through the process is incredibly important. Mr. Mearns also explained that there are significant misconceptions about how foods become tainted. Most of the problems occur at industrial farms and not from food grown in private backyards. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern about liability issues that could come up if property owners are allowed to sell produce that is harvested from numerous locations throughout the City. Again, Mr. Mearns said the real concern about food safety comes from large industrial produce farms that use chemicals and fertilizers and locate their growing areas within close proximity to livestock. He expressed his belief that the public should have the choice of purchasing local produce, and the City should not be responsible for policing their food choices. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that additional language should be added to the code to make it clear that urban farming is intended to provide food for the local neighborhood. Mr. Mearns agreed that could be the focus of the urban farming regulation, but the regulations should not prohibit urban farms from selling their produce outside of the neighborhood, either. Board Member Johnson asked staff to provide more information about why this issue has come up and what the concerns are. Ms. Machuga explained that when the home occupation code was written, the City was not aware of the conflicting RCW. The Mearns brought the conflict to the City’s attention, and staff passed the concern along to the City Attorney. Chair Lovell summarized the Board’s consensus to move the proposed amendment forward to a public hearing on April 11th, with the change identified earlier by the Board to clarify ECDC 20.20.010.C.2.a and eliminate ECDEC 20.20.010.C.3. DISCUSSION ON UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS (FILE NUMBER AMD20100012) Mr. Lien reminded the Board that they began discussions on Motorized Mobile Vending Units (MMVs) on February 8th. At that time, they directed staff to evaluate appropriate zones and areas for MMVs, revise ECC 4.12 accordingly, and bring the proposed draft language back to the Board for further review. Mr. Lien and the Board reviewed the draft language as follows: • ECC4.12.555.A. Mr. Lien explained that because the Board indicated that NMVs would be appropriate uses in all commercial zones but may not be appropriate for all commercial zones, separate language was created for each type of use. He referred the Board to the proposed changes in ECC 4.12.055.A to identify the zones where Non-motorized 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 129 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 28, 2012 Page 4 Mobile Vending units (NMVs) and MMVs would be allowed. As currently proposed, NMVs would be allowed in the following zones: Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Downtown Business (BD1, BD2, BD3, BD4 and BD5), Commercial Waterfront (CW), General Commercial (CG and CG2) and Firdale Village Mixed-Use (FVMU). MMVs would be allowed in the BN, BC, BP, BD2, BD3, CW, CG, CG2 and FVMU zones. Board Member Johnson recalled that several Board Members expressed concern about allowing MMVs in the BD1 zone because it is the City’s primary downtown core. However, she has talked with business owners in the BD1 zone who are enthusiastic and felt that MMVs would help draw customers to their stores. She said she understands why it would not be desirable to allow MMVs within close proximity to restaurants because it is important to avoid competition with front door operations. However, there is also a reason to encourage MMVs because they provide additional dining opportunities, which is one of the focuses of the BD1 zone. The PCC and QFC attract different clientele and serve different purposes, and the same would be true from established restaurants and MMVs in the BD1 zone. She felt that allowing MMVs in the BD1 zone would also create a concentration of dining opportunities that would actually draw people towards downtown Edmonds. She asked staff to seek additional feedback regarding this option from the Downtown Edmonds Merchant’s Association (DEMA). Until they have more information, she suggested the draft language should allow MMVs in the BD1 zone for discussion purposes. Vice Chair Stewart agreed with Board Member Johnson in principle. However, many of the downtown business owners she has talked to have indicated concern about competition and the reduction of available parking space. She agreed it would be appropriate to seek feedback from the public about whether or not MMVs should be allowed in the BD1 zone, and the Downtown Edmonds Merchant’s Association should be particularly invited to provide feedback. Chair Lovell suggested that if the Board decides to include the BD1 zone as a possible location for MMVs for public hearing purposes, perhaps they should also include the BD4 and BD5 zones. He said he is not so concerned about creating competition for established dining businesses, but he is concerned that MMVs could displace parking. However, he acknowledged this would be true in any of the BD zones, and the proposed code language includes a provision that would prohibit an MMV from displacing parking spaces. Mr. Lien said that, as per the Board’s direction, the draft language does not allow MMVs in the BD1 zone. Parking in the BD1 zone is already tight, and allowing MMVs to park on the street would further exacerbate the problem. He noted that the BD4 zone is primarily residential, with very few places for MMV’s to locate. There are some larger parking areas in both the BD2 and BD3 zones that could accommodate MMVs. There are also places in the remaining commercial zones where MMVs could be easily accommodated off street. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that implementing the proposed code provisions could require a lot of staff time if Edmonds becomes a popular destination in the future and more vendors express interest in operating within Edmonds. Rather than a process that requires staff to review each request on a case-by-case basis, she suggested a better approach might be to designate specific locations where MMVs could locate. Vendors could contact the City to reserve a location. Mr. Lien pointed out that there is little to no City right-of-way that could be designated as specific locations for MMVs. They will most likely be located on private property, and it would be up to individual property owners to decide if they want to allow the use or not. Board Member Johnson pointed out that there is ample room for an MMV to locate within the private parking lot located at 6th and Main, which is within the BD1 zone. She noted that this parking area is rarely used. Board Member Reed pointed out that the parking lot is posted as “no parking,” except for individuals who are going into the adjacent building to conduct business. Board Member Johnson acknowledged that approval from the property owner would be required for an MMV to locate in this space, but it is possible. Mr. Lien said this parking area is probably the only location in the BD1 zone that could accommodate an MMV. Board Member Johnson said she believes it is extreme to prohibit street vendors from locating on City streets and rights- of-way. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the goal of the proposed amendment is to identify where MMVs can safely locate without impacting traffic and pedestrian safety and access. The City Engineer has indicated there are few, if any, public streets and rights-of-way within the commercial zones where MMVs could be safely accommodated. Mr. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 130 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 28, 2012 Page 5 Lien said the City of Seattle has designated specific areas where MMVs can locate on streets and in public rights-of-way, but parking is already a significant issue in the Edmonds downtown. Available parking could be further limited if MMVs are allowed to park on the street. Board Member Johnson challenged the Board and staff to consider places throughout all commercial zones in the City where it may be appropriate to allow MMVs within the right-of-way. For example, it may be appropriate to allow MMVs within the right-of-way adjacent to a public gathering place. Vice Chair Stewart said it might also be appropriate to allow MMVs to park on the street if a street is closed off to accommodate a festival or community event. Mr. Lien pointed out that this type of use would require a special festival permit. Mr. Lien observed that there may be adequate space to accommodate MMVs within the public right-of-way along Admiral Way and near the ferry, both of which are located in the CW zone. In these locations, it may be possible for an MMV to park on the street and serve people from the sidewalk. However, there is no street parking along Highway 99, at Westgate or at Firdale Village. Board Member Johnson observed that there is some street parking available on Bowdoin Way in the Five Corners commercial area. • ECC 4.12.055.J. Mr. Lien explained that this section prohibits street vendors in parks unless the vendor has a concession agreement with the City of Edmonds to operate on a specific park property. • ECC 4.12.055.H. Mr. Lien said this provision would prohibit street vendors from locating within the portion of the street right-of-way designed for vehicular traffic or parking. It would also require a street vendor to obtain approval from the traffic engineer to locate within a right-of-way. He explained that the City Engineer has determined that there are very few streets in the commercial zones that can safely accommodate MMVs. • ECC 4.12.055.G. Board Member Reed pointed out that ECC 4.12.955.H would allow street vendors to locate on sidewalks. Because sidewalks in the commercial areas of Edmonds are typically narrow, allowing street vendors on the sidewalks could restrict pedestrian access. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to be more restrictive by identifying specific locations where MMVs and NMVs could locate in the commercial zones. Chair Lovell commented that, as per the proposed language, only NMVs would be allowed to locate on sidewalks. If located on the sidewalk, ECC 4.12.055.G would require that a minimum clearance of five feet be maintained at all times. • ECC 4.12.065.C. Board Member Reed asked if there would be a tendency for MMV operators to show up early to set up when people are still sleeping. He asked how the City would regulate this issue. Chair Lovell referred to ECC 4.12.065.C, which sets forth time constraints for when vendors can operate. He also noted that ECC 4.12.055.E prohibits a vendor from leaving any structure or equipment overnight. Vice Chair Stewart asked the rationale for prohibiting MMVs from staying in a location overnight. Mr. Lien explained that MMVs are intended to be temporary. If they are allowed to stay overnight, operators tend to build stuff around them and they can become permanent homes. He said the provision is intended to address aesthetic issues. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that requiring the vendors to leave the City every night does not support the City’s goal of reducing their carbon footprint, particularly if the units come from longer distances. Mr. Lien noted that MMVs tend to move around to different locations each day. The idea is that they are temporary rather than permanent. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the operating hours identified in ECC 4.12.065.C may be too restrictive, particularly during the summer months. She reminded the Board of the City’s goal to make the downtown more vibrant, and it would be desirable for the downtown to still be active at 8:00 p.m. on a summer evening. She suggested the hours of operation for MMVs and NMVs should be consistent with the operating hours recently approved for outdoor dining. The remainder of the Board concurred. • ECC 4.12.065.A. Chair Lovell questioned why language related to fireworks displays is necessary in this section of the code since fireworks are illegal in Edmonds. Mr. Lien agreed that this provision could be deleted. • ECDC 16. Mr. Lien explained that the operating restrictions in some commercial zones require that all sales be carried out entirely within completely enclosed buildings. This section will need to be amended to be consistent with the proposed changes to ECC 4.12. Staff will propose draft language that adds MMVs as a specific exception to this requirement in the applicable zones. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 131 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 28, 2012 Page 6 • ECC 4.12.055.F. Board Member Johnson said this provision allows the Development Services Director to determine the allowable number of street vendors. It also allows him to exercise discretion based upon the needs of the public, diversity of products offered for sale, the smooth flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and other considerations. Vice Chair Stewart asked if this provision would allow the Development Services Director to deny a request for an MMV that is operated by individuals who are skimpily clad. Mr. Chave answered that this issue is addressed by another section of the code. • ECC 4.12.055.C. Vice Chair Stewart asked about the cost of a street use permit. Mr. Lien said fees are outlined in the fee schedule and are not specifically identified in the code language. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be appropriate to identify the associated fee for the street use permit in the code language. Mr. Chave explained that the City usually identifies permit fees in the public information materials that are available to members of the public. Including specific numbers for permit fees throughout the code would require the City to amend the code every time the fee schedule is adjusted. He reminded the Board that the fee schedule is adopted by the City Council by resolution, and it is up to the City Administration to make this information available to members of the public who need to know. This is typically done via the City’s website and informational handouts. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the code should be more user friendly. Perhaps the code should reference the fee schedule so that citizens know exactly where to look for information about permit fees. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to scan the code language and add a reference to the fee schedule wherever a permit that requires a fee is discussed. • ECC 4.12.055.N. Mr. Lien said this is a new section that outlines the criteria for locating within a parking lot of a private location. As proposed, an applicant would be required to provide a circulation plan that would be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure the MMV will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. The applicant would also be required to demonstrate that the site meets the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. He recalled that Board Member Clarke previously suggested that MMVs should orient towards the sidewalk, but most of the parking stalls are head on to the sidewalk, and parking sideways would require several parking spaces. • ECC 4.12.055. Mr. Lien advised that this proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for a street vendor to obtain Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval. He pointed out that there are currently no standards for ADB review of MMVs. Instead, ECC 4.12.055.B was added to address aesthetic issues. As proposed, MMVs must be commercially manufactured vehicles as defined in ECC 4.12.010.E. This means that the vehicles must be specifically designed to be MMVs. He provided illustrations of different types of MMVs and noted that most of them would meet this qualification. Board Member Johnson suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to require a photograph of the MMV as part of the application. • ECC 4.12.055.D. Mr. Lien said that, as currently proposed, sign area on NMVs and MMVs would be limited to 10 square feet. Another option would be limit the sign size based on the size of the vehicle, which would be similar to how the City regulates signs for businesses. Board Member Tibbott questioned the appropriateness of limiting signs on MMVs to a specific size, since they typically operate in multiple locations. He suggested that limiting the sign size would make it difficult to accommodate the creativity that is inherent with MMVs. The remainder of the Board concurred. They discussed the concept of limiting MMV sign area to the surface are of the vehicle, without allowing signs on top or protruding out of the vehicle. Board Member Johnson pointed out that MMVs are temporary, and she would not be opposed to allowing more signage, in addition to the vehicle space, so MMVs can attract passersby. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to maintain the 10 square foot sign limitation for NMVs, but signage for MMVs should not be limited to a specific size. • ECC 4.12.010.C. Mr. Lien said the proposed definition for MMV came from an ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Since that time, the City has received a request from someone who wants to operate a mobile boutique, which would not be allowed as per the proposed definition. He suggested that the definition should be changed to be more in line with the definition for “street vendor,” which does not limit the sales to food items. The Board concurred. • ECC 4.12.055.P. Mr. Lien explained that this new provision would prohibit MMVs from operating within any of the BD zones during special events where food providers are required to pay a fee to participate. He said the purpose of this 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 132 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 28, 2012 Page 7 provision is to avoid situations where MMVs park just outside of a special event such as the Edmonds Arts Festival or Taste of Edmonds to sell food items, creating competition for the vendors who pay to participate in the event. Board Member Reed suggested that perhaps the provision should be more general to include all special events that take place in Edmonds, including events in the CW zone. Mr. Lien suggested that rather than identifying specific zones, they could prohibit MMVs from locating within a certain distance from any festival in Edmonds. The Board agreed that the language should be changed to prohibit MMVs from operating within ¼ mile of any festival in Edmonds where food providers are required to pay a fee to participate. • ECC 4.12.030.A and ECC 4.12.050. Vice Chair Stewart said she understands that a background check would be done for each vendor. However, she felt the term “investigation” was a bit off putting. She asked how other jurisdictions refer to the background check requirement. Board Member Reed suggested that “investigation” may be a commonly used police term. Changing the term may go beyond the Board’s purview. Mr. Lien agreed to contact the City Clerk for feedback. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that, if determined appropriate, the term should be changed to the more friendly term “background check” throughout the document. The Board agreed. • ECC 4.12.055.J. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the language in this section could be more positive. She recommended it be amended to read, “Street vendors may operate in parks if they have a concession agreement with the City of Edmonds to operate on a specific park property.” The Board agreed the change would be appropriate. • ECC 4.12.055.M.1. Board Member Johnson questioned the appropriateness of requiring City Council review and approval for requests for sites abutting public land owned by the City. She suggested that this requirement would be excessive, particularly given that the Development Services Director has the authority to use discretionary judgment. Mr. Lien said this is existing code language. He agreed to review the language further and provide additional feedback to the Board. • ECC 4.12.055.O. Board Member Johnson requested clarification about the size limitation contained in this section. Mr. Lien pointed out that the size limitation refers to NMVs and not MMVs, and is based on existing code language. Board Member Johnson asked if the proposed language identifies size limits for MMVs. Mr. Lien answered that none have been proposed. However, the code does require that MMVs be commercially manufactured vehicles. To make the language clearer, Mr. Lien agreed to renumber ECC 4.12.055.O to be ECC 4.12.055.N.3. The Board agreed that the draft language, as updated per the Board’s comments, and prepare to move forward to a public hearing. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING AT 8:57 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:06 P.M. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT BED AND BREAKFAST REGULATIONS AND OPTIONS FOR CLARIFYING THEM (FILE NUMBER AMD20120001) Mr. Clugston said the City recently received a request from someone who wants to operate a bed and breakfast (B&B) in a residential zone. He explained that while the current code allows B&Bs within single-family residential zones, the use is not defined and there are only limited standards and criteria for how they should be reviewed and approved. He referred to the flow chart in Attachment 1, which attempts to visually outline the current regulations. He explained that in some cases (more than one room), a business license would be required. In other cases (one room), an applicant would be required to register as a transient accommodation. Attachment 2 was created by the Fire Department in 1986 to identify what should be included as part of a transient accommodation review. He said that the current Fire Marshall pointed out that when the transient accommodations language was approved in 1995, there were 10 B&Bs operating in the City, and now there is only one. He said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is for the Board to review what currently exists and provide direction to staff on how to move forward. Possible outcomes include: • No Change. Although the current regulations are difficult to follow, there is a process in place whereby a resident can establish a B&B based on existing code. Producing a handout for applicants that includes the definitions and describes the relationship between the disparate parts of the code would help an applicant. However, there would still be no review criteria and standards. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 133 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Reidy inquired regarding the process for getting his proposed amendments on the Planning Board’s agenda for consideration. Mr. Lien answered that any citizen can propose an amendment to the ECDC, but there is an associated fee ($1,000 to $2,000). The other option is for citizens to approach the City Council with a request for them to direct the staff and Planning Board to pursue a code amendment. He noted that Mr. Reidy’s comments would be included in the Board’s minutes, which are forwarded to the City Council. Chair Lovell suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment that was advertised for public hearing. The issues raised by Mr. Reidy could be addressed as a separate item. Board Member Johnson asked if Mr. Reidy is in support of the proposed amendment. Mr. Reidy answered affirmatively. He added that he intends to approach City Council with a request to sponsor his proposed amendments. Board Member Cloutier suggested that, as per RCW 35.79.030, the correct term to use in ECDC 20.70.140.A.3 is “owners of property abutting upon the street or alleyway or part thereof so vacated.” Mr. Reidy explained that, typically, the underlying fee titles for rights-of-way are owned by adjacent property owners. However, this ownership is subordinate to the public’s right for ingress and egress over the property. When streets and alleys are vacated, they go back to the owner of the underlying fee title. He agreed that the term used in RCW 35.79.030 would be more appropriate than “applicant.” THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment that was advertised for public hearing, as well as the two amendments brought forward by Mr. Reidy. Chair Lovell questioned the Board’s ability to amend the language above and beyond what was outlined in the public notice. Mr. Lien read the public notice, which was specifically related to the proposed amendment. Chair Lovell noted that the City Council’s memorandum was also specific to just the proposed amendment. CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (ECDC 20.70.090.A) TO PROVIDE EXPANDED NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET VACATIONS (FILE NUMBER AMD20120003) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. After discussing the best approach for moving the amendments proposed by Mr. Reidy forward, the Board agreed to recommend that the City Council task the Board to hold a public hearing on the following two changes, which are consistent with RCW 35.79.030: 1. In ECDC 20.70.030 add “construction, repair and maintenance of” prior to “public utilities and services.” 2. In ECDC 20.70.140.A.3 change “applicant” to “owners of property abutting upon the street or alley or part thereof so vacated.” PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND PORTIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS (FILE NUMBER AMD20100012 Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed the proposed amendments (Attachments 1 and 2) on February 8th and March 28th. He explained that, at this time, there is conflicting and confusing language with the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vending (MMV) units are an allowed activity in Edmonds. He explained that ECC 4.12 allows peddlers, but the language was directed more towards non- motorized mobile vending (NMMV) units. There were also conflicts in ECDC 16, which restricts uses to those that are carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building. As directed by the City Council, the intent of the proposed amendments is to make it clear that MMV units are permitted within the City of Edmonds. He reviewed the changes that were made to ECC 4.12 and ECDC 16 as directed by the Board on March 28th:  Separate definitions were provided for MMV and NMMV units. The definition for MMV unit was broadened to allow MMV units to sell other items besides food and beverages. He referred to a memorandum from Board Member Johnson 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 134 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 5 expressing the concern of some downtown merchants about the proposal to allow MMV units to sell a variety of merchandise that could end up competing against existing businesses. He said he forwarded the proposed changes to both the Downtown Edmonds Merchant’s Association (DEMA) and the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, but he has not received a response for either group.  Staff recommended and the Board agreed that the design review requirement for MMV units (ECC 4.12.055.A) should be eliminated because no design standards are in place for which to base design review. However, in order to ensure that MMV units are of a certain quality and appearance, staff proposed additional language (ECC 4.12.055.B) that required all MMV units to be commercially manufactured vehicles. A definition for “commercially manufactured vehicle” was also added to ECC 4.12.010.E. However, staff is now recommending that this requirement be eliminated because it would be very difficult to enforce and may end up discouraging the use. Mr. Lien explained that the goal of the proposed language was to prevent old recreational vehicles from being converted into food trucks, since some conversions can be unattractive. He provided pictures of several different MMV units to illustrate the wide variety of vehicles the City can anticipate; some were commercially manufactured and others were conversions. He requested feedback from the Board as to whether the code should include some language to prohibit old recreational vehicles that are converted into MMV units. Board Member Tibbott suggested that one option would be to require that MMVs be street legal. He suggested this could help prohibit ill constructed and/or poorly designed vehicles. Mr. Lien pointed out that all MMVs must be street legal in order to use public streets to relocate from place to place. Vice Chair Stewart asked how the City could ensure that an MMV unit is safe if it is not required to be commercially manufactured. Board Member Johnson suggested that one approach to address the issue would be to add a separate definition (ECC 4.12.010.F) for “converted or retrofitted MMV units.” Mr. Lien cautioned that the Board should first determine whether or not it is appropriate to allow converted or retrofitted MMV units to operate in the City. Board Member Cloutier said it is more important to ensure that MMV units are street safe and meet Snohomish County health standards. The appearance of the vehicle is the owner’s responsibility, and the City should not be in the business of regulating what vehicles look like. He noted that the City does not regulate the appearance of any other type of vehicle or even single-family homes. The Board agreed to delete ECC 4.12.010.E and ECC 4.12.055.B.  Mr. Lien said he spoke to the City Clerk about the Board’s recommendation to change the language contained in ECC 4.12.050 related to “investigation of applicants.” She indicated that the term “investigation” has been used without issue for numerous years and should not be changed. She also recommended that language protecting vendors who are invited to park next to the fireworks display should also be maintained.  Mr. Lien said the Board had a lot of discussion about the different zones where MMV and NMMV units should be allowed. The Board agreed they wanted to allow them in most commercial zones, so all BD zones were added to ECC 4.12.055.A.1 and ECC 4.12.055.A.2. The Board also previously agreed that MMV units should not be allowed to locate in spaces identified for public parking. He said he forwarded the proposed language to both DEMA and the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, but he did not receive a response.  Mr. Lien said that, as per the Board’s direction, the language in ECC 4.12.055.J was softened. As proposed, street vendors would be allowed to operate in parks if they have a concession agreement with the City of Edmonds.  Mr. Lien advised that ECC 4.12.055.P was amended at the Board’s request to prohibit MMV units from operating within one-quarter mile of a special event where food providers are required to pay a fee to participate (i.e. Taste of Edmonds, Edmonds Arts Festival). Board Member Ellis asked if there are defined boundaries for each of the special events. Mr. Lien said the special event permits specify the boundaries for each event.  Mr. Lien said that ECC 4.12.065.D was added to identify hours of operation for MMV and NMMV units. As proposed MMV and NMMV units that are located directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property may not operate between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. NMMV and MMV units that are not located directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 135 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 6 may not operate between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. He noted that, as recommended by the Board, this language is consistent with the hours of operation for outdoor dining. Board Member Reed requested clarification about the intent of ECC 4.12.055.K. Mr. Lien said this provision prohibits street vendors in residentially-zoned areas or unzoned properties or rights-of-way adjacent to or abutting residentially-zoned areas. He explained that there are commercially-zoned properties directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties, and MMV units would have to be located on commercially-zoned properties and not within the right-of-way. Vice Chair Stewart referred to ECC 4.12.065.C, which identifies hours of operation for peddlers and solicitors. She asked if MMV and NMMV units would also be considered peddlers. If so, the hours of operation identified in ECC 4.12.065.C are inconsistent with the hours of operation identified in ECC 4.12.065.D. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the definition for peddler and solicitor requires them to go from place to place to sell items, and this is different than MMV and NMMV units. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the word “downtown’ is misspelled in ECC 4.12.055.A.1. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that ECC 4.12.055.E should be further amended by adding “and/or recycle” before the word “container.” Board Member Cloutier questioned if the City can require an MMV unit to provide a recycling container. He also expressed concern that using the word “or” could imply that an MMV unit can provide either a recycling or a refuse container. The Board asked staff to further amend the language to “encourage recycle containers.” Ronnie Morgan, Sumner, said he owns a 1976 GMC that runs on propane, as does the refrigerator and the generator. He explained that the vehicle was not originally designed to be an MMV unit, but it has been modified by a professional company that is certified by the state. He said he is thinking about doing business in Edmonds, and he supports the proposed changes. He said he particularly supports the Board’s decision to eliminate language that would require all MMV units to be commercially manufactured. Mr. Morgan referred to ECC 4.12.055.M, which requires a vendor to obtain approval from abutting property owners in order to locate an MMV or an NMMV. He questioned what would happen if a MMV operator obtains a permit to operate on a private commercial property, but then an adjacent property owner decides he doesn’t want the unit located next to his/her property. Would the license be revoked by the City; and if so, would the City refund the permit fee? Board Member Cloutier pointed out that this language is intended to apply to street vendors and NMMV units only. MMV operators would be required to obtain permission from the owner of property where the unit is located but would not have to obtain approval from adjacent property owners. Mr. Lien agreed and said he would rework the language to make it clearer. Mr. Morgan noted that the proposed language requires a fee for a one-year permit. He asked if there is a different and less costly permit for MMV operators who want to locate in Edmonds for just a few days per year. Mr. Lien said that only one- year permits would be available. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he recently visited Portland, Oregon, where they have identified an area for MMV units to all locate in one place. Because the units are clustered together, there is a lot of activity. He suggested the City also consider opportunities to cluster the units together into one area or one zone. Don Hall, Edmonds, reported that at the last DEMA meeting, concern was expressed about allowing MMV units to sell items that are not food related. Allowing these types of units could compete directly with existing businesses such as dress shops, jewelry stores, etc. They are concerned that an existing retailer could close shop and set up an MMV unit to avoid having to pay overhead costs such as rent and utilities. He said his garden store already has competition from vendors who participate in the local Saturday Farmer’s Market because they are allowed to sell other items in addition to produce. He said he does not want the City to encourage more competition than what already exists. He agreed to ask DEMA to provide an official response to the proposed amendments. Mr. Hall said he is not opposed to allowing MMV units that sell food to locate on City streets in visible locations since this will encourage more people to come to Edmonds and make the BD zones more vibrant and exciting. Downtown Edmonds needs to provide more reasons for people to come out of their homes and visit the various businesses. He said he has operated a business in Edmonds for the past 13 years; and at certain times each year, he loses nearly all his parking. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 136 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 7 However, his customers do not complain. He suggested that customers are willing to walk to a business that provides good customer service and the right prices. Again, he said he would support allowing MMV units to locate on City streets rather than limiting them to private parking areas. Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, the Commission discussed allowing MMV units to sell more than just food and beverages. As a result, the definition of MMV was expanded to include other items. Chair Lovell agreed that the Board expanded the language to include the possibility for vending other than food, but they left it open for the City Council to decide if they want to restrict certain types of MMV and NMMV units based upon zoning. For example, MMV units that sell items other than food could be restricted from certain zones to avoid competition with existing retailers. Board Member Reed noted that the “e” should be removed from the word “therefore” in ECC 4.12.040.A. He also noted that the word “on” should be deleted from ECC 4.12.055.A. Lastly, he suggested that ECC 4.12.055.A.1 and ECC 4.12.055.A.2 could be combined since NMMV and MMV units are allowed in the same zones. The Board concurred. Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is requesting that the document be updated for further review with the following changes:  Eliminate ECC 4.12.010.E and ECC 4.12.055.B.  Remove “e” from “therefore” in ECC 4.12.040.A.  Eliminate the word “on” from ECC 4.12.055.A.  Combine ECC 4.12.055.A.1 and ECC 4.12.055.A.2.  Change “design” to “designed” in ECC 4.12.010.C.  Add language to “encourage recycling” in ECC 4.12.055.E.  Correct the spelling of “Downtown” in ECC 4.12.055.A.1.  Modify ECC 4.12.055.M to make it clear that MMV operators do not need to obtain permission from adjacent property owners. Mr. Morgan referred to previous language that would limit the amount of advertising an MMV unit would be allowed to have. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECC 4.12.055.D limits the amount of advertising that NMMV units are allowed to have, but there would be no specific restriction for signage on MMV units. Mr. Morgan said one of the advantages of having an MMV business is he is not tied to one location. He can locate in a busy area of town for the morning, and then move to another location or perhaps deliver coffee to businesses. However, he expressed concern that the City’s current code would not allow him to deliver coffee to offices throughout Edmonds. He suggested the Board take into consideration that MMV units move around to provide a service to people. For example, they could consider allowing a lunch truck to go into a residential neighborhood to serve construction worker during the lunch hour. Board Member Ellis asked how the City regulates ice cream trucks. Chair Lovell recalled that this issue was raised at a previous meeting, and Mr. Chave responded that ice cream trucks would not be regulated by the subject ordinance. Mr. Lien agreed to research the issue further and report back to the Board. Board Member Johnson said she subscribes to the Seattle Met Newsletter, which contains articles each week about food trucks. She also provided pictures of food trucks she has collected for informational purposes. She announced that the May 2012 edition of the Seattle Met Magazine features the food truck industry. She agreed to share the magazine with interested Board Members. She said she has researched the food truck industry and found there are four different types:  Food trucks located in parking lots.  Food trucks that pay for the privilege of occupying parking space on the street.  Food trucks that are clustered together in a designated area.  Food trucks that are operated during special events that are intended just for food trucks. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 137 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 8 Board Member Johnson reported that she sent an email to former members of the CEDC regarding this issue, but she has not received a response yet. She agreed it would be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow for additional discussion. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 2012. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 8:50 TO 9:02 PM. CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE Mr. Lien referred the Board to the most current draft of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) dated April, 2012 (Attachment 1). He specifically referred to the definition section and advised that a definition was added for “shore setback,” and the definition for buffer was modified. He explained that the old definition for “buffer” was taken from the City’s Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), and the new definition is more appropriate in the shoreline context and draws the distinction between “buffer’ and “setback.” He reminded the Board that they also suggested that a definition be added for “high-intensity.” He said he electronically searched the draft SMP and found that the term is only used once to differentiate between the Aquatic I and Aquatic II Environments. Because it is not used elsewhere in the SMP, staff did not feel it was necessary to add a definition. He said he also electronically searched the draft SMP for the term “buffer” and found there was only once instance where “buffer” was used incorrectly. He explained that the term “buffer” is used in two different ways in the SMP: when referring to landscape requirements to “buffer” a use from an adjacent property and when referring to the more visual critical area buffer. The term is used correctly throughout the document. Mr. Lien provided visuals depicting proposed shoreline jurisdictions, shore setbacks and buffers conceptually and actual locations within the City’s shoreline areas. Chair Lovell said it would be helpful for staff to provide a legend for the drawings so that each of various buffer requirements can be easily identified. Mr. Lien reviewed each of the drawings, explaining how the SMP and CAO requirements would be applied in each situation as follows: 1. Shoreline area near Water Street. Within this 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, a 50-foot setback from the top of the bluff would be required. An additional 15-foot building setback would also be required. While the current SMP allows development to occur within the buffer, a geotechnical report would be required. The proposed SMP would also allow development to occur closer than 50 feet, but a shoreline variance would be required. He explained that, initially, the DOE wanted to prohibit development closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff, but they later added a variance process. Board Member Tibbott questioned what the proposed SMP would accomplish because the shoreline is already developed to a great extent. Mr. Lien explained that the Department of Ecology (DOE) envisions an environment that is natural. Along the City’s shoreline there are railroad tracks, a bluff and houses built right on top of the bluff. Because the environment along the shoreline has already been altered, the ideal situation is to limit future development/redevelopment so there is “no net loss.” 2. Lake Ballinger. The shore setback from Lake Ballinger is 35 feet, and it is also fringed with Category III Wetlands that require a 50-foot buffer. Although shore setback requirements allow development to occur closer to 50 feet, the CAO does not allow development to occur within a wetland buffer. The CAO also requires a 15-foot building setback. 3. Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square. While the CAO is associated with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP, they do not always mix. The State has made it clear that GMA rules apply to wetlands outside of the shoreline jurisdictions, and the CAO requires a 200-foot buffer for a Type I Wetland. The SMP’s wetland buffer for the marsh is based on best available science for small jurisdictions, which identifies a 150-foot buffer for estuarine wetlands. He explained that, previously, the marsh was identified as an associated wetland, but the proposed SMP now identifies a portion of the marsh as shoreline. That means the SMP would prevail to create different buffers for the areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Currently, the SMP identifies a 25-foot shore setback. Activities are allowed within the developed portion of the buffer as long as the footprint does not expand. No structures would be allowed within the undeveloped buffer areas. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 138 of 380 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2012 Page 3 Vice Chair Stewart asked if adjacent property owners would have any recourse if ECDC 20.23.040.D is eliminated and parking associated with a B&B becomes a problem. Mr. Clugston pointed out that, depending on the location, B&Bs could utilize on-street parking to meet their parking requirement. If off-street parking is required, the code would not prohibit a property owner from creating a large parking area to accommodate numerous cars. The parking provisions do not specify the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. He expressed his belief that parking problems would be very unlikely give the size of typical B&Bs. If parking becomes a problem, the provisions could be updated at a later time to address the concerns. The Board concurred that the number of non-resident employees should not be limited. However, they agreed to retain ECDC 20.23.040.D to call the City Council’s attention to the change. They recommended that the language be changed to read, “A bed and breakfast may employ non-resident employees.” Board Member Clarke questioned the need to define “private residence” (ECC 4.72.010.D) and “rental unit” (ECC 4.72.010.C). He specifically asked how the definitions are applicable to B&Bs. Mr. Clugston pointed out that these two definitions are already in place in the Edmonds City Code, and staff is not proposing any substantive changes. The intent was to make just the minor changes necessary to allow the new B&B regulations to exist. Board Member Ellis suggested that it is not within the Board’s purview to rewrite the definition section of the Edmonds City Code as part of their review of the B&B regulations. He explained that the definitions would not be included in the actual B&B code language. They were included them in the Staff Report to illustrate the changes necessary to implement the proposed new B&B language. VICE CHAIR STEWART MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE IN ECDC 20.23 (BED AND BREAKFASTS) (FILE NUMBER AMD20120001) AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AMENDED BY THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: 1. CHANGE ECDC 20.23.040.D TO READ, “A BED AND BREAKFAST MAY EMPLOY NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES.” 2. CHANGE ECDC 20.23.040.I BY ELIMINATING THE WORDS, “AT A TIME.” BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND PORTIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS (FILE NUMBER AMD20100012 Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board began discussions about Motorized Mobile Vendors (MMV) on February 8th, and they directed staff to evaluate appropriate zones and areas for MMVs and revise ECC 4.12 accordingly. Staff presented the proposed updates to the Board on March 28th, and a public hearing was held on May 9th. After the hearing, the Board identified additional changes. He referred the Commission to the draft amendments to ECC 4.12 (Attachment 1) and the draft amendments to ECDC 16 (Attachment 2), which incorporate the following changes requested by the Commission: Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is requesting that the document be updated for further review with the following changes:  ECC 4.12.010.E and ECC 4.12.055.B were eliminated  The “e” was removed from “therefore” in ECC 4.12.040.A.  The word “on” was eliminated from ECC 4.12.055.A.  ECC 4.12.055.A.1 and ECC 4.12.055.A.2 were combined because MMVs and Non-Motorized mobile Vendors (NMMVs) would be permitted in the same zones.  The word “design” was changed to “designed” in ECC 4.12.010.C.  Language was added in ECC 4.12.55.D to encourage recycling. The first sentence of this provision was changed to read, “. . . and vendor must provide a refuse container and is encouraged to provide containers for recycling.”  The spelling of word “downtown” was corrected in ECC 4.12.055.A.1.  ECC 4.12.055.L was modified to make it clear that MMV operators do not need to obtain permission from adjacent property owners when locating on private property, but permission from abutting property owners would be required 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 139 of 380 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2012 Page 4 when locating on a sidewalk within the right-of-way. To clarify concerns raised by Ronnie Morgan at the public hearing, this provision was changed to read, “The applicant shall submit with his application a copy of the written approval for the vending site from the property owner when locating on private property. When locating on a sidewalk within the right-of-way, the applicant shall have written approval for the vending site from the abutting property owner and/or tenant.” Board Member Clarke asked if the language would allow MMVs to locate on public properties. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECC 4.12.055.I would allow street vendors to operate in parks if they have a concession agreement with City of Edmonds. Board Member Clarke pointed out that there are other public-owned properties that are not “parks” where MMVs could be an appropriate use such as the Port of Edmonds, the Public Safety Complex, the hospital, schools, etc. He questioned why MMVs should be prohibited from these locations. He said he would be in favor of expanding the envelope of where MMVs would be allowed to locate. Mr. Lien responded that it would not be appropriate to allow MMVs to locate in the Public Safety Complex parking lot on weekdays because the parking area is very busy during when court is in session. However, MMVs could locate in this parking lot as part of the Saturday Summer Market or some other organized special event. Mr. Lien explained that ECC 4.12.055.A.1 lists the zones where MMVs would be allowed. The Port property is currently zoned General Commercial (CG), which is one of the zones where MMVs would be allowed to locate. If the Board wants to allow MMVS on hospital and other publicly-owned properties, they could do so by amending ECC 4.12.055.A.1 to add Medical Use (MU) and Public (P) zoning. However, he acknowledged the issue could be more difficult to address for school properties that are located in residential zones. Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the Port of Edmonds is in the process of developing a new Harbor Square Master Plan, and it is likely the master plan will be followed by a request to rezone the property to some type of mixed-use zoning so that allows residential development. He also reminded the Board that MMVs would not be allowed to locate in residential zones. Mr. Lien cautioned against creating code language to address a future potential rezone application. If the Port’s property is rezoned at some point in the future, the Board could consider amending ECC 4.12 to allow MMVs to locate in the newly created zone. Board Member Clarke specifically referred to the old Woodway High School site, which has split zoning of residential and open space. Mr. Lien said that, as currently proposed, MMVs would not be allowed to locate on this property because it is located in a residential zone. However, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working on plans to develop the property as a recreational site that would be classified as a park. If this redevelopment occurs, MMVs would be allowed to operate on the site through a concession agreement. Mr. Lien explained that the proposed language greatly expands the potential for MMVs to locate in Edmonds, but he cautioned that adding language to capture each and every possible situation could make the code difficult to interpret and have a negative impact on the City’s ability to encourage the use in desirable areas. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that the code language should be written now to accommodate all potential uses the market will support. Rather than limiting the use by zone, they could limit the use based on ownership. Regardless of zoning, each public agency could have the ability to decide whether or not they want to allow MMVs on their property. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the original intent was to limit MMVs to business zones. Expanding the use to residential zones has never been part of the discussion. Again, he said it is impossible to capture each situation, but the proposed language would cover the majority of MMV requests. Board Member Clarke asked if MMVs would be allowed on the Sewer Treatment Plan property and the old Public Works property that is located near the Wade James Theater. Mr. Lien answered that these two properties would be addressed by ECC 4.12.055.L.1 because they are both owned by the City. Board Member Ellis asked if the school district determines what uses can occur on their properties. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively, but added that the uses must still comply with adopted City codes. The same is true for the Port of Edmonds. Board Member Ellis asked who would be responsible for issuing approval of an MMV to locate on Port property. Mr. Lien answered that the Port would be treated as a private property owner, and permission from the Port would be required. Once again, he said a concession agreement from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department would be required in order for an MMV to locate on park property. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 140 of 380 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2012 Page 5 Board Member Reed suggested that, rather than trying to “cherry pick” each zone that could be a problem, a new section could be added similar to ECC 4.12.055.L.1 that talks about other public-owned properties. This new language could make it clear that permission from the public entity that owns the property would be required prior to permit approval by the City. The remainder of the Board concurred. To make the language clearer, Mr. Lien suggested that the first sentence of ECC 4.12.055.L.1 should be changed by adding “is on or” between the words “site” and “abuts.” The Board concurred. They also agreed that the Medical Use (MU) and Public (P) zones should be added to ECC 4.12.055.A.1. Board Member Tibbott asked if the proposed language would require an MMV that moves to various locations throughout the City to obtain a permit for each location. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and explained that ice cream trucks and other MMVs that are continually moving would require a peddler’s license from the City. Board Member Tibbott asked if NMMVs would be allowed to move from location to location without getting a separate permit for each location. Mr. Lien answered that a permit would be required for each location in which the NMMV remains for more than two hours. He emphasized no changes have been proposed to the NMMV provisions. Board Member Ellis referred to ECC 4.12.010.C and asked if there is a provision that outlines what “other goods and services” would be allowed. He asked if an MMV would be allowed to sell clothing. Mr. Lien recalled that this additional language was added by the Board at a previous meeting to allow MMVs to sell items other than food. Board Member Ellis said he is not opposed to allowing MMVs to sell items other than food, but it is important to understand that the proposed language would allow MMV’s to sell just about anything. Mr. Lien noted that the proposed language does prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. However, he acknowledged there is no language elsewhere in the code that would further limit what an MMV could sell. Board Member Ellis said the appeal procedure outlined in ECC 4.12.085 was set up before the language was rewritten to require approval from the entity that owns a public property. He asked if an MMV operator could appeal a public entity’s decision to decline their request. Mr. Lien said this provision pertains to business licenses and outlines the process for solicitor and peddler’s licenses regardless of who owns the property. There would be no appeal process if a property owner (public or private) and/or tenant denies an MMV operator’s request. The property owner or tenant’s decision would be final. Board Member Ellis suggested that ECC 4.12.055.J should be amended to make it clear that street vendors are prohibited in three specific areas: residentially-zoned properties, unzoned properties abutting the residentially zoned areas, and right-of- way adjacent to or abutting the residentially zoned areas. The Board agreed to change the provision to read,” Street vendors are prohibited in residentially zoned areas, and unzoned property or right-of-way adjacent to or abutting the residentially zoned areas.” They agreed to amend ECC 4.12.055.L by deleting the word “within’ after “locating” and by deleting the words “from the” after “vending site.” They further agreed to amend ECC 4.12.055.A.1 by replacing “CC” with “CG.” AS THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF FILE NUMBER AMD 20100012, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PORTIONS OF ECDC TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECC 4.12 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AMENDED BY THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: 1. ADD A NEW PROVISION SIMILAR TO ECC 4.12.055.L.1 THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES OTHER PUBLIC-OWNED PROPERTIES. 2. CHANGE ECC 4.12.055.L.1 BY ADDING “IS ON OR” BETWEEN THE WORDS “SITE” AND “ABUTS.” 3. CHANGE ECC 4.12.055.A.1 TO ADD THE MEDICAL USE (MU) AND PUBLIC (P) ZONES. 4. CHANGE ECC 4.12.055.J TO READ, “STREET VENDORS ARE PROHIBITED IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS, AND UNZONED PROPERTY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS.” 5. CHANGE ECC 4.12.055.l BY DELETING THE WORD “WITHIN” AFTER “LOCATING” AND BE DELETING THE WORDS “FROM THE” AFTER “VENDING SITE.” 6. CHANGE ECC 4.121.055.A.1 BY REPLACING “CC” WITH “CG.” CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 141 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 7 group that has walked and photographed Perrinville Creek from the head to the outlet; the photographs are available on their website. In the next few weeks there are plans to discuss Perrinville Creek drainage and sediment with Lynnwood. I just wanted to share that information with all of you. And I think if we can just get all these facts together in one document, get it presented to the Council, then that would be one step closer to making this decision. It may not be necessary to wait a year, if we can move forward and get this information compiled, then it can either go to your subcommittee for review or it could go to the whole Council, I’ll leave that up to your decision. She agreed additional time was needed to study the issue. Councilmember Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, explained WRIA 8 received grant funding for the Edmonds Marsh last year. Staff plans to bring some of the smaller watersheds to WRIA 8’s attention. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON JULY 10 AND FULL COUNCIL ON JULY 17. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have it come to full Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE MATTER COME TO COUNCIL ON JULY 17. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 5. UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND PORTIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS. (FILE NO. AMD20100012) Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained the City continues to receive requests from persons who wish to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within the City. ECC 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. Under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitor’s license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the ECDC, many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 142 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 8 restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” and vehicles do not fit that definition. While a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitor’s license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently exists, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. At the July 19 Council meeting, the Council directed staff to update relevant sections of ECC and ECDC to make it clear that motorized mobile vending units are permitted in the City. In addition to amending ECC 4.12, Title 16 of the ECDC also needed to be updated; therefore this was taken to the Planning Board for their consideration. While the Planning Board would not normally review changes to ECC, there is significant overlap between allowing motorized mobile vending units in ECC 4.12 and how that use relates to other provisions within ECDC, therefore, the Planning Board reviewed proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Board discussed possible amendments to allow motorized mobile vending units during four meetings – two workshops, a public hearing and a continued public hearing. The Planning Board highlighted two items for discussion before City Council, 1) what zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in, and 2) whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units. Mr. Lien reviewed proposed changes to ECC 4.12: • Added definition for motorized mobile vending units o In its current form would allow more than just food trucks • Zones where vending units were allowed to operate were removed from the definition of street vendor and moved into ECC 4.12.055 • Removed requirement for Architectural Design Board (ADB) review o No criteria was associated with requirement • Section 4.12.055 o Subsection B.1 – details zones vending units would be allowed to operate in o Subsection I – states vending units may operate in parks with a concessions agreement o Subsection L – requires written permission from property owner when locating on private property or permission from the City when locating on or next to City property o New subsection M – requires a circulation plan when mobile vending units locate in parking lots to ensure mobile vending units do not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. If locating in a parking lot, the business still is required to have sufficient parking to meet their parking requirements per the code o New Subsection O – requires mobile vending units be ¼ mile away from special events such as Taste of Edmonds or Edmonds Arts Festival • 4.12.065 o New Subsection D, mobile vending units hours of operation (correlate with outdoor dining) Mr. Lien reviewed revisions to Title 16: • Added exceptions that would allow motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units to operate within the operating restrictions of the BD, BC, CW and CG zones. Mr. Lien explained after reading the Council agenda memo, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock suggested the following amendment (this was not reviewed by the Planning Board): • Add a new subsection to ECC 4.12.020 that specifies that vendors must report any sales made within the City to the Department of Revenue as sales that occur in the City to ensure the City receives sales tax from vending unit sales. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 143 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Lien referred to one of the items highlighted by the Planning Board regarding which zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in. He referred to an email from Randy and Brooke Baker, Chanterelle Restaurant, who were opposed to allowing mobile vending units to operate in the downtown area. He explained earlier drafts of ECC 4.12 had different operating restrictions for nonmotorized units versus motorized units. As the Planning Board discussed it further, they broadened the areas that should be allowed and ultimately recommended allowing them nearly everywhere and to allow the market to determine where food trucks would be located. Mr. Lien reviewed the second item the Planning Board highlighted, whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units, explaining there have been some inquires about operating other types of business from mobile units such as a mobile boutique. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the only requirement other than reporting sales tax would be a $200 annual fee. Mr. Lien advised each mobile vending unit would be required to pay a $200 annual fee. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained a solicitor is different than a street vendor. There is currently a $25 fee plus a $10 investigation fee for a solicitor plus $8 per individual. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about health code inspections. Mr. Lien explained the food trucks would be required to obtain health permits from Snohomish County. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $200 annual fee was the proposed fee or the current fee. Mr. Lien answered that was in the existing code. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was in addition to a business license. Ms. Chase answered it was in lieu of a business license. A business license is generally for a business in an established location. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost of a business license. Ms. Chase answered a new commercial business license is $125; a home business license is $100; renewals are $50. Councilmember Bloom asked why the annual fee for a mobile vending unit was higher than the business license. Ms. Chase answered the $200 fee is for a street vendor which is quite different than a solicitor. Mr. Lien read the proposed language, for each mobile vending unit there shall also be an annual fee of $200. Ms. Chase explained the one mobile vending unit in the City, Here and There, only has a solicitor’s license ($25 annual fee plus $8 per employee) and does not have a street vendor’s license. The $200 fee was previously for a use such as an espresso cart in front of a business which would have required ADB review. Mr. Lien explained the ADB review was removed; one of the reviews that would be required under the proposed amendments would be in regard to parking, ECC 4.12.055.M.1, “…The location and circulation plan shall require approval by the city traffic engineer to ensure the vending unit will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety.” Councilmember Bloom asked about Public zoned property. Mr. Lien identified Public zoned properties downtown which include the wastewater treatment plant, the old Public Works site, Brackett’s Landing, and Olympic Beach. In order to locate in a Public zoned property, most of which are parks, the mobile vending unit would also need a concessions agreement. This issue was initially considered along with the concessions agreement but required Planning Board review. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board thought the high school which is also Public zoned may want to allow mobile vending units. A new section L.2 was added that addresses public-owned properties. Councilmember Petso asked about the protection of existing businesses. For example she envisioned Burger King and Dairy Queen near the high school would not be interested in having food trucks at the high school property. She asked whether there was any language that would prevent food trucks from locating within a certain distance of a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that was not 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 144 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 10 specifically addressed. There is language that requires nonmotorized vending units locating in the right- of-way to get permission of the abutting property owner. A vending unit locating on private property would only be required to get permission from the property owner. In accordance with Planning Board direction, the first draft of the zones where motorized vending units would be allowed would have prohibited them within the BD1 zone to prevent competition with restaurants. Initially motorized vending units were only allowed in the BD2 and BD3 zones. As the Planning Board discussed this further, they decided to allow motorized vending units in all commercial zones and allow the market place to decide where they would locate. Councilmember Petso observed one option would be to limit motorized vending units to certain zones. She asked if the Council could establish a distance from a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that could be done; Seattle’s code has language regarding the distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Petso observed that would be subject to interpretation with regard to what was a competing restaurant. Mr. Lien suggested a distance would be easier; it would be measured from the outside parcel line. Councilmember Petso pointed out many of the City’s commercial areas are adjacent to residential. She suggested establishing a distance requirement so that a motorized vending unit did not park outside a residence. Mr. Lien agreed that could be added. The hours of operation differ if a motorized vending unit is located next to residential property. If surrounded by commercial property, the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.; next to residential zoned property the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Petso cited Firdale Village as an example where a distance from a residence requirement would be appropriate. Councilmember Petso referred to the elimination of the requirement for ADB review. She asked if that eliminated any ability to regulate how the trucks look. Mr. Lien displayed several photographs of motorized vending units. He explained there were no criteria associated with the ADB review. One of the initial requirements that accompanied removal of the ADB review was to require motorized vending units be manufactured for that purpose. However, one of the characteristics of the food trucks is their artistic value. Many are conversions of utility trucks or RVs. One of the people who testified before the Planning Board had an RV that was converted by a company that specializes in converting RVs to food trucks. The Planning Board recognized the artistic value of the trucks and decided not to have any criteria with regard to their appearance. Councilmember Petso observed standards would need to be established if the ADB review were reinstated. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Petso inquired about tables, chairs, awnings, etc. around food trucks. Mr. Lien answered that was addressed by the parking requirement; a food truck could not occupy so much space that the business no longer met its parking requirements. The regulations also require motorized vending units to pick everything up each evening. He noted motorized vending units operate in different ways, some move around to different locations throughout the day and some establish themselves in one place. The Planning Board envisioned a temporary location where the motorized vending unit would park for a few hours and move on to another site. Councilmember Petso commented she was familiar with one of the parking lots used by Here and There. She asked if motorized vending units, tables, chairs, etc. could occupy half the parking lot if the building only needed the other half to meet its parking requirement. Mr. Lien answered yes; as long as they met the parking requirements and received circulation approval from the traffic engineer. They would still be required to pick up everything when they leave each day. Councilmember Yamamoto expressed concern with a food truck locating next to an established business. Although he supported entrepreneurship, it is important to recognize that people are establishing their 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 145 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 11 businesses and paying rent. He was aware of only one motorized vending unit, Here and There, and asked if there had been an influx of requests. Mr. Lien answered Here and There was the first one and that was when the conflicts were discovered. There have been 3-4 additional inquiries from food trucks and a mobile boutique. Councilmember Yamamoto asked about the agreement to locate on private property. Mr. Lien answered the agreement with the property owner is outside the City’s permitting process. A signed letter of approval would need to accompany their application. Councilmember Yamamoto reiterated his primary concern was a mobile vending unit locating close to an established business. For example, if he had a restaurant, he would not want a sandwich truck locating across the street. Mr. Lien explained there is currently no requirement for separation from a business. The only separation requirement is for special events downtown; similar language could be drafted to establish distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso regarding distance from residential areas, commenting motorized vending units would be inappropriate in neighborhoods. She urged caution with determining where a motorized vending units could locate, citing free competition. Using Councilmember Yamamoto’s example, she pointed out a competing business could locate across the street. She commented Edmonds is more than downtown restaurants; there are motorized vending units on Highway 99. Mr. Lien pointed out the motorized vending unit on Highway 99 is in Esperance, not Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a separation of 1 mile from a special event. She also suggested scheduling a public hearing. She cited the very different dining experience at a motorized vending unit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. Council President Peterson asked whether a food truck could park on a City street. Mr. Lien answered under the proposed language, a food truck could not park in right-of-way designed for traffic or parking. Council President Peterson relayed the concern that there would be a line of food trucks down 5th. Mr. Lien responded that would not be allowed. Council President Peterson suggested Councilmembers submit their proposed changes in writing to Mr. Lien and Mr. Lien present the revisions at a public hearing the first week of August. Councilmember Bloom referred to ECC 4.12.055.1.B, “In addition to the licensing requirements of this chapter, any street vendor shall be required to obtain a street use permit. Application fees for street use permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion…” She asked if the Council could discuss the fees. Mr. Taraday answered the City Council can always amend its fees and the Council approves its fees annually via resolution. Mr. Lien advised the last update was in 2009. The license fees for solicitors, peddlers or street vendors are established in ECC 4.12.030 and not the fee schedule. That section was last updated in 1996. Ms. Chase advised the Council could consider the fees listed in the code as part of this review. Mr. Lien advised street use permit fees are contained in the fee resolution. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Bloom reported the SeaShore meeting on the first Friday included a presentation by Climate Solutions and SSA Marine regarding coal trains and environmental impact studies that many 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 146 of 380 City of Edmonds Date: August 3, 2012 To: City Council From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Subject: Motorized Mobile Vendors ________________________________________________________________________ Introduction At the June 26, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council held a work session on the Planning Board’s recommended changes to Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 that would clarify that motorize mobile vending units are an allowed use within the City of Edmonds and add language regarding operations of motorized mobile vending units. The Planning Board’s recommendation also includes changes in the operating restrictions to certain sections of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 16 that would allow motorized mobile vendors in commercial zones. A number items were discussed at the work session, and Council President Peterson suggested Council members submit their proposed changes in writing to be incorporated at the Public Hearing. Council Members Buckshnis and Petso submitted suggested changes. Council Member Petso indicated that her proposals need not be incorporated into the code at this time, but requested they by spelled out so that the public could provide input on the ideas. The proposed amendments to the Planning Board’s recommendation are discussed below. Possible Amendments to Planning Board’s Recommendation on ECC 4.12 1. Sales Reporting. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock suggested adding language regarding reporting of sales within the City of Edmonds to ensure the City receives sales tax from vending units. A new section was added to ECC 4.12.020 with this proposed changed in the Public Hearing draft. 2. Distance from Special Events. ECC 4.12.055.O contains language regarding how far motorized mobile vendors have to be located from special events such as the Edmonds Arts Festival where food vendors pay a fee to participate. The recommendation from the Planning Board was for one quarter (1/4) mile. Council Members Buckshnis and Petso both suggested this be changed to one mile. This change was incorporated into the Public Hearing draft. MEMORANDUM 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 147 of 380 3. Limiting Motorized Mobile Vendors to Food Service. This is an item that was item that was highlighted by the Planning Board for Council consideration. Council Member Buckshnis suggested that motorized mobile vending units be limited to food service. When this item was highlighted there were no comments from the Council on the issue. Council Member Buckshnis’ suggestion has been incorporated in the Public Hearing draft of ECC 4.12, but the language that would broaden the definition of motorized mobile vending units allow the sale of other goods and services is still visible in strikethrough format. See definition in ECC 4.12.010.C. 4. Zones Where Motorized Mobile Vendors May Operate. This item was discussed at great length by the Planning Board. In particular, the Planning Board minutes from the February 8, 2012 and March 28, 2012 meetings capture these discussions. Initially, staff proposed different operating zones for motorized and nonmotorized vendors. Staff’s original proposal is below: 1. Nonmotorized mobile vending units: Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Downtown Business Zones (BD1, BD2, BD3, BD4 & BD5) Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2), Firdale Village Mixed-Use (FVMU). 2. Motorized mobile vending units: Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Downtown Business Zones (BD2, BD3), Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2), Firdale Village Mixed-Use (FVMU). As the Planning Board continued to discuss this item, they broadened the areas where motorized mobile vendor should be allowed and ultimately recommended allowing them nearly everywhere and to allow the market to determine where food trucks would be located. As the draft language currently stands, motorized mobile vendors could operate in all commercial zones as well as the Medical Use (MU) and Public Use (P) zones. Council Member Petso has suggested prohibiting motorized mobile vendors in the Neighborhood Business (BN), Downtown Retail Core (BD1), and Firdale Village Mixed Use Zones. The issue of what zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in is somewhat related to the next two items discussed below: distance from competing establishments and distance from residential properties. Staff suggests the Council discuss this item at the Public Hearing and provide staff direction. 5. Distance from Competing Establishment. This issue was raised by Council Member Petso and also discussed at the work session on June 26th. This is also an issue of concern for many jurisdictions that have developed regulations for mobile vendors. The concern is that motorized mobile vendors do not have to pay rent for a permanent establishment and may just park in front of an established business and provide unfair competition. Many jurisdictions have established a distance limit that motorized mobile vendors may operate from a competing establishment. The setbacks range from 50 feet (Seattle) to 300 feet (several jurisdictions that seem to have copied the same code.) 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 148 of 380 As noted above, this item is related to what zones the City may want to allow motorized mobile vendors to operate in. Staff’s original proposal was to prohibit motorized mobile vendors within the BD1 zone because this is a zone where there are numerous restaurants. City Council should consider this item in conjunction with what zones motorized mobile vending units are allowed to operate. 6. Distance from Residential Property. This is item was raised by Council Member Pesto at the June 26th work session (as well as her written suggestions) and her concerns were echoed by Council Member Fraley-Monillas. The concern is that many of the commercially zoned properties are located adjacent to residential property. Motorized mobile vending units are prohibited from operating within residentially zoned areas. How the Planning Board addressed this concern is with hours of operation. The hours of operation for motorized mobile vendors was lined up with operating hours for outdoor dining, which also may be located adjacent to residentially zoned property. If Council wishes, a distance from residentially zoned property may be incorporated into ECC 4.12. 7. Space Limit on Tables and Chairs. Council Member Petso raised this issue at the June 26th meeting and in her written suggestions. Staff feels this is addressed in the space that motorized mobile vendors are allowed to occupy. When locating within a parking lot on private property, the vendors are going to have to demonstrate that enough parking exists on site to meet the parking requirements for the businesses at that location. Motorized mobile vendors would also be required to submit a circulation plan for approval by the City of Edmonds’ Traffic Engineer. Motorized mobile vendors are a temporary use that is required to pick up all of their equipment when they leave the location. With the parking requirement, circulation review of the City Traffic Engineer, and the temporary nature of mobile vendors, staff does not feel this would be an issue. However, if the Council wishes, language could be added to the code that would limit the number of tables that may be set up. 8. Overall Limit on the Number of Trucks Allowed. Council Member Petso suggested adding language to limit the number of motorized mobile vehicles to ten vehicles. ECC 4.12.055.F contains the following language: The city reserves the right to limit the number of vending permit sites in any given area of the downtown. The development services director shall determine the allowable number of street vendors and shall exercise this discretion based upon the needs of the public, diversity of products offered for sale, the smooth flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and other similar considerations. If the City is going to limit the number of motorized mobile vendors, a specific number would be better than the subjective code that current exists. The Planning Board, in recommending the motorized mobile vending units be allowed to operate on all zones, suggested letting the market decide where the motorized mobile 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 149 of 380 vending units could operate. The City could also choose to let the market determine how many motorized mobile vending units the City could support. The restrictions on where motorized mobile vending can operate would work toward limiting the number units in any given area. Limiting the number of units to any specific number would be an arbitrary number. Staff recommends letting the market determine the number of vehicles and eliminating the language in ECC 4.12.055.F referenced above. If the City becomes overrun by motorized mobile vending units, this is something that may be revisited. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 150 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 1 of 8 CHAPTER 4.12 PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND STREET VENDORS 4.12.010 Definitions. A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. 1. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or peddlers are included; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed applicable to any salesman or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers in the city. 2. Any person who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, services or anything of value, stands in a doorway, any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land, or in any other place not used by such person as a permanent place of business shall be deemed a solicitor or peddler within the meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection B of this section. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from either a motorized or nonmotorized mobile vending unit. , in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds, including unzoned property or right-of- way adjacent to or abutting on commercially zoned areas, shall be deemed a street vendor subject to the regulations contained in this chapter. The commercially zoned areas are those zoned Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2). C. “Motorized mobile vending unit” means a truck, van or other motorized vehicle that: 1) incorporates a kitchen or other food preparation area from which prepared or prepackaged food may be sold, or 2) is otherwise designed to sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages, and/or other goods and services allowed by this chapter. D. “Nonmotorized Mmobile vending unit” means a cart, kiosk or other device capable of being pushed by one person, with at least two functional wheels and positive wheel-locking devices. [Ord. 3513 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 1, 1960]. 4.12.020 License required. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as solicitor, peddler or street vendor within the meaning and application of this chapter unless that person or his/her employer shall have first secured a license in the manner provided in this chapter. 1. Any person who shall sell, deliver or peddle any dairy product, meat, poultry, eel, fish, mollusk, or shellfish must first obtain a license pursuant to this chapter. 2. No licenses shall be issued or maintained for the sale of poultry or poultry products or meat or meat products which are adulterated or distributed under unsanitary conditions. 3. No licenses shall be issued for the sale of shellfish unless the vendor can produce a certificate of compliance as required by RCW 69.30.020. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 151 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 2 of 8 B. All persons acting as a solicitor, peddler or street vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations, including all Snohomish County health department requirements. [Ord. 3513 § 2, 2004; Ord. 2990 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 2, 1960]. C. All solicitors, peddlers or street vendors must report any sales made within the City of Edmonds to the Department of Revenue as sales that have occurred within the City. 4.12.030 License fees. The license fees for solicitors, peddlers or street vendors shall be as follows: A. Investigation Fee. New applications for a solicitor, peddler or street vendor license shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable investigation fee of $10.00. Except as provided in section B hereof, this investigation fee shall be tendered only with the initial application of any individual. B. Annual Fee. On January 1st of each year all solicitor, peddler and street vendor licenses shall automatically expire and be null and void unless an annual fee of $25.00 is paid to the city clerk; provided, however, for licenses issued after June 30th of any year, only one-half of the annual fee shall be required. Any license renewed after June 30th of any year shall be treated as a new application and subject to the investigation fee. For each mobile vending unit, there shall also be an annual fee of $200.00. Associated solicitor, peddlers and street vendors, and mobile vending units operated as an adjunct to an existing licensed business shall pay any fee(s) set forth in subsection C of this section. C. Associated Solicitor, Peddler and Street Vendor, and Associated Mobile Vendor Fee. An annual fee of $8.00 per year per person or unit shall be paid by the following person or unit(s) licensed: 1. For each additional person soliciting, peddling or vending under a principal applicant's license issued pursuant to subsection B of this section; and/or 2. For each mobile vending unit operated as an adjunct to an existing licensed business on a site immediately adjacent to the business and authorized for use pursuant to a street use permit. The fees provided for by this section shall not be reduced after June 30th as provided for annual fees in subsection B of this section. D. Exemptions. The following persons shall be exempt from license fees and applications required under this chapter: 1. Newspaper carriers; 2. Charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations or corporations which have received tax exempt status under 26 USC Section 501(c)(3) or other similar civic, charitable or nonprofit organizations; 3. Peddlers of fruits, vegetables, berries, eggs or any farm produce edibles raised, gathered, produced or manufactured by such person; 4. A person who, after having been specifically requested by another to do so, calls upon that other person for the purpose of displaying goods, literature or giving information about any article, thing, product or service; 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 152 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 3 of 8 5. Notwithstanding the exemptions provided herein, all exempt persons must provide proof of their exempt status along with photo identification upon request by a prospective customer or law enforcement officer; 6. Exempt persons are exempt only from city business licensing requirements and must comply with all provisions of law, ordinance and regulations and all applicable Snohomish County health district requirements. [Ord. 3096 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2990 § 2, 1994; Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 2435 § 4, 1984; Ord. 1619 § 1, 1972; Ord. 830 § 3, 1960]. 4.12.040 License application – Information required. A. Any person, firm or other organization desiring to secure a solicitor's, peddler's or street vendor's license shall apply therefor in writing to the city clerk, on forms provided by the city, and such application shall set forth as to each solicitor, peddler or street vendor as the principal applicant as follows: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the principal applicant, firm or other organization; 2. In the event the name or address of the applicant has changed within the last two years, each name and address over the last two-year period preceding the most recent; 3. The nature or character of the goods, wares, merchandise or services to be offered by each principal applicant; 4. A list of the persons originally contemplating solicitation, peddling or street vending within the city of Edmonds, and the information required in subsection B of this section as to each; 5. The name, address and telephone number (business and home) of the individual acting as manager of the principal applicant; 6. Written approval for the vending site from the abutting property owner and/or tenant in accordance with ECC 4.12.055(L); and 7. Such other information as reasonably required by city officials. B. For each person soliciting, peddling or street vending within the city of Edmonds pursuant to a principal applicant and license as required herein, whether acting as an employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, the following information shall be provided to the city clerk on forms provided by the city and shall set forth as to each such person the following: 1. His or her name, address and home telephone number; 2. The name, address and telephone number of the person, firm or other organization holding the principal license; 3. His or her age and general personal description as required by the city; 4. Any and all facts relating to any conviction of crimes as such information may be required by the city in the application form; and 5. Such other information as reasonably required by city officials. C. The city clerk shall refer the application to the chief of police, who shall make a criminal history background investigation of the applicant. Upon completion, the chief of police shall forward the results of the investigation to the city clerk. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 153 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 4 of 8 D. If, as a result of the investigation, the applicant is not found to have committed any of the acts requiring denial as listed below, the city clerk shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee, issue the license to the applicant. The city clerk shall deny the applicant the license if the applicant has: 1. Committed any act consisting of fraud or misrepresentation; 2. Committed any act which, if committed by a licensee, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of a license; 3. Within the previous 10 years, been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony directly relating to his or her fitness to engage in the occupation of peddler, solicitor or street vendor and including, but not limited to, those misdemeanors and felonies involving moral turpitude, fraud or misrepresentation; 4. Been charged with a misdemeanor or felony of the type defined in subsection (D)(3) of this section, and disposition of that charge is still pending; 5. Been refused a license under the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that any applicant denied a license under the provisions of this chapter may reapply if and when the reasons for denial no longer exist; and 6. Made any false or misleading statements in the application. E. Every peddler shall be required to carry the peddler's license and display it along with photo identification upon request by a prospective customer or law enforcement officer. F. The city clerk is authorized to promulgate rules regarding the manner and method of payment, including a prohibition or regulation of payment by check, and the form of the application. [Ord. 3513 § 3, 2004; Ord. 2990 § 3, 1994; Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1619 § 2, 1972; Ord. 830 § 4, 1960]. 4.12.050 Investigation of applicants. It shall be the duty of the chief of police to investigate each applicant made under ECC 4.12.040, in which investigation the chief of police shall determine: A. The genuineness of all credentials presented by the applicant and/or the individual solicitor, peddler or street vendor and the reliability of the product or services; B. If the applicant and/or its solicitor, peddler or street vendor has a criminal record; C. The truth of the facts set forth in the application; and D. If the applicant or solicitor, peddler or street vendor proposes to engage in a lawful and legitimate commercial or professional enterprise. Such investigation must be completed within a reasonable time. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 5, 1960]. 4.12.055 Street vendor requirements. Any person seeking a permit for a street vendor license under the definition of this chapter shall comply with the following requirements: A. Prior to issuance of any street vendor permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval by the architectural design board for the design of the mobile vending cart and any signage. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 154 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 5 of 8 BA. Mobile vending units may be allowed to operate within the following commercially zoned areas including unzoned property or right-of-way adjacent to or abutting commercially zoned areas: 1. Motorized and Nonmotorized mobile vending units: Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Downtown Business Zones (BD1, BD2, BD3, BD4 and BD5), Commercial Waterfront (CW), General Commercial (CG, CG2), Firdale Village Mixed-Use (FVMU), Medical Use (MU) and Public Use (P). B. In addition to the licensing requirements of this chapter, any street vendor shall be required to obtain a street use permit. Application fees for street use permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to city prior to issuance of any permit. C. All advertising shall be placed on the nonmotorized mobile vending unit and will not be allowed on the street or sidewalk. Maximum sign area allowed shall be 10 square feet. D. The vending site shall be kept clean and orderly at all times, and the vendor must provide a refuse container and is encouraged to provide containers for recycling. No portion of a vendor's inventory, sales equipment, or any other structure or equipment used in the sales or solicitation process shall be left overnight upon any unenclosed portion of any lot or site within the city, nor upon any public street or right-of-way. without the issuance of a street use permit for a mobile vending unit issued pursuant to ECC 4.12.030(B) and (C). E. The city reserves the right to limit the number of vending permit sites in any given area of the downtown. The development services director shall determine the allowable number of street vendors and shall exercise this discretion based upon the needs of the public, diversity of products offered for sale, the smooth flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and other similar considerations. F. If located on a sidewalk, a minimum clearance of five feet shall be maintained by any street vendor. G. Street vendors shall not locate within that portion of improved street right-of-way designed for vehicular traffic or parking. Street vendors seeking to locate in improved street rights-of-way or on sidewalks shall be oriented toward pedestrian traffic movement or safety. Any application to locate a street vendor in the street right-of-way shall require approval by the city traffic engineer and shall not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. H. No mechanical audio or noise making devices and no hawking is allowed. Hawking is the loud, repeated oral solicitation of business by the vendor or an assistant. I. Street vendors are prohibited in parksStreet vendors may operate in parks if they have a concession agreement with the City of Edmonds to operate on a specific park property. J. Street vendors are prohibited and in residentially zoned areas, and unzoned property or right- of-way adjacent to or abutting the residentially zoned areas. J. Street vendors are prohibited from occupying parking spaces on city property or in improved city rights-of-way reserved for vehicular traffic, parking or other transportation. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 155 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 6 of 8 K. All street vendors shall comply with all applicable Snohomish County health district requirements. L. The applicant shall submit with his application a copy of the written approval for the vending site from the abutting property owner and/or tenant property owner when locating on private property. When locating on a sidewalk within the right-of-way, the applicant shall have written approval for the vending site from the abutting property owner and/or tenant. In the event that the property owner or tenant shall disagree, the property owner's decision shall be final. 1. In the event that the proposed site is on or abuts property owned by the city of Edmonds, the applicant shall be required to obtain the city's approval. Approvals relating to park property shall be handled as a request to let a concession under the terms of this chapter. Request for sites abutting all other public land owned by the city shall be forwarded to the city council for their review and approval. 2. In the event that the proposed site is on or abuts publically owned property not owned by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval from the public entity that owns the property. 23. In the event that the site for which approval is sought abuts vacant land, the applicant shall make reasonable written attempts to secure the approval of the property owner. If the applicant is unable to do so, the city may accept written proof of such attempts and issue a conditional permit. If a complaint is later received from the owner of the land, the license shall be revoked. The granting of such a conditional license shall vest no right in the applicant. M. When locating within a parking lot of a private location, the applicant shall: 1. Identify the location the mobile vending unit will be located and provide a circulation plan. The location and circulation plan shall require approval by the city traffic engineer to ensure the vending unit will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. 2. Demonstrate that the site will meet the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50 excluding the parking space(s) occupied by the mobile vending unit. N. The maximum permissible size for any nonmotorized mobile vending unit shall be: 1. Thirty square feet for sidewalk locations; and 2. Fifty square feet for locations within the street or other public right-of-way or when located on private property. 3. In no event shall any nonmotorized mobile vending unit exceed 10 feet in length. [Ord. 3513 § 4, 2004; Ord. 3270 § 1, 1999; Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985]. O. During special events held within the City where food providers are required to pay a fee to participate (Such as the Edmonds Art Festival and Taste of Edmonds), no mobile vending units may be allowed to operate within one-quarter (¼) mile one mile of the special event. 4.12.060 Issuance of license – Expiration. The chief of police shall determine, within a reasonable time, from his investigation, that the facts set forth in the application are true, that the purpose of the applicant and its solicitors, 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 156 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 7 of 8 peddlers or street vendors is to engage in a lawful and legitimate commercial or professional enterprise. Having determined these facts, he shall then approve the application and the city clerk may issue the license applied for. Such license shall expire on the 31st day of December of the year in which such license has been issued. Except as hereinafter provided, no license shall be issued until the conclusion of the aforesaid investigation. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 6, 1960]. 4.12.065 Soliciting and peddling restrictions. All licenses issued pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the following time and location restrictions: A. Fourth of July Fireworks Display. For the purpose of crowd and traffic control on the Fourth of July, all soliciting after 6:00 p.m. within one mile of the official fireworks display shall take place only within the confines of the fireworks viewing area as designated by the chief of police on the Civic Center playfield. B. No peddler or solicitor shall engage or attempt to engage in the business of peddling at any home, residence, apartment complex or business that prominently displays a “No Peddlers” or “No Solicitors” sign or any other similar sign that communicates the occupants' desire to not be contacted by peddlers. C. No peddler or solicitor shall engage in the business of peddling between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. [Ord. 3513 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2990 § 4, 1994; Ord. 2370 § 1, 1983]. D. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units which are located directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property may not operate between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units not located directly adjacent to residentially- zoned property may not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6 a.m. 4.12.070 Carrying of license required. Such license shall be carried at all times by each solicitor, peddler or street vendor for whom issued, when soliciting, canvassing or street vending in the city of Edmonds, and shall be exhibited by any such solicitor, peddler or street vendor whenever and wherever he or she shall be requested to do so by any police officer or any person solicited. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 7, 1960]. 4.12.080 Revocation of license. Such license may be revoked by the city of Edmonds for the violation by either the employer or the solicitor, peddler or street vendor of any of the ordinances of the city of Edmonds. The city of Edmonds may also revoke a license for a street vendor under the following conditions: A. Failure to comply with the terms of this chapter; B. Misrepresentation of facts in the licensee's application for the necessary permits; C. Failure to comply with the terms of a valid street use permit; D. Creation of a hazard to the public health or safety; or E. As otherwise provided herein. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 8, 1960]. 4.12.085 Appeal procedure. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 157 of 380 AUGUST 6, 2012 – COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ECC 4.12 Page 8 of 8 A. Whenever the city clerk determines that there is cause for denying any license application or revoking any license issued pursuant to this chapter, the clerk shall notify the person holding the license using at least one of the following methods: 1) registered or 2) certified mail, return receipt requested or 3) personal service on the licensee. Notice mailed to the address on the license shall be deemed received three days after mailing. The notice shall specify the grounds for the denial or revocation of a license. B. The applicant or licensee may appeal the decision of the city clerk to deny or revoke a license by filing a written notice of appeal to the city council within 48 hours of the city clerk's decision. C. Upon timely receipt of the notice of appeal, the city clerk shall set a date for hearing the appeal, which shall occur within 10 days of receipt of the appeal. The city clerk shall mail notice of the date of the hearing to the applicant or licensee at least five days prior to the hearing date. D. The hearing shall be de novo. The city council may affirm, reverse or modify the city clerk's decision. E. The decision of the city council shall be final. Any person desiring to appeal must file an appropriate action in Snohomish County Superior Court within 14 days of the city council's decision. [Ord. 2990 § 5, 1994]. 4.12.090 Purchase orders – Form and content. All orders taken by license solicitors, peddlers or street vendors shall be in writing, in duplicate, stating the name as it appears on the license, the address of both the solicitor, peddler or street vendor and his employer, the terms thereof, and the amount paid in advance, and one copy shall be given to the purchaser. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 9, 1960]. 4.12.100 Penalties. Any person or persons who violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall upon conviction of said violation be punished as provided in ECC 5.50.020. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1619 § 3, 1972; Ord. 830 § 10, 1960]. 4.12.110 Severability. Should any section, clause or provision of this chapter be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the chapter as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part declared to be invalid. [Ord. 2536 § 1, 1985; Ord. 830 § 11, 1960]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 158 of 380 City Council August 6, 2012 Public Hearing Draft Page 1 of 2 Commercial and Business Zones Operating Restrictions Chapter 16.43 BD – Downtown Business 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. 9. Motorized and Nonmotorized Mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. Chapter 16.50 BC – Community Business 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers' markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 7. Motorized and Nonmotorized Mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3627 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3320 § 3, 2000; Ord. 3147 § 1, 1997]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 159 of 380 City Council August 6, 2012 Public Hearing Draft Page 2 of 2 Chapter 16.55 CW – Commercial Waterfront 16.55.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for: 1. Petroleum products storage and distribution; 2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats; 3. Public parks; 4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 5. Motorized and Nonmotorized Mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3320 § 4, 2000]. Chapter 16.60 CG – General Commercial 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6. Community-oriented open air markets or seasonal farmers markets; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. [Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 8. Motorized and Nonmotorized Mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 160 of 380 1 Lien, Kernen From:Brooke Baker [bbandrb@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:42 PM To:Lien, Kernen Subject:MOBILE VENDING TRUCKS HEARING TONIGHT To: Whom it may Concern re Food Trucks in the Downtown Core From: Randy and Brooke Baker It has come to our attention, rather inadvertently, that tonight is the public hearing re mobile vendors in Edmonds' downtown core. We heard about this several weeks ago, and are dismayed to learn about it. We are of the opinion that most business owners do not know this is happening. How many places are there to eat in the downtown core? We don't know the exact number, but we do know there are more and more each year. In spite of the economic realities of our times, entrepeneurs continue to gamble that this is a good place to open a place to sell food and drink. There are all kinds of options on each and every block in spite of the high rents in this area. Each of us restaurateurs is faced with rising food costs, rising payrolls (we have the highest minimum wage in the country after all), and heavy competition for diners from all the options. Happy hours, early birds, coupons, groupons, frequent dining clubs, are all discounts to lure the cost conscious, which is almost everyone these days. To add nomadic entrepeneurs who have no high rents, or substantial staffs, or large utility bills, or commitments to this community as the rest of us do is simply unfair competition. And how about the compounding of parking issues that are already stretched thin in the core? And have you thought about what these trucks may look like? Some nice, others not so nice, but how would you regulate that, and their various signage too. We in the Edmonds' brick and mortar eateries are governed by very specific rules on signage heighths, size, etc. There is no way that the monies gained from permitting these nomadic vending trucks would offset the inevitable negative consequences. Understand also that there are many employees that are dependent on the survival of the local restaurants, it is already difficult enough to to keep full time employees. Food trucks will unquestionably have an impact on the survivability of our employees as well as our core business. We have a commitment to this city, we are here here for the long haul. During dufficuly times we cannot simply drive away and relocate. Food trucks have no commitment, and are here to grab whatever they can for as long as it lasts and then they will disappear. Thanks in advance for carefully considering whether this is truly for the benefit of the community at large. Sincerely yours, Randy and Brooke Baker Chanterelle 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 161 of 380 1 Lien, Kernen From:Clifton, Stephen Sent:Friday, July 06, 2012 9:18 AM To:Lien, Kernen; Chave, Rob Subject:Mobile Vendors Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Kernen, Please read and forward the attached e-mail to the Planning Board and/or City Council as part of the Mobile Vendor discussions. Thank you, Stephen Clifton   Stephen Clifton, AICP Director, Community Services & Economic Development 121 – 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Stephen.Clifton@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0251 From: Dsross55@aol.com [mailto:Dsross55@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:04 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Subject: (no subject) Just read in this morning's paper that the businesses of Edmonds (restaurants) were concerned that the food trucks would take away from the local food businesses. My suggestion would be for each restaurant to have its own truck, be it a exclusive establishment or a deli. I applaud individuals who look for ways to have a legitimate business and it isn't always feasible to get out to a restaurant for lunch. Years ago it was great to buy that hotdog from a vender. They were the best in those days. With the gas crunch as it is. It would be a welcome to your town. I love Edmonds with it's homey atmosphere. Mrs. D. Ross 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 162 of 380    AM-5007     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Al Compaan Department:Police Department Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Action  Information Subject Title Police Services Contract - Town of Woodway Recommendation Previous Council Action This issue has been discussed at the 2011 and 2012 Edmonds City Council Retreats, as well as at the July 12, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, followed by Resolution Number 1259 passed by Council on October 25, 2011. At the 2012 retreat, direction was given to Council President Peterson to explore viable contract term options with Woodway Mayor Nichols and Edmonds Mayor Earling in order to provide a report back to full Council. Options suggested at various times during these prior discussions have included consideration of continuing with a limited services contract (as is the case at present time) or transition to a full service contract, and consideration of remuneration to the city of Edmonds as service provider. Narrative The present Woodway Police Services contract expires December 31, 2012. Per previous Council direction, Council President Peterson will be reporting back to full Council regarding discussion to-date and will be seeking input and direction from Council regarding next steps with the Town of Woodway on the Police Services Contract. Attachments Woodway Police Services Contract Woodway Police Services Activity 2007-2012 Woodway-Edmonds Financials and Activity 2012 Resolution No. 1259 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 05:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/03/2012 08:38 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 08:59 AM 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 163 of 380 Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 08/02/2012 04:03 PM Final Approval Date: 08/03/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 164 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 165 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 166 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 167 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 168 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 169 of 380 Billing Rate Number of Calls Amount Billed Average Reimbursement per Call 2007 Billing Rate $100/call 1st Quarter 2007 20 2,000.00$ 2nd Quarter 2007 26 2,600.00$ 3rd Quarter 2007 29 2,900.00$ 4th Quarter 2007 23 2,300.00$ 2007 Totals 98 9,800.00$ $ 100.00 2008 Billing Rate $125/call 1st Quarter 2008 20 2,500.00$ 2nd Quarter 2008 23 2,875.00$ 3rd Quarter 2008 23 2,875.00$ 4th Quarter 2008 19 2,375.00$ 2008 Totals 85 10,625.00$ $ 125.00 2009 Billing Rate $125/call 1st Quarter 2009 20 2,500.00$ Overtime for Burglary 09-0123 453.98$ 2nd Quarter 2009 18 2,250.00$ 3rd Quarter 2009 25 3,125.00$ 4th Quarter 2009 15 1,875.00$ 2009 Totals 78 10,203.98$ $ 130.82 2010 Billing Rate $137.50/call plus cost of additional officers after 1st 15 minutes 1st Quarter 2010 20 2,750.00$ Additional Officer Costs 290.74$ 2nd Quarter 2010 17 2,337.50$ Additional Officer Costs 289.04$ 3rd Quarter 2010 22 $3,025.00 Additional Officer Costs 17.13$ 4th quarter 2010 20 2,750.00$ Additional Officer Costs 165.73$ 2010 Totals 79 11,625.14$ $ 147.15 Town of Woodway Contract Activity 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 170 of 380 Co m p a r i s o n o f 2 0 1 2 P e r C a p i t a S p e n d i n g o n P o l i c e S e r v i c e s - E d m o n d s a n d W o o d w a y Ed m o n d s Wo o d w a y To t a l D i r e c t P o l i c e B u d g e t f o r 2 0 1 2 - e x c l u d i n g J a i l , S N O C O M , S E R S , E S C A 8, 7 1 4 , 4 2 7 $ 16 0 , 3 4 0 $ SN O C O M 91 2 , 6 6 6 $ 32 , 9 6 2 $ SE R S 87 , 6 6 0 $ 2, 7 0 8 $ ES C A 75 , 9 2 9 $ 2, 4 9 0 $ To t a l w i t h S N O C O M , S E R S , E S C A , e x c l u d i n g J a i l 9, 7 9 0 , 6 8 2 $ 19 8 , 5 0 0 $ Ap r i l 2 0 1 1 p o p u l a t i o n 39 , 8 0 0 1, 3 0 5 Pe r C a p i t a S p e n d i n g o n D i r e c t P o l i c e B u d g e t 21 9 $ 12 3 $ Pe r C a p i t a S p e n d i n g , e x c l u d i n g J a i l , b u t i n c l u d i n g S N O C O M , S E R S , E S C A 24 6 $ 15 2 $ To t a l C a l l s f o r S e r v i c e ( a g e n c y i n c i d e n t s , i n c l u d i n g t r a f f i c s t o p s a n d a d v i s e d in c i d e n t s ) 30 , 4 1 3 8 2 6 Ca l l s p e r c a p i t a 2 0 1 1 0. 7 6 0. 6 3 To t a l A s s e s s e d V a l u a t i o n 5, 7 9 4 , 6 4 4 , 4 6 5 $ 44 2 , 6 2 9 , 3 3 4 $ Co s t o f d i r e c t p o l i c e s e r v i c e s p e r $ 1 , 0 0 0 a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n 1. 5 0 $ 0. 3 6 $ If W o o d w a y p a i d t h e s a m e $ 1 . 5 0 p e r $ 1 , 0 0 0 a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n a s E d m o n d s , W o o d w a y b u d g e t f o r d i r e c t p o l i c e s e r v i c e s w o u l d b e $663,944 . If W o o d w a y p a i d t h e s a m e $ 2 4 6 p e r c a p i t a a s E d m o n d s , t h e W o o d w a y b u d g e t f o r d i r e c t p o l i c e s e r v i c e s w o u l d b e $3 2 1 , 0 3 0 . Wo o d w a y P o l i c e S e r v i c e s C o m p a r i s o n 2 0 1 2 . x l s x 8/2/20124:26 PM 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 1 of 38 0 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 172 of 380 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 173 of 380    AM-4997     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Planning/Economic Development Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Planning/Parks/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Action  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding retail only zone in BD1. Recommendation Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to implement the code language changes indicated in Exhibit 1. Previous Council Action A public hearing was held by the City Council on July 26, 2011, regarding several proposed amendments to the city's downtown BD zones. One amendment, dealing with designated street fronts, was ultimately adopted. The City Council last discussed the specific proposal regarding retail and service vs. office uses in the BD1 zone on August 23, 2011, with a motion to approve the amendment failing by a 2-3 vote. Narrative The City Council considered the Planning Board's recommendations regarding four sets of amendments to the city's downtown BD zones at a public hearing on July 26, 2011. After committee review, one set of amendments regarding designated street fronts was approved on August 23rd. A vote on the 'retail only' amendment failed by a 2-3 vote. The specific language dealing with the permitted uses in the 45-foot 'designated street front' of properties in the BD1 zone is contained in Exhibit 1. While this proposal has sometimes been referred to as only permitting retail uses in the BD1 zone, the proposal is actually more specifically targeted than that. Exhibit 3 contains the original public hearing agenda item from July 26, 2011. A short summary of the amendments is contained on page 19 of that exhibit, and the description of the pertinent proposal regarding uses in the BD1 zone reads as follows: "2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions to the Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are allowed, office or professional office uses must be located outside the 45?foot 'designated street front.'  In addition, drive-in or drive-through businesses are prohibited in the BD1 zone. Existing nonconforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code... i.e. they 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 174 of 380 would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In addition, other kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e. behind the first 45 feet) or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the emphasis would be on pedestrian-oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along the designated commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone." Attachments Exhibit 1 - Retail-only amendment language Exhibit 2 - City Council minutes 2011 Exhibit 3 - City Council public hearing packet Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 08/01/2012 02:23 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/01/2012 02:25 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/02/2012 10:26 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 02:40 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/01/2012 11:27 AM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 175 of 380 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 176 of 380 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A Service uses (including banking and real estate businesses) A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 177 of 380 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 178 of 380 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 179 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 13 specifically audit this project. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday, the City Clerk and he will provide responses to Councilmember Bernheim’s questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was speechless. She believes this will be looked at in a thorough manner. She looked forward to determining how to proceed in the future and appreciated Mr. Williams’ input regarding a policy to avoid this in the future. She wondered if the Council would have stopped the project if they knew the overruns were this high; remarking the Council should have been given the opportunity to make that decision. Councilmember Wilson commented the Auditor is not the appropriate arbiter of whether something is legal or illegal. Before the next Council meeting he suggested a definitive answer be provided by someone outside the City, whether that was an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General or the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office or some other entity. He summarized it was not appropriate for the Council or Mayor to pass judgment regarding what was legal or illegal. Councilmember Plunkett suggested scheduling an Executive Session with regard to what is legal and illegal, whether to pursue an investigation, etc. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council was contemplating whether the City has a cause of action that would be appropriately discussed in Executive Session as would be the defense regarding the request for equitable adjustment. Councilmember Plunkett commented Mr. Williams, Mr. Taraday and Mayor Cooper made every effort to make the information public as soon as they received it. The Council now needs to discuss how to proceed in Executive Session. Council President Peterson scheduled an Executive Session on September 6, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Cooper advised staff will answer the questions asked by the Council and schedule review of a purchasing policy on a future agenda. (Councilmember Wilson did not participate in the following items.) 7. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Community Services/Development Service Committee discussed this at their recent meeting and forwarded three of the Planning Board recommendations to the Council for further consideration. Development agreements are not part of this agenda item and will be scheduled for a future Council work session. Council President Peterson clarified tonight’s discussion did not include development agreements. The City Attorney will review the issue of development agreements and make further recommendations. Mr. Chave advised the City Attorney will provide background on development agreements at a future work session. Council President Peterson advised he has been working with Mr. Taraday to schedule a work session on land use issues. Councilmember Bernheim provided a PowerPoint presentation. He expressed support for the 45-foot depth for the storefronts and not allowing offices on the ground floor in the retail core. He did not support removing the step backs in the BD zone, at least at this point; and did not support allowing buildings as tall as 35 feet along the main retail corridors, Fifth Avenue and Main Street, noting he had seen no research or evidence proving these are good ideas. He provided photographs supporting his research that step backs are highly desirable and are necessary to preserve human scale, noting step backs are required in Kirkland and Friday Harbor. As support for his opposition to 35-foot buildings, he provided photographs of 1-2 story buildings along main shopping streets in Kirkland and Edmonds. He provided several photographs of buildings he liked. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 180 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 14 Councilmember Bernheim said he would not approve an increase in height limits on the main retail shopping streets just to keep a post office or build a boutique hotel. He envisioned the sky, the air above, the view, the pedestrian scale, trees taller than buildings as the City’s “seed corn,” the City’s heritage and the tourism golden egg and he would not sell it for the promise that residents could “save a buck on property taxes.” He suggested the following ideas be considered before approving a permanent height increase: • Limit the width of buildings on the street front (to break up buildings into smaller pieces) • Measure height from the main street instead of the center of the lot (so the height of the building slopes with the street) • Develop the alleys (to provide more storefront) • Limit the volume of the building to, e.g., 250% of the lot size (to give builder flexibility, but control maximum building mass) • Underground utility wires • Replace some on-street parking with a pedestrian pathway Councilmember Bernheim proposed the following: 1. Anywhere downtown, amend the Code to allow an extra 3 feet for solar panels (the City already allows unlimited extra height for church steeples, 3 feet for elevator penthouses and chimneys, 18” for vent pipes, and 30” for stand pipes. ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Maximum building height for lots in any BD zone should be between two and four stories • Stories above the second story should be set back 45 feet along Main Street and Fifth Avenue to match the recommended depth of the retail space. • All development in the BD zone above two stories requires ADB review after new guidelines are adopted. • Two stories along the main retail streets will protect human scale and pedestrian orientation. • Four stories everywhere in the BD zone with ADB approval except the valuable shopping streets. 3. Eliminate three-hour free parking • In BD-1 zone, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 4 hours. • In other downtown zones, to create commuter, transit-oriented parking, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 14 hours. Councilmember Bernheim suggested holding a town hall meeting where residents can be heard, and can work together to find common ground. He summarized economic development does not require changing the zoning code to allow taller buildings. Building heights can be raised but only if residents support that change in the community character. To promote economic development, zoning codes should be predictable and fair; there are many more solutions than raising building heights along main historical town streets. Councilmember Petso commented earlier this week she sent an email to some Councilmembers, Mr. Chave, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Clifton and Mayor Cooper conveying her analysis that the building height limit was 25 feet but the proposed amendments to Section C2 and C3 would change the height limit to 30 feet. Previously those sections allowed 30 feet with step backs for pitched roofs and the amendments appeared to allow 30 foot boxes. Mr. Chave answered 25 feet is the basic height limit in the BD zones and there are different ways to achieve 30 feet. For example in the BD1 zone, a 30-foot height can be achieved if the building has a 15-foot ground floor. In other BD zones a 30-foot height can be achieved with a step back and a 12-foot ground floor. The Planning Board recommendation eliminates the step back requirement but retains the 12-foot ground floor requirement. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 181 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE 60-FOOT AND 30-FOOT DEPTH TO A 45 FOOT COMMERCIAL DEPTH IN THE BD ZONES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE OFFICE USES FROM THE STORE FRONTS IN THE BD1 ZONE. Councilmember Plunkett relayed he would be unable to support this amendment, envisioning a property owner may not have a tenant without an office use. He preferred to allow the marketplace to determine whether an office such as a tax accountant locates in the BD1 zone based on their success. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was also concerned that a space would remain vacant if a building owner was unable to rent to a retail use. She did not support the motion. Council President Peterson commented service businesses currently located in the BD1 zone would be grandfathered. He pointed out this is not radical thinking; there are retail districts around the world and they exist for a reason. As a retailer he understood that although some service businesses attract customers, a consistent retail base is needed in the retail core. Shoppers in a retail area encountering spaces where curtains are drawn because it is a dental office will often turn around and proceed no further. He emphasized this is proposed for a very limited area of downtown, it is the right thing to do for the greater good of the retail core and it is endorsed by business leaders in the community. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a dental office cannot be visible to the street due to HIPPA requirements. She envisioned uses such as interior designers, insurance, etc. who bring money to Edmonds. She was not convinced that Edmonds should not allow those businesses as prominently as retail stores. She favored a mixture of businesses in the City. She observed grandfathering meant that existing businesses could remain and asked whether the grandfather clause would allow another office after an office tenant moved out. Mr. Chave answered a similar use could locate in the space within 6 months. He relayed there have been instances where the building owners do not always seek a retail use first and rent to whomever shows up which over time can erode the retail core. The Planning Board’s recommendation was only for the BD1, a very small area and only in the first 45 feet of the ground floor. In the BD1 zone offices can locate above or behind a retail uses. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3); COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Petso reported on the Public Facilities District Board meeting; these are generally good and exciting times for the PFD. Although items are not usually presented to the Council without review by a Council committee, Councilmember Petso explained the PFD is working on term limits for their boards and they plan to present their proposal to Council on a Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Finance Committee is nearly to the point where policy decisions can begin to be made on individual items, from staffing levels to hydrant maintenance, within the RFA. As it will be difficult to get Council enough information in advance to seek policy direction, she planned to tentatively agree to policies to get a preliminary model in place. She will avoid agreeing on more than a tentative basis until there is an opportunity for Council discussion. Councilmember Bernheim reported he was invited by the Muslim Association of Puget Sound to their beautiful new mosque in Redmond to break the fast. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 182 of 380 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting August 9, 2011   Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:  Council Member Adrienne Fraley‐Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director  Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer   Rob Chave, Planning Managaer   Jeff Taraday, City Attorney   Stephen Clifton, Community Services and                   Economic Development Director       The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.      A. Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project. Mr. English reviewed the scope and limits of the emergency repair and how agenda items A and B are related since both projects were on the storm pipeline in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad and Admiral Way. The emergency repair was completed by Interwest Construction and the final costs including staff time and testing was $75,858. ACTION:    Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      B. Report on Small Works Roster Solicitation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation Project and award contract to Michels Corporation in the amount of $64,020.00. The scope of the project was reviewed and an explanation was provided on the cured in place pipe (CIPP) method that will be used to repair 215 feet of existing 24-inch stormline in Dayton Street. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      C. Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to Brackett’s Landing North Parking Lot. The Parking Committee recommends a proposed ordinance to add a four hour parking restriction for Brackett’s Landing north parking lot in Section 8.64.065 of the Edmonds City Code. The parking lot currently has a posted four hour parking limitation and this change will allow the Police Department to enforce the restriction. ACTION:   Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.            08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 183 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 2 2   D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015. The proposed Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit would continue the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program in Edmonds. The purpose of the CTR program is to reduce the Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupant Vehicle commute trips and reduce vehicle related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install waterline as part of Lynnwood’s 76th Ave W Sewer Improvement Project The City of Lynnwood is designing a new sewer main for 76th Ave W to increase the capacity of their sewer sytem. The City of Edmonds has identified a watermain replacement project that falls within Lynnwood’s project limits. This agreement will provide for the coordination and combination of both projects into one to reduce costs and minimize the disruption to residents during construction. Mr. English reviewed a minor change to Section 6, “Payment Schedule” that reduced Lynnwood’s 8.5% administration charge to 2% during the project’s design phase. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      F. Potential amendment to downtown BD zones. The Committee initiated the discussion by identifying the development agreements provisions as the most complex and potentially controversial aspect of the amendments. Staff concurred, and agreed that the Council could elect to act on the other three items (designated street fronts and 45-foot commercial depth, uses in the BD1 zone, and step-back requirements). The Committee reviewed each of the three items in turn, with staff summarizing the Planning Board/EDC recommendations. The 45-foot commercial depth would help standardize the requirements among the BD zones. In regard to BD1 uses, it was pointed out that the Planning Board and EDC desired to do more work to review and refine the definition of service uses, but approving the current amendments to not allow office uses in critical storefront spaces would be a desirable first step. The concern over step-back requirements was that it was counter-productive in obtaining desirable building designs, particularly given historical downtown commercial building forms. City Attorney Jeff Taraday participated in the discussion of development agreements. He pointed out that the mechanism was authorized by state law and was already in the city’s code. Most observers believe that the state legislature’s intent was to replace contract rezones with the development agreement option, but this wasn’t made explicitly clear. Regardless, how development agreements are configured within the code can determine how open-ended or ‘tight’ the provisions are, and will ultimately determine how they are used to further the city’s expressed goals. He noted that staff believes more work needs to be done to provide guidance and clearer standards within the provisions so that the city can be assured that “we get what we want.” The Committee discussed forwarding the development agreement to the Council to schedule for a full Council work session, to be accompanied by a background memorandum from the City Attorney. This discussion did not have to be on the same night as the other BD zone amendments; it could be scheduled separately by the Council President when the City 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 184 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 3 3 Attorney was ready. Councilmember Plunkett noted his opposition to any provision that would provide a way to increase building heights. Councilmember Plunkett stated that he wanted the record to show he continues to believe the taller building clause in the proposed development agreement for downtown should be removed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed. ACTION:   1. The committee agreed to forward the first 3 amendments to the Council for further action, without a recommendation from the committee. 2. The committee agreed that the development agreement provisions should be scheduled by the Council President for further discussion by the full council, when the City Attorney’s information is ready.   G. Public Comments   Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, spoke in favor of retaining existing height limits and in opposition to proposed  Planning Board recommended development agreement.    Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, suggested making sure the Planning Board recommended development agreement  be very specific.    Mr. Adams of Seattle spoke in favor of Planning Board recommended development agreements.      The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.      08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 185 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 2 F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE RFQ FOR ARTISTS TO CREATE INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR PROJECT G. APPOINTMENT OF MARLA MILLER TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2011 Councilmember Bernheim requested the following changes to the minutes: • Page 17, last paragraph, delete the sentence, “He suggested including bike racks and an electric car plug.” • Page 23, second paragraph from the bottom, change “admirably” to “adequately.” COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. Council President Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he was absent from the meeting. Councilmember Wilson observed it was the Council’s normal process to refer the minutes to the Clerk for verification. Councilmember Bernheim responded he was trying to save the Clerk time. Councilmember Wilson recalled Councilmember Bernheim did say he wanted bike racks in the park but would not hold up his vote to get them. Councilmember Bernheim read the comments he made at the July 19 meeting from a transcript. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINING. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON USES PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN BD ZONES, COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, REDUCING MANDATORY STEP-BACKS, AND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED CITY GOALS Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendations: 1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. The current commercial depth requirement is 30 feet in the BD1 downtown retail core and 60 feet elsewhere in the downtown zones. The Planning Board felt the existing commercial depth requirements were contrary to the City’s goals for the retail core and felt a consistent definition of designated street front and street depth was appropriate throughout the downtown area. The Planning Board recommended a consistent 45-foot depth. Staff’s walkthrough of commercial spaces downtown a few years ago found nearly all commercial spaces, in the BD1 zone in particular, were approximately 60 feet in depth. Existing uses will be allowed to continue, the amended depth will only apply to new development. 2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. There are currently no restrictions as long as the use is commercial. In the City’s economic development goals and the downtown Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian activity and retail activity in particular is a core goal for the downtown BD1 area. The Planning Board recommended not allowing offices or professional offices within the 45-foot designated street front in the BD1 zone. Uses within the first 45 feet uses must be retail or service-related businesses. The Planning Board felt offices and professional offices do not rely on walk-in customers and some offices in the BD1 close off their visible windows to the public via 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 186 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 3 blinds, etc. Mr. Chave reminded the BD1 zone is a very small area, the two blocks radiating out from the center fountain. Retail and service oriented business would be allowed to locate within the first 45 feet; any commercial use including offices can locate behind the first 45 feet or in the upper story. 3. Step‐‐‐‐back requirements. There is currently no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. The other downtown BD1 zones require a 15‐foot step‐back above 25 feet. The Planning Board felt building design could be addressed by the existing design guidance that refers to presence of building on the street, differentiating lower portions from upper portions. Historic buildings downtown such as Beeson Building or Chanterelles derive their character not from a step-back but decoration, ornamentation, etc. which the Planning Board felt provided more building design enhancement than a step-back. 4. Development Agreements. Developers would be allowed to build according to normal development pattern in accordance with the current zoning or could propose a development agreement. Development agreements have a thorough public hearing process at both the Planning Board and the City Council and the final decision is made by the City Council. Under the Planning Board’s recommendation, development agreements would achieve certain specified goals. A developer would need to achieve two of the following three goals: 1) Attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification 2) The development incorporates one or more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post office, farmers market, or space for artists) 3) The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave explained the goal of tonight’s hearing was to identify what the Council wants to include in an updated code. The language could be amended such as strengthening or providing further clarity on some of the development agreement criteria. A number of the code provisions were adopted in 2006, about the time of the economic downturn. Therefore, the City has virtually no experience with the code provisions. The Planning Board, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and staff feel a down economy is an appropriate time to make improvements to the code where appropriate. The EDC had a lengthy discussion regarding development agreements as they relate to the City’s economic development goals. The EDC discussed and endorsed the Planning Board’s recommendations at their recent meeting. The EDC expressed interest in further defining service uses, which service uses were appropriate in a retail core. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any sense of urgency or request that the City Council make a decision tonight following the public hearing rather than listening to points of view and making a decision in the next weeks or months before the end of the year. Mr. Chave answered it is a legislative matter so there is no particular deadline. The Planning Board and EDC felt these were important issues and hoped the Council would address them as quickly as possible. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was a need for the Council to make a decision tonight. Mr. Chave answered the public testimony may indicate a need that he is not aware of; there is no specific deadline. Councilmember Petso referred to minutes in the Council packet that indicate the CS/DS Committee wanted to refer the environmental sustainability considerations to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and asked whether that had been done. Mr. Chave answered that is a separate issue, including broader incentives in the codes. The environmental aspect tonight is only related to development agreements. Councilmember Petso asked whether there had been discussion regarding something other than LEED for the environmental incentive. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board’s discussion primarily focused on LEED although they did discuss other standards. The problem is there are few other good environmental 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 187 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 4 standards; LEED is the best established standard at this time. The words “or equivalent” were included because other standards or ways of measuring environmental benefits may develop over time such as the Master Builders green building initiatives. If a developer could show their proposal had equivalent environmental benefits, it would be acceptable. He summarized it was not expected that a developer would complete the LEED certification process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what type of businesses would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave answered general office such as a corporate or business office or a professional office such as a doctor’s office would not be allowed in the designated street front. Both could occur behind the designated street front, in the story above or in one of the surrounding commercial zones. Conversely any retail or service use would be allowed. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff, the EDC and the Planning Board for their work. As Council liaison to the EDC, she is aware of the discussions that occurred at their meeting and the Planning Board minutes demonstrate a very thoughtful process. She referred to page 9 of the Planning Board June 8 minutes, where Board Member Cloutier moved that the motion be amended to delete the words “or three stories, whichever is greater” from Item B.1. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson. The minutes do not reflect a vote on the amendment. Mr. Chave recalled it was approved. Councilmember Plunkett observed the proposed development agreement would increase height to 35 feet. In Mr. Spee’s case, per the Planning Board minutes, he is planning that some portion of his lot will have a 4-story building. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether removing 35 feet from the development agreement and retaining the height in the existing code would eviscerate the value of the development agreement. He asked whether development agreements were predicated on an increase in height up to 35 feet and in some cases, depending on the lot, up to 4 stories. Mr. Chave answered the language in the development agreement states the development standards in general can be varied. The language regarding 35 feet is a limitation. Even if a developer wants to vary other regulations in the code, the height cannot exceed 35 feet. If the Council did not want to allow height above the existing feet, the language would need to be changed to not more than 30 feet. Whether it eviscerated the value of a development agreement was in the eyes of the beholder. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was value in a development agreement if the Council did not approve allowing an increase in height. Mr. Chave answered there could still be some value because other regulations could be altered via a development agreement. Some of the discussion by the EDC and Planning Board was regarding uses that they wanted to occur downtown such as a boutique hotel. Companies who develop that use considered the City’s zoning and indicated it would not be feasible under the existing 30-foot height limit and would require a few additional feet in height. The discussion by the Planning Board and EDC specifically referenced that input. Depending on the situation, particularly where a higher building would not impact the existing street scape and the use would potentially be a huge economic benefit particularly for tourism, the Planning Board and EDC felt strongly the opportunity for increased height was appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council had been told previously that a certain building could not be built but it was later constructed when required to build to code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a development agreement could be used with a variance. Mr. Chave answered the City’s variance criteria are very tight and absent something unique to the site, the variance criteria could not be satisfied. For example, he could not imagine a circumstance where additional height would be granted via a variance for a boutique hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the land slopes. Mr. Chave explained there are slopes throughout the downtown and it would be difficult to argue that because a particular property slopes, granting additional height would be so unique 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 188 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 5 that another site should not also receive a variance for slope. He summarized granting a variance on one site opened up to variances all over the City. Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side. Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted. Councilmember Petso observed this was supposed to be legislative but the discussion appears to relate strongly to a particular project that has yet to be submitted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this discussion is in regard to all the BD zones and the map on page 111 encompasses several blocks. To the extent any particular lot was discussed in the context of a hypothetical development, he supposed that could assist the Council in understanding the effect of the proposed changes as long as it was understood any discussion regarding a site specific application of the proposal was purely hypothetical. There is no quasi judicial land use application before the Council tonight. On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel, Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are tied to street sections rather than property lines. Councilmember Plunkett advised he heard a conversation that led him to believe this development agreement was pretty much centered around one potential developer. He was at a Historic Preservation Commission meeting when a representative for the developer of the post office made comments, believing he was speaking to the Planning Board. The representative stated all he needed to do was get the Council to change the code and they could construct a nice building with a number of nice attributes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this matter was still legislative when he heard something like that because he assumed this particular developer would ultimately submit an application. Mr. Taraday answered this is a legislative matter and while there may be developers/property owners in the community who lobby the City Council to adopt/not adopt the proposed amendments, they are free to do so in the context of approaching their elected officials about a legislative matter. Access to Councilmembers will change as soon as a development application is submitted; to his knowledge there is no application on file yet, therefore, the Council is truly in the legislative realm. Councilmember Plunkett clarified a developer could lobby a Councilmember as much as they wanted even if they would profit from the change. Mr. Taraday answered absolutely. Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 189 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 6 commercial is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides. He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who designated the street fronts. Mr. Chave answered the concept was first raised when the BD zones were adopted in 2006 and established only for the BD1 zone. The Planning Board ultimately recommended expanding that concept to the other BD zones. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut off a block short of James and mid-block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the definition of service uses. Mr. Chave acknowledged there was no definition for service uses. The EDC and Planning Board felt it worthwhile to forward the proposed amendments to the Council but want to review and further define services uses to determine whether some are more retail oriented. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was true that the height in the BD1 zone is 25 feet with a minimum 12-foot first floor ceiling height but the building height can be 30 feet if the developer includes a 15-foot first floor ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered there must be a 15-foot first floor ceiling height and the maximum height is 30 feet. Councilmember Bernheim clarified in the BD1 zone a 15-foot first floor ceiling was required. Mr. Chave agreed. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, owner of a commercial building and former contractor, commented all the BD1 zone changes are beneficial. She expressed concern with the development agreement, opining that development agreements were legislated to avoid cities being accused of spot zoning. In this case the development agreement is for a specific building and lists the things that a property owner wants to do with the building. The development agreement also allows a building to extend above the height limit. She recalled the City’s Comprehensive Plan refers to 3-story buildings, not 4 stories. She concluded a development agreement was a fancy way to get around spot zoning. Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has had a vacancy for four years. With regard to step-backs, he commented removing the step-back provision is long overdue. Although passage of that change five years ago was intended to reduce the perceived size of a new building as viewed from the street or sidewalk, it eliminates any possible duplication of layout for residential levels of a small mixed use building and it is architecturally unattractive unless above a fourth floor or higher. The code has adequate provisions without the step-back requirement to ensure esthetically pleasing and appropriate development downtown. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 190 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 7 With regard to development agreements, Mr. Spee pointed out a huge component of design downtown relates to the location of the site within the specific BD zone. Although the planner may have ideas, they must simply quote the code, play no part in the design even though a site may be perfectly situated for public open space, have overhead power lines could be undergrounded, or be perfectly situated for a certain use that deserved some concession to make it possible. The City’s unbending code language hurts the ability of a designer to take advantage of a site’s unique characteristics and prevents a flow of discussion between the developer and the planner which could result in a win-win project. Any development agreement requires public hearings and Council approval, thus eliminating the concern it would get out of control. He encouraged the City Council to approve the Planning Board’s recommendations as proposed. Don Hall, Edmonds, retail store owner and member of the EDC, urged the Council to pass the four proposed changes to the BD zone code, envisioning they will lead to better development, economic growth and go a long way toward bringing new business to Edmonds. Development agreements are the key to economic vitalization downtown. A hotel and apartments will add to the number of people that need the goods and services offered by downtown merchants. The use of development agreements would achieve the goal of silver and gold LEED building and require public amenities such as public restrooms, gathering spaces, and public art. He urged the Council to view the code change as a way to kick start the desperately needed economic revitalization downtown. John Reed, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, advised he was out of town when the Planning Board held the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the BD zones, ECDC 16.43. He expressed support for economic development and as a member of the Planning Board, supported recent changes to zoning at Firdale Village which among other things included significant height increases. He also supported the creation of the Edmonds Way Corridor zones and applauded the work of the EDC over the last 18 months. Regarding the proposed changes, he supported eliminating the step-back requirement but encouraged their use as an attractive design feature. He supported the changes to the primary and secondary uses in the BD zones and had recommended the BD1 zone be changed to full retail/restaurant and other commercial uses excluded although the Planning Board did not make that change. He supported changing the commercial depth on designated street fronts to a consistent 45 feet rather than the existing 30 and 60-foot depths. He expressed concern with 16.43.050, development agreements and its interaction with the development agreement section of ECDC 20.08. Section 16.43.050 allows all BD zone provisions except design provisions to be eligible for modification by a developer meeting only two criteria, some of which are loosely defined such as no square footage or percentage requirements and therefore could be minimal. Mr. Reed relayed ECDC 20.08 has two provisions that may be cause for concern; final plans and drawings are not required, conceptual drawings and general design criteria must be specified. These often change during design development as a project evolves. He questioned whether those changes would be transparent and public knowledge and whether follow-up hearings at the Planning Board and Council would be required. ECDC 20.08 also refers to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and existing code. He questioned whether the freedom to modify nearly all the major provisions of the BD zone code was consistent with this requirement. The 35-foot maximum height included a maximum of 3-story statement when considered by the Planning Board. That statement has been removed and he echoed the question whether that change was actually approved by the Planning Board. Some sloped lots would qualify for 4 stories which can be built if 35 feet is allowed without a story limitation. He believed 4 stories was 1 too many downtown and asked that the Council revise the statement to either limit development to 30 feet or 3 stories. He relayed his concern that the open ended nature of 16.43.050 may lead to litigation if/when an agreement meeting the basic but loosely defined criteria is denied by the Planning Board and City Council. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 191 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 8 Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendations, envisioning that the ability to use development agreements would stimulate economic development downtown. He pointed out there had been no new development downtown since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. Although the economy may be partially to blame, another cause is the rigid BD development standards. The only flexibility currently allowed in the BD zones is via a variance which requires a developer meet six criteria. Although the variance concept is well intended, meeting all six criteria generally prevents the granting of a variance. The development agreement provision will open new opportunity for controlled flexibility; developers will have more flexibility but the flexibility is controlled by the City Council. A development agreement allows for a win-win situation; the developer must give something to get something in return. With regard to the 35-foot maximum height, retaining the existing 30-foot height limit as Councilmember Plunkett suggested would eviscerate the value of a development agreement because although a building can be developed in 30 feet, it would prevent a third floor of apartments and the generation of sales tax and ongoing property taxes from those 17 apartments. As Mr. Spee has previously indicated, the additional floor of apartments would allow him to lower rents by $200/month. The tenants in his existing apartments in the Spee Building will attest he has not raised rents in ten years. He urged the Council to approve the amendments without delay so that much needed economic development can occur. Economic development is a real need, without economic development and as long as inflation exceeds 1%, annual levy lid lifts will be necessary. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the Planning Board minutes in which Mr. Chave stated a development agreement is similar to the contract rezone concept that the City no longer uses. She asked why contract rezones are no longer being used by the City, how development agreement are superior to a contract rezone, and whether the flexibility provided by a development agreement would open the City to lawsuits if one developer is granted something for a specific site and another developer does not get what they want. Ruth Arista, Edmonds, advised the extension of the designated street front on 4th Avenue to Daley was related to that being part of the Arts Corridor to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. As a business owner in three locations in downtown Edmonds, on the corner of 5th & Main, next to that corner on 5th Avenue, and currently further south on 5th Avenue, she supported the proposed designated street front map. She described a shopper at the corner of 5th & Dayton on Saturday where there are two banks and an empty store front turning around and heading back to the intersection of 5th & Main. The designated street front proposal is very important to businesses located further down the street. Store fronts with good eye candy keep people walking and going into one store after another. Some offices do a great job decorating their windows, and although the banks provide a terrific service, people are not drawn to a bank. The blue line identifying designated street front stops in the middle of the parcel because a retail business located on the corner of 2nd & Bell was unlikely to get much foot traffic. She expressed her support for the proposed changes. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, member of the EDC and the tourism subcommittee, explained whenever the subcommittee thinks of something wonderful for Edmonds, the need for more hotels arises. The proposed project for a boutique hotel on 2nd & Main is very exciting. She recalled from their presentation that the elevation between Main and Bell makes development tricky without an increase in the height. She agreed with all the previous speakers who supported the proposed changes. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the criteria for a development agreement related to a green building, recalling a grocery store that installed an ugly water tank in an effort to be green. He hoped that would not be allowed in the future to meet the criteria for a green building. He questioned how long a uses that allowed a developer to use a development agreement would be required to remain and how that use could be guaranteed long term. Public restrooms are an expensive amenity and likely not practical for a developer to provide. His goal was protecting Edmonds’ small town atmosphere and protecting existing 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 192 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 9 views downtown. He questioned how a green building protected views. With regard to increasing the maximum height, he recommended further consideration such as whether the requirements are appropriate. Only three people spoke at the Planning Board; another public hearing was likely to generate more public participation. He urged the Council not to make a final decision tonight and to consider this the beginning of the discussion. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, explained as a member of the EDC he supported the recommended changes to the BD zone. There was a great deal of discussion by the EDC regarding service uses in the retail core and the EDC recommended further vetting of service uses. He explained a service is an exchange of money for a product or service such as a hair salon. That definition is consistent with recommendations for the BD1 zone in the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled comments that prohibiting a drive-through would discourage banks from locating in the BD zone. When someone is told they cannot do something, it is easy to get around that; when someone is told what is expected, it is harder to get around. He recommended the “such as” clause in the development agreement amendment needed further specificity. With regard to requiring two of the three criteria for a development agreement to be met, he recommended requiring the use criteria be met and then one of the other criteria. He summarized development agreements were a way for the community and the Council to help shape the downtown area. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out 2500-3000 additional residents will locate in Edmonds in the future. He recommended including a criteria for the use of a development agreement that relates to a transportation system that will bring people downtown to shop. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was positive about the changes, but due to the hour and the urgency of the levy discussion, he proposed bringing this matter back for a special workshop. He has questions about raising the height limit to 35 feet and raising the standard height limit to 30 feet but it was unlikely the Council would work through those issues tonight. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO RESCHEDULE THIS FOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Council President Peterson recalled there was some concern the issues were not discussed by the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. He suggested discussing it at their August 4 meeting. In response to comments that this was to be reviewed again by the CS/DS Committee before forwarding it to full Council, he suggested the CS/DS Committee discuss it at their August 9 meeting and this item be scheduled on the August 23 Council agenda. Councilmember Wilson advised he would relay his questions under Council comments. Mayor Cooper encouraged Councilmembers to submit any questions/comments prior to the August 23 meeting. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ( Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to an interview of Human Resources Director Debbie Humann in the Everett Herald. Next, he reported on the legislative redistricting; the last meeting is in Seattle on August 9. Public hearings will be held in Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver and Olympia after the final decision is made in November. In 2000 a public hearing was not held after the final decision. Further information is available at 360-786-0046. With regard to the levy, he recommended forming a 100-150 member advisory committee. He suggested a levy include funds to purchase Al Dykes’ property and that it developed with a use that was beneficial to citizens. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 193 of 380 AM-4110   Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 07/26/2011 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Community/Development Services Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action  Information Subject Title Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding potential amendments to downtown BD zones. The amendments focus on uses permitted in designated street fronts in BD zones, commercial depth requirements, reducing mandatory step-backs, and providing for Development Agreements to achieve specified city goals. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendation (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Council's CSDS Committee discussed several staff-initiated issues pertaining to downtown BD zones and asked the Planning Board to review BD zoning issues (see Exhibit 7). Narrative After a number of months of discussion and work, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 8, 2011, on proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43, code requirements pertaining to the downtown BD zones. The Planning Board’s recommended amendments resulting from that public hearing are contained in Exhibit 1, which shows a markup version displaying changes from the existing code. A staff summary of the proposed changes is contained in Exhibit 2, and the Planning Board minutes are in Exhibit 3. An earlier staff memo describing some of the issues involved is contained in Exhibit 4, with the hearing draft of the amendments that was considered by the Planning Board contained in Exhibit 5. A map of the existing downtown BD zones can be found in Exhibit 6. Attachments Exhibit 1: PB draft code amendments Exhibit 2: Staff summary of PB recommendations Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes Exhibit 4: Staff memo from 6/8/2011 PB hearing Exhibit 5: Draft amendments from 6/8/2011 PB hearing Exhibit 6: Map of BD zones Exhibit 7: CSDS minutes of 8/11/2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 194 of 380 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 04:41 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/21/2011 03:25 PM Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 195 of 380 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 196 of 380 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 197 of 380 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 198 of 380 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 199 of 380 5 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards, unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of ECDC 16.43.050. Table 16.43-2. Sub District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 200 of 380 16.43.030 Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 201 of 380 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 202 of 380 8 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way, excluding alleys. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specified in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 203 of 380 16.43.030 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 204 of 380 10 Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi- cations: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single- family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground floor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first 30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 30 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 205 of 380 11 f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height – increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step- Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15- foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street. ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement. b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 206 of 380 12 Note: the diagrams on this page are deleted in the Planning Board recommendation. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 207 of 380 13 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section. 4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 208 of 380 14 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 209 of 380 15 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 210 of 380 16 16.43.050 Development agreements. A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for development agreements in ECDC 20.08. B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to the following limitation: 1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35. C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two of the following criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; 2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals: a. a hotel; b. a post office; c. a farmers market; d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities, examples include such features as public restrooms, additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering space and/or combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site design. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 211 of 380 Summary of Planning Board Recommended Changes to BD Zones  1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth  requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded map  covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60‐foot  requirement elsewhere. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is expanded in the code to include  all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify where the primary pedestrian areas are  throughout the downtown BD zones.  2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions to the  Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are allowed, office or  professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot 'designated street front.' In  addition, drive‐in or drive‐through businesses are prohibited in the BD1 zone. Existing non‐ conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code... i.e. they  would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In addition, other  kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e. behind the first 45 feet)  or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the emphasis would be on pedestrian‐ oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone.  3. Step‐back requirements. Step‐backs are no longer required in downtown buildings (currently,  they are not required in the BD1 zone, while a 15‐foot step‐back is required above 25 feet in  other BD zones). The Planning Board concluded that the current step‐backs built into the code  end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be feasible to enforce, and the  design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards.  4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the proposed  amendments (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes  sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. Approval  hinges on meeting at least two of three criteria, generally including (1) attaining at least a LEED  Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; (2) the development incorporates one or  more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post  office, farmers market, or space for artists); (3) the development includes enhanced public  space and amenities. Development agreements are authorized as an alternative development  approval process, requiring public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council, with  final approval by the Council. Notwithstanding the other criteria, a development agreement  cannot increase the height of a building to be more than 35 feet.        2011.07.15  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 212 of 380 APPROVED JUNE 22nd CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 8, 2011 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed, Vice Chair (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (BD) ZONES (FILE NUMBER AMD20110003) Mr. Chave reviewed each of the proposed amendments as follows: Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements: Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones (Map 16.43-1), which has been expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth requirements. At this time, the commercial height requirement for the ground floor space of properties along the designated street fronts is 12 feet. The 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 213 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 2 proposed language identifies a consistent commercial depth requirement of 45 feet, which replaces the 30-foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60-foot requirement elsewhere in the BD zones. Staff believes the 30-foot standard is too small to ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater standard of 60 feet outside the retail core (BD1). He reminded the Board that multi-family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in the BD Zones. Mr. Chave said the Board is specifically seeking feedback from the public about the proposed amendment to the commercial depth requirement, as well as the proposed Designated Street Front Map. He advised that staff measured a large number of commercial spaces in the BD zones in 2005 and 2006, with particular focus on the BD1 zone. They found that the vast majority of the commercial spaces had a depth of at least 60 feet. Therefore, they believe that a 45-foot commercial depth requirement would be reasonable to ensure an adequate amount of ground floor commercial space. Again, he emphasized that this requirement would only apply to properties located along designated street fronts. Step-Back Requirement: Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone, but there is a 15-foot step-back requirement in all other BD zones. In order to increase the height of a building from 25 to 30 feet, a 15-foot step-back is required for the portion of the structure above 25 feet. This requirement results in a significant loss in the amount of developable area and ends up prohibiting buildings from actually being constructed within the established downtown height limits. He said the proposed language provided for the hearing identifies a reduced step-back requirement from 15 feet to 5 feet. However, the Board is also considering the option for removing the step-back requirement entirely from all BD zones. The logic is that if the 30-foot height limit is adequate in the BD1 zone, it should be adequate for all BD zones. In addition, the step-back requirement does not really add any additional protection that is not already addressed by the existing Design Guidelines for the BD zones. He said the Board is seeking feedback on whether or not the step-back requirement should be reduced or eliminated. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone: Mr. Chave explained that the area one to two blocks radiating out from the fountain is known as the downtown retail core or BD1 zone. Members of the Planning Board surveyed the existing uses in this area and found that it is predominately retail and restaurant uses, with a fair amount of service uses that are generally compatible with retail uses. However, there are some uses that are not compatible, such as medical offices and/or other types of offices that do not have walk-in customers. These uses tend to want to wall off their businesses from the street front, which discourages pedestrian activity. If more of these types of uses are located in the retail core, they could undermine the viability of the existing retail uses. He particularly noted that medical uses are required to provide privacy to their patients. Because they have not been allowed to close off their front windows, they have used privacy screens inside, which have had the same affect. Mr. Chave said the Board has discussed the idea of prohibiting certain types of uses that are incompatible with the retail core. As per the proposed amendment in Table 16.43.020, retail, restaurant and service businesses would be allowed, but office and/or professional office uses would only be located outside the 45-foot designated street front. Another option being considered by the Board would be even more restrictive to prohibit office and service uses in the designated street front areas in the BD zone. Only retail and restaurant uses would be allowed. He emphasized that the BD1 zone occupies only a small portion of the downtown, and the use restrictions would only apply to the designated street front areas. Office uses would still be allowed elsewhere in the building behind the front retail-oriented uses or on the upper floors of the building. He noted that if the proposed language is adopted, existing nonconforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code. They would be allowed to continue as the same type of use so long as they remain occupied. Development Agreements: Mr. Chave explained that a development agreement is similar to the “contract rezone” concept, which is no longer used by the City. As proposed, the development agreement concept would allow flexibility for a developer to propose modifications to the development standards in exchange for providing a public benefit. He referred to the proposed code language in 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 214 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 3 Section 16.43.050, which includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. The Board is seeking specific feedback about whether the criterion is appropriate and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones. They would also like feedback about whether specific conditions should be attached to development agreements, as well as what development standards could be varied, and to what extent. Mr. Chave said that, as proposed in Section A, development agreements would be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a public hearing process. The Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council would conduct another public hearing before making a final decision. The Board’s recommendation and the City Council’s final decision would be based on whether or not a proposal is consistent with the City’s economic development and Comprehensive Plan goals and the downtown Design Guidelines. Mr. Chave reviewed that Section B outlines what can be approved as part of a development agreement. The language includes two options. One would allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. An alternative would be to allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height limits would only be allowed to increase to 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. He recalled that the Board specifically discussed the concept of using “stories” to address height. He explained that the topography in downtown Edmonds makes this approach difficult. Because of topographical changes, development on a single lot could accommodate up to three stories on one side, but four on another. He said the Board is particularly interested in hearing public feedback regarding this concept. Mr. Chave referred to the criteria for approval of development agreements, which is outlined in the proposed language for Item C. As proposed, in addition to attaining at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification, a development would be required to meet at least two of the following three criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification. 2. The development incorporates one or more of the follow uses designed to further the City’s economic development goals: a hotel, a post office, a farmer’s market, and/or studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave observed that, typically, sidewalks in the downtown are narrow and buildings are constructed right to the sidewalk. A developer could propose an expanded sidewalk or plaza area to enhance the pedestrian space, which would meet one of the criteria for a development agreement. He reminded the Board that a development agreement must be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the downtown Design Guidelines. Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and recalled the Board previously discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and is not really an ideal location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as commercial street front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at a joint meeting. He said staff recommends that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the BD3 zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not compatible with retail and/or commercial uses. Chair Lovell pointed out that Footnote 3 on Page 5 should be amended to identify a 45-foot commercial depth requirement in rather than a 60-foot requirement. Board Member Ellis requested further information about how nonconforming uses would be addressed. While he understands the uses would be allowed to continue for a time after the amendments are approved, he asked when they would lose their nonconforming status. Board Member Johnson answered that the businesses would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses as defined in ECDC 17.40. However, they would not be allowed to expand in any way, including the number of employees, equipment and/or hours of operation, except as provided in ECDC 17.40.050. If a nonconforming uses ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use would be required to conform to the zoning ordinance. In laymen’s terms, the property could be rented to another similar 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 215 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 4 business or to a permitted use. However, if the building is vacant for six months, it may only be used for conforming uses in the code. Board Member Clarke suggested that the Designated Street Front Map does not accurately represent how the City is legally platted into lots. Rather, it represents ownership. Mr. Chave explained that the map is divided into tax parcels, which are different than legal lots. In some cases, multiple lots are combined into a single tax parcel. As an example, Board Member Clarke specifically referred to the properties on the south side of Main Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues South. The property to the west of the alley is divided into three lots, and the same size of property to the east of the alley is identified as a single lot because it is under the same ownership. Board Member Clarke pointed out that requiring a 15-foot step-back on narrow lots for portions of a building above 25 feet makes development challenging, if not impossible. The stepped-back portion of the buildings would be nonfunctional. Mr. Chave explained that the step-back requirement is particularly onerous for properties that have two street fronts (the main street front and the alley). These buildings are required to step back 15 feet on each side. Board Member Clarke referred to the property located just west of 3rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the alley and questioned if it is legally possible to redevelop just one of the lots based on the current step-back requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that redeveloping just one of the lots would be very challenging. Doug Spee, Woodway, said he has an office on Bell Street. He expressed his belief that the proposed code amendments are well written and would benefit all property owners in the BD zones. They do not favor any particular land owner. He said that while the step-back concept works well for high-rise development in downtown Seattle, the Board should keep in mind that development in downtown Edmonds is limited to three stories. Asking a developer to step back the top floor can kill the design and make a project unfeasible. He expressed his belief that a step-back requirement is the wrong choice to prequalify a developer for the additional 5 feet in height. Another option would be to allow the additional 5 feet in height if a building is modulated. He pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has the ability to effectively control whether a proposed building provides enough modulation to warrant the additional 5 feet in height. A step back should not be the only way a developer can obtain the additional height. Mr. Spee referred to the proposed development agreement language (ECDC 16.43.050) and noted that the alternative language for Item B could be interpreted to allow building heights much greater than 35 feet if a developer proposes a 3- story building with tall ceiling heights on each floor. He suggested the language be clarified or that the reference to the number of stories be eliminated altogether. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, thanked the Board for the time and effort they have spent to work through the proposed amendments. He said he hopes that when they are presented to the City Council, they will be in a good frame of mind to support the Board’s recommendation. He said he supports most of the changes as proposed. He specifically said he believes development agreements would stimulate economic development in downtown Edmonds. He noted there has been no new development in downtown Edmonds since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. While the economy is partially to blame, he believes the other cause is the rigid BD development standards. Currently, the only flexibility allowed in the BD zones is through a variance, which requires a developer to meet six criteria. While the variance concept is well intended, it generally curbs the granting of any variance. He said he believes the development agreement provision would open new opportunities for controlled flexibility. Developers would have more flexibility, but the flexibility would be controlled by the City Council. It sets up the opportunity for a win-win situation where the developer has to give something in order to get something in return. He said he hopes the Board can reach a unanimous decision and forward their recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, referred to the Planning Board’s minutes of April 13th, which incorrectly quoted him as stating that “the step-back requirement should be applied in all BD zones.” His intent was to suggest that he did not see the logic of applying a 15-foot step back in any of the BD zones. Karen Wiggens, Edmonds, said she supports the Board’s proposal to prohibit office uses in the BD1 zone. It is important for the retail area to be pedestrian friendly. However, she is not sure she supports the idea of prohibiting service uses, as well. Many people who visit the nail and hair salons walk to their destinations. She said she also supports the proposal to change the commercial depth requirement to 45 feet for all BD zones and to eliminate the step-back requirement. She explained that she owns a building on 2nd Avenue South and James Street, and they are currently negotiating a 10-year lease 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 216 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 5 with Landau Associates, which will be good for her and for the City. Part of the reason she can negotiate the new lease is because she can offer additional space on the third floor, which can be expanded on the east side of the building. There is no reason for a 15-foot step back on her building. If she was not allowed to expand her building to the street front, the City would lose a good business, and she is not the only property owner in this type of situation. She said that while she supports the development agreement concept, she cautioned that the proposed language appears to address one specific property, which can be a dangerous approach. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell requested clarification of Mr. Spee’s comment related to the proposed language in Alternative B in ECDC 16.43.050 (height versus stories). He said he does not interpret the language to allow a 3-story building that is greater than 35 feet in height. Mr. Spee said he supports the concept of limiting building height to 35 feet. However, his interpretation of Alternative B is that a 3-story building could actually be much greater than 35 feet if each of the floors had a 16-foot ceiling height. He said he does not believe the language, as currently drafted, defines the maximum building height allowed. Board Member Clarke observed that Ms. Spee is a successful developer in other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. He asked him explain how a developer could construct a 4-story building when the height is limited to 35 feet, particularly given the height required to provide a 12-foot ground floor commercial space, as well as space to locate the mechanical equipment. Mr. Spee answered that if a lot is sloped, it may be possible to construct four stories on one side. He said that if the proposed Designated Street Front Map is approved as presented, his property would qualify for four stories because a portion of the development would be outside the designated street front area. Therefore, he would not be required to provide 12-foot ceiling heights for the ground floor space. He briefly explained how a 4-story development could be accomplished on his particular lot. Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the objective of development agreements is to enhance flexibility. The development standards do not take lot size and topography into consideration, and applying a one-size-fits-all approach does not allow flexibility for developers to explore other options that would enhance overall development without creating a monstrous development that the community does not want. He recalled that the purpose of the height limit is to avoid massive buildings. Mr. Spee pointed out that a 30-foot high building could not be considered large. He suggested that one aspect that is missing from the conversation is that topography creates a stadium setting as you approach the downtown. The one-size-fits-all approach does not acknowledge that a slightly taller building on 4th Avenue South and Main Street would not look different from uphill. Development agreements would offer flexibility for the City to allow slightly taller buildings that do not block view from uphill. They also allow developers an opportunity to try and sell something that makes better sense to the public and the City Council. He said he has spent several months trying to offer ideas for how his development could provide more benefits to the community, but the current code language does not allow flexibility to implement any of the ideas. Board Member Clarke pointed out that Mr. Spee also owns property in Redmond near their town center, which has potential for redevelopment. Mr. Spee said he purchased the property in July of 2008 and the permits to construct an 85-foot tall building were obtained in December of 2010. He said that while Redmond’s development standards are different, they are not necessarily any better. However, they do not have a building height requirement for their town center zone. The Board reviewed each of the proposed amendments and took action as follows: Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone: CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed table and noted that the only term currently defined in the code is “office,” which means “a building or separate defined space within a building used for a business which does not include on-premises sales of goods or commodities.” He noted that this definition is not particularly helpful, and that is why staff provided more descriptive language for office and service uses. He advised that the Board would review all the use classifications after the 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 217 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 6 University of Washington Team has worked out their proposal for form-based zoning for the Westgate and Five Corners commercial areas. He referred to the handout that matches the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes to the 1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which identifies very different kinds of service categories. He recalled the Board has talked about allowing personal service uses in the BD1 zone. He summarized that while they must deal with use definitions at some point in the future, the proposed amendment is workable because it includes terms that are used throughout the Development Code. Board Member Ellis recalled the Board previously discussed the option of prohibiting both office and service uses in the BD1 zone. However, the motion currently on the floor would only restrict office uses from being located in the designated street front areas within the BD1 zone. Board Member Stewart reviewed the updated results of the survey she and Board Member Johnson conducted to identify the current uses in the BD1 zone. They found that 35% of the designated street fronts were retail uses, 5% were art, and 23% were restaurant and food services. That means a total of 63% of the uses were retail and/or food related. In addition, 25% of the space was occupied by beauty and wellness uses, finance, insurance and real estate uses, and professional offices. Other uses occupied 4% of the space, and 8% of the space was vacant. Mr. Chave observed that professional offices occupy only a small percentage of the designated street front space in the BD1 zone. However, adopting the proposed language would eliminate the possibility of more of these uses locating in these critical retail areas. Board Member Cloutier recalled the Board’s previous discussion about what options a land owner would have if they are unable to rent their space for a retail use. If a space cannot be rented within a 6-month time period, he suggested it would be better to allow the space to be rented for a professional office use rather than remain vacant. He questioned how this need could be addressed. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment would offer no option for other types of uses, and a development agreement would not be allowed to modify the allowed uses, either. Board Member Stewart suggested the purpose of the proposed amendment is to serve a greater City need. Landowners have the option of adjusting their rent and/or terms to attract retail tenants. Mr. Chave recalled an experience shared earlier by Mr. Clifton in which he encouraged a property owner to think more carefully about the types of businesses he/she was trying to recruit. The property owner assumed the space was more suitable for office use, but he was able to convince him/her that a retail food business would be a better choice. The property owner was able to successfully recruit this type of use. Board Member Stewart emphasized that getting more retail uses in the BD1 zone will be positive for the landowners, too. Board Member Johnson pointed out that changing the uses allowed in the BD1 zone would not require a successful office use to terminate now. However, she felt the proposed amendment would be appropriate if the City’s intent is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. She agreed that service uses such as nail and hair salons could be part of the retail mix. She would even support allowing all service uses, but medical and other professional office uses should be prohibited. Board Member Cloutier agreed the City’s goal is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. However, he cautioned against limiting the property owners’ ability to rent their space too much. There should be some provision that allows nonconforming uses if that is the only type of use interested in the space. Allowing a nonconforming use would be better than an empty store front. Mr. Chave pointed out that the hardship to property owners would be mitigated by the fact that the use restrictions would only apply to the portions of buildings located within the designated street front. The limited use would apply to just a very small portion of the downtown area, and he would advocate holding firm on the areas that matter (BD1 zone). Board Member Clarke said it appears that the vacant properties in the BD1 zone are designed for retail rather than professional office uses. Mr. Chave added that much of the vacant space is in space that has never been occupied but was constructed for retail uses. Board Member Clarke said he cannot foresee a situation in which the proposed amendment would place a hardship on a property owner. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment represents the best interest of the public and provides a fair balance between the needs of the landowners and the current economic conditions. Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as proposed, drive-through businesses would no longer be allowed in the BD1 zone. The Board has generally agreed with this approach. However, as she reviewed the table of permitted uses, her attention was drawn to hotel and motel uses, both of which are permitted primary uses in the BD1 zone. She explained that a 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 218 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 7 motel is designed for auto travelers, and a hotel is defined in Chapter 21 as containing five or more separately-occupied rooms. A boarding house is a use that contains not more than four rooms for lodgers and boarders. She expressed her belief that hotel and boarding house uses seem to be more consistent for the BD1 zone, but perhaps motels should be excluded. Motels require an additional driveway access, which is similar to a drive-through business. If one is permitted and the other is not, it appears to be contrary to the desired pedestrian environment in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave acknowledged that, at one time, the terms “hotel” and “motel” were defined differently, but now there is much less distinction. He reminded the Board that the BD1 development standards prohibit additional curb cuts, which would address issues related to access. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the definitions she provided came directly from the existing ECDC. Mr. Chave agreed but said the definitions are old and need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member Clarke explained that the term “drive-through” references the fact that a user is maintaining their auto in the rendering of the service such as a coffee stand, a fast-food restaurant, etc. People are served while they remain in their cars. On the other hand, people who visit motels are required to park their cars to access their rooms. In the transient lodging world, which covers hotels, motels, etc., there is no such thing as a drive-through motel. Therefore, he suggested that motels are unrelated to drive-through uses. He summarized his belief that the City should not prohibit transient lodging facilities in the BD1 zone. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements: BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO ECDC 16.43.030 TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO 45 FEET IN ALL BD ZONES AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THE CORRECTION TO FOOTNOTE 3 (CHANGE 60 FEET TO 45 FEET). HE FURTHER MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT FOR BD ZONES MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Step-Back Requirements: CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE STEP-BACK REQUIREMENT BE ELIMINATED IN ALL BD ZONES. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Lovell said the logic behind his motion is that the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines provide that building design shall include façade articulation and/or modulation. Using changes in textures, materials and articulation can achieve the same aesthetic result as requiring a step back. He expressed his belief that even a 5-foot step back would be too much when multiplied by the entire width of the lot. Board Member Clarke observed that there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. Similar to how the commercial depth requirement was changed to be consistent for all BD zones, he said he would support a consistent step-back requirement. He said the existing architecture in the BD zones reflects the uniformity of no step-back requirement since no new development has occurred since the step-back requirement was implemented. As examples, he noted the Windermere Building, City Hall, the Harbor Building, and the condominiums built in downtown. He concluded that the step-back provision has not proven to be a valuable contribution to the building code. For uniformity and to be consistent with how the City is currently developed, he recommended the step-back requirement be eliminated. Board Member Ellis said he supports the motion to eliminate the step-back requirement for the same reasons that were stated by Board Member Clarke and Chair Lovell. He said he does not see why they should have a different step-back requirement for any of the BD zones. The current requirement is too blunt an instrument to accomplish its goal. Chair Lovell referred to written comments submitted by Vice Chair Reed, which state, “I think the step-back change is good, though upper floor step-backs are a good design feature that I would hope is still used. Otherwise, we could end up with shoe boxes for the sake of maximizing square footage.” 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 219 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 8 THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 220 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 9 Development Agreements: BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, USING ALTERNATIVE B. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier referred to Mr. Spee’s earlier concern that using the term “story” could result in building that are significantly taller than 35 feet if a developer chooses to construct three stories that are each 16 feet tall. He reminded the Board that the additional height would only be allowed via an approved development agreement, which would be reviewed by both the Planning Board and the City Council. If the proposed height of a development is unreasonable, the City would not be obligated to approve the development agreement. A developer would have to make a strong case to support why each story would have to be so tall, and each request would be weighed against the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan policies. Board Member Cloutier recalled that one Board Member expressed concern that if all provisions in ECDC 16.43.030 and 16.43.040 can be altered with the exception of height, these two code sections would be meaningless. He reminded the Board that any code diversion would have to be approved by the City Council as part of a development agreement. Mr. Chave added that a developer would have to make a case to support his request to modify a development standard. Board Member Cloutier said a Board Member also raised the question of what would happen if a developer chooses not to meet one of the requirements of ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave answered that the developer would be required to either amend the development agreement or request an entirely new development agreement, both of which would require a public process and final approval by the City Council. These inconsistencies should be caught during the development permit review, and no development permit would be issued for a project that does not meet all of the code requirements as outlined in the development agreement. While he actually recommended including the reference to “stories” in Alternative B, Board Member Clarke questioned if it is needed if the goal is to create flexibility. He asked if the 35-foot maximum height limit would provide enough safeguard that someone would not be able to build a taller structure. If so, then reference to “stories” is irrelevant. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that height has traditionally been regulated based on a specific height and not stories. The language related to stories was added at the request of the Board. It is not really necessary. Board Member Clarke said it is possible for a development that is 35-feet high to include a taller first floor to accommodate the mechanical equipment and a taller third story to provide a greater ceiling height for residential units. This would allow for development that is architecturally unique and different than a standard box. He noted that other municipalities are allowing flexibility in their codes for this type of development. He said he would support the motion, but he would like to amend it to delete the reference to “three stories.” Board Member Ellis suggested it would make more sense to change Alternative B to read, “A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height may only be increased to 35 feet.” Board Member Chave agreed that would be appropriate and would not alter the intent of the proposed language. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE WORDS “OR THREE STORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER” FROM ITEM B.1. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Clarke said he appreciates that the City Council takes the time to read the Board’s minutes because they have spent a lot of time on this issue. That is one of the reasons he has taken the time to have the discussion about building heights versus stories and the combination of the two. This discussion helps to lay the foundation so the City Council can see the complexity of the problem they face in the BD zones and offer a solution that meets the Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Policies to encourage positive economic development and suitability to the community in long-term investments with the anticipation of providing economic benefits for all stakeholders in the community. Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council and the public to have a clear understanding of the concept of highest and best use of the development of real estate. He explained that there are four criteria for evaluating the highest and best use of a piece of property: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 221 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 10 1. Potential Development. The potential development must be physically possible based on current construction standards and standards associated with the site. 2. Legally Permissible. This falls directly under the zoning code and development standards to create the elasticity on legally permissibility. Flexibility in the code enables the highest and best use to expand and adapt to different market conditions, which is critical in the development arena. 3. Financially Feasible. This is a key concept for the community to consider. For example, if the cost of land and the cost of construction are both high, these costs must be covered by the economic feasibility of the proposed project. This is one reason why the step-back requirement is onerous. It reduces a developer’s opportunity to spread the financial viability over a larger footprint. The Board has enhanced the concept of highest and best use by recommending that the step-back requirement be eliminated and by establishing a uniform commercial depth requirement of 45 feet. Both of these amendments allow for more flexibility for the types of land uses that can be put in the BD zones. It also enhances the arena for financial feasibility. 4. Maximum Productivity. Maximum productivity is based on opportunity costs. If a developer has two alternatives, they must determine which one produces the maximum productivity of the asset. The zoning code helps the developer be able to choose the best of all the land uses based on economics at the time of development. Board Member Clarke summarized that if all four criteria can be met, there is a high probability that the project will be sustainable over the long term and improve the return to all stakeholders through increased tax revenues and enhanced use of the property by the community. He said the Board has worked hard to create an environment that meets and exceeds the goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the economic sustainability of the community. Developers will be able to speak to all four points with more flexibility, and there will be more opportunities for return to the community. Chair Lovell referred to Vice Chair Reed’s written concern about changes that occur after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave clarified that the staff cannot unilaterally change a development agreement. Changes would have to go back to the City Council for approval. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendment incentivizes the City’s goal of being sustainable by requiring Silver and/or Gold LEED or equivalent for all development agreements. It is also important to consider the concept of adaptive reuse so that the uses of buildings can be altered as the market changes without requiring substantial redevelopment. In addition, new construction should use local materials and other sustainable resources, be energy efficient, maximize day lighting to reduce electricity requirements, and safeguard the indoor environmental quality by eliminating the use of toxic materials. She summarized that return on investment is not just about construction costs, it also includes reducing operating costs over the life of a building. These measures will help improve the economic and social sustainability of the City. Board Member Ellis questioned how the Board came up with the four uses outlined in Item C.2. Mr. Chave said these uses were identified in discussions with the Planning Board and CEDC as priorities for promoting tourism in the downtown. Board Member Ellis asked if this list is intended to be exclusive of the things that are desirable or if additional uses could be added. Mr. Chave agreed that the four items may not be the only important and desirable uses, but they represent those that have been identified thus far. Board Member Ellis questioned if specifically identifying these uses would preclude other desirable uses in the future. Mr. Chave pointed out that the language could be amended in the future if more uses are identified. Board Member Ellis suggested that a better option would be to identify the four uses as potential examples, but not all inclusive. Mr. Chave cautioned against leaving the language so extremely open ended. Board Member Clarke suggested another option would be to add “or characteristics” after “uses,” and then include a provision that allows the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Council for uses or other characteristics that may be considered in the future. This would allow the document to be more flexible rather than restricted to just those four uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that this process would really be no less time consuming than a development code amendment to add another use. Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council to see that this concept was considered by the Board and their intent is that it not be limited to the four uses identified in Item C.2. Neither is the language intended to apply to the needs of 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 222 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 11 just one property owner. Mr. Chave said the items on the list have been pursued and talked about at various levels for quite some time. He said the list is intended to represent the uses that have been identified to this point. He noted that the City Council would also have the ability to add additional uses to the list prior to their final approval. Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that in previous discussions with the CEDC, public restrooms were identified as a desired public amenity. She suggested that the words “public restrooms” be inserted into Item C.3 as an example of a potential public amenity. Board Member Ellis requested clarification of how Criteria C.3 would be applied. Mr. Chave clarified that art features would only be required if the applicant chooses to utilize Criteria C.3, which calls for enhanced public space and amenities. Board Member Ellis suggested that the words “without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities,” be added at the beginning of the second sentence to make it clear that developers can propose public space and amenities that are not included on the list of examples. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO CHANGE ITEM C.3 TO READ, “THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES. WITHOUT LIMITING THE SCOPE OF ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES, EXAMPLES INCLUDE SUCH FEATURES AS PUBLIC RESTROOMS, ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS WHICH PROVIDE EXPANDED PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR GATHERING SPACE, AND/OR COMBINED WITH EATING OR FOOD RETAIL SPACES WHICH INCLUDE OPEN AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK. ART FEATURES VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC SHALL ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING AND/OR SITE DESIGN.” BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MAIN MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050 WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave announced that the Board Members have been invited to attend the CEDC’s June 15th meeting, at which the University of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team will provide a final update on their work with the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers before presenting their findings to the City Council. The Board would be invited guests of the CEDC and would not be voting on the item. He explained that after their presentation to the City Council, the Team would ask the City Council for authorization to begin the formal review of the Development Code and then the item will come before the Planning Board for review. Mr. Chave advised that Mr. Lien would be present at the Board’s June 22nd meeting to discuss the Shoreline Master Program Update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart announced that the City of Bellingham is sponsoring their 9th Annual Imagine This! Home and Landscape Tour on June 25th and 26th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She said she would not be able to attend the event. She encouraged Board members to visit http://sustainableconnections.org/events/9th-annual-home-and-landscape-tour for more information. She felt the event would be of interest to the Board given the City’s goal of implementing green initiatives in Edmonds. She would like ideas for promotional events to show off green projects that have occurred in the City. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 223 of 380 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 5 o f 3 8 0 Item #__6a_ City of Edmonds  Planning Board   Meeting Date: June 8, 2011  Agenda Subject: Public Hearing on draft amendments to downtown BD zones.  Staff Lead /  Author:  Rob Chave    Initiated By:  City Council  Planning Board   City Staff   Citizen Request  Other:       The Planning Board had discussions on potential amendments to the downtown BD  zones during its meetings on March 9th, March 23rd , April 13th, and April 27th of this  year. The draft amendment language prepared for the public hearing show what the BD  zoning chapter would look like if the following features were included:  1. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions  to the Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are  allowed, office or professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot  'designated street front.' Presumably if these rules are adopted, existing non‐ conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code...  i.e. they would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In  addition, other kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e.  behind the first 45 feet) or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the  emphasis would be on pedestrian‐oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along  commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone. Another option being considered by the  Planning Board is to be even more restrictive, i.e. prohibiting office, professional office,  and service uses in the ‘designated street front’ of the BD1 zone. Only retail and  restaurant uses would be allowed along the street front.  2. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth  requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded  map covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and  the 60‐foot requirement elsewhere. Staff believes the 30‐foot standard is too small to  ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater  Edmonds Planning Board  Agenda Memo  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 256 of 380 standard (i.e. 60 feet) outside the retail core. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is  expanded in the code to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify  where the primary pedestrian areas are throughout the downtown BD zones.  3. Step‐back requirements. The issue here is that it appears that the current step‐backs  built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be  feasible to enforce. This in turn ends up prohibiting a building from actually being built  within the established downtown height limits. In the sample draft provided for the  hearing, step‐backs are reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. As another option, the Board is  also considering removing the requirement entirely. Currently, there is no step‐back  requirement in the BD1 zone, but a 15‐foot step‐back is required in other BD zones.   4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the current  draft code amendment language (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in  ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a  development agreement. The Planning Board has been discussing whether these are the  right criteria, and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones.  For example, the Board has discussed not allowing these types of development  agreements in the BD5 zone (the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor).    08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 257 of 380 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 258 of 380 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 259 of 380 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 260 of 380 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 261 of 380 5 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards, unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of ECDC 16.43.050. Table 16.43-2. Sub District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 262 of 380 16.43.030 Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 263 of 380 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 264 of 380 8 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way, excluding alleys. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specified in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 265 of 380 16.43.030 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 266 of 380 10 Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi- cations: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single- family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground floor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first 30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 30 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 267 of 380 11 f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Step-Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 5 feet of any street front. Within the 155-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 155-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street. ii. A 155-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a 155-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 155-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step- back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a fivetwo-foot building setback can be combined with a 103-foot building step-back to meet the 155-foot step-back requirement. b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 268 of 380 12 Note: the diagrams on this page must be changed to match any changes to required the step-back (e.g. 0 or 5 ft) 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 269 of 380 13 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section, step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in subsection (C)(2) of this section. 4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 270 of 380 14 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 271 of 380 15 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 272 of 380 16 16.43.050 Development agreements. A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for development agreements in ECDC 20.08. B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. {The following Alternative to “B” is also being considered} B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to the following limitation: 1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two of the following criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; 2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals: a. a hotel; b. a post office; c. a farmers market; d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Examples include such features as additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering space, combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site design. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 273 of 380 ((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( !! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!! ((((((((((((( (((((((((((( (((( (((( ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!! ((( ((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (((( (((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((( (((((((((((((( ((((((((((((( (((((((( (((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((( (((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( (((((((((((((( (( (((((((((( ((((((((((( (((( (((((( ((((( ((((((( ((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((( (((((((((( (( (( ((( (((((((((( (( ! ! (((( (((((((((((( ((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (((( (((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! (((( ((((((((((( ! ! ! !! (((((((( (((( ! (( ! ! (((((((((((((((( (((((((( (((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((( ((((( ((((( ((((( ((((( (((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( ( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Br a c k e t t ' s La n d i n g No r t h Ol y m p i c B e a c h Br a c k e t t ' s La n d i n g So u t h Civic Pl a y f i e l d s Ci t y P a r k Ed m o n d s Ma r s h [e [e [e [e[e [e [e [e [e [e RS - 6 P PP P OS M P1 MP 2 CG W CW BC RS - 6 RS - 6 RM - 2 . 4 BD 3 BD 1 RM-1.5 BD 5 BD 4 RM - 1 . 5 RS-6 RS-6 RM - 1 . 5 RM - 3 BD 2 BD 2 BD2 BD 2 OR R- 1 9 7 9 - 4 R- 1 9 9 5 - 1 7 7 R -19 9 8 -20 7 R- 2 0 0 2 - 1 0 1 PRD 2002-102 M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES 2 N D A V E N M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST 4 T H A V E N A D M I R A L W A Y J A M E S S T R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N H E M L O C K W A Y H O W E L L W A Y S U N S E T A V E S H E M L O C K S T P I N E S T H O L L Y D R L A U R E L S T 3 R D A V E N B E L L S T M A I N S T 6 T H A V E N D A Y T O N S T H O M E L A N D D R W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y / S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S 7THAVEN W A L N U T S T 5 T H A V E S 7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y S E A M O N T L N E R B E N D R 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST 2 N D A V E S E D M O N D S S T 8THAVESBELLST 6 T H A V E S A L D E R S T S P R U C E S T A D M I R A L W A Y 8THAVES 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S S P R A G U E S T 4 T H A V E S 8THAVEN M O N D S W A Y / S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES 2 N D A V E N M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST 4 T H A V E N A D M I R A L W A Y J A M E S S T R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N H E M L O C K W A Y H O W E L L W A Y S U N S E T A V E S H E M L O C K S T P I N E S T H O L L Y D R L A U R E L S T 3 R D A V E N B E L L S T M A I N S T 6 T H A V E N D A Y T O N S T H O M E L A N D D R W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y / S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S 7THAVEN W A L N U T S T 5 T H A V E S 7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y S E A M O N T L N E R B E N D R 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST 2 N D A V E S E D M O N D S S T 8THAVESBELLST 6 T H A V E S A L D E R S T S P R U C E S T A D M I R A L W A Y 8THAVES 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S S P R A G U E S T 4 T H A V E S 8THAVEN M O N D S W A Y / S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 4 of 38 0 D R A F T M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting August 11, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Manager Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director Rob English, City Engineer Stephen Clifton, CS/Econ Dev Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director The committee convened at 6:17 p.m. A. Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” Barbara Tipton, Rich Senderoff, and Ann Heckman participated in the discussion, explaining that the benefits and purpose of establishing a tree board are outlined in the draft ordinance. A major purpose is to move the city toward obtaining the Tree City USA designation, since having a tree board is a necessary requirement for obtaining that status. The ordinance does not introduce any new regulations or requirements beyond what the city is already doing, but the designation would enable the city to seek funding to help in researching and promoting the benefits of trees in the community. The tree board could also serve as a resource the city could draw on. The Committee also briefly discussed existing penalties for tree cutting, and agreed to discuss this subject further at the September meeting. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the draft ordinance to the City Attorney to put in final form for consideration for adoption by the full Council. B. Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's Landing north and south of the ferry terminal. Brian McIntosh explained that the proposal to extend provisions to allow dogs to be on-leash in Hutt Park came about at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to a similar discussion for five other park areas in the City. Three of those parks were recommended to become on-leash (with restrictions) and Council decided not to extend that recommendation to Brackett’s Landing North & South. As Hutt Park was not part of the public hearing, it was decided to take this to Council Committee as the next step. Council President Bernheim tonight spoke in favor of extending the on-leash areas to both Brackett’s Landing North & South Parks adjacent to the ferry terminal. Consensus of the Committee was to move forward with the proposal for Hutt Park but deny the request to extend on-leash provisions to the Brackett’s Landing parks. ACTION: As this action would result in a code change, the Committee agreed that it should be forwarded to full Council as a public hearing at a future date. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 275 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 2 2 C. Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business zones. Rob Chave introduced the discussion by explaining that there are several items staff wishes to initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial uses, the zoning requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone. In addition, Stephen Clifton reported that staff has been fielding inquiries from major private interests on zoning requirements related to downtown; these interests range from individual property owners to developers of hotels and other projects. In all cases, concern has been expressed about working within existing code requirements. In light of the city’s adoption of its sustainability element, staff considers it a good time to see whether Council would be receptive to including incentives in the code that would promote features such as green building projects (LEED Gold being an example), expanded open space and sidewalk areas, or other amenities that would improve downtown streetscape and design. Additional height was noted as being something developers have asked about, and that small, carefully situated height bonuses implemented as part of a project-specific negotiated development agreement approved by Council, could be something that staff and the Council could develop within the code. Council Member Peterson noted that this could be something that fits well with the city’s economic development goals, as well as showing leadership in sustainability and green development. Council Member Petso expressed support for including green development standards within the code as a basic requirement, but said she did not support trading environmental benefits for any increases in height or other incentives. The Committee discussed the approach of asking the full Council to discuss the issue, or allow the Economic Development Commission to work with the Climate Committee and/or Planning Board to develop some ideas that could be brought back to the Committee for further discussion. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the staff recommended minor BD zone updates (review of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor zoning and street frontage mapping) to the Planning Board for review. The Committee also forwarded the commercial depth requirements to the Planning Board, asking the Board to review the existing depth for the BD1 zone along with the other BD zones; the Committee expressed doubt that the existing 30-foot depth in the BD1 zone is adequate to encourage sustainable commercial use. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the issue of code incentives and/or requirements for sustainable development downtown to the EDC and Climate Committee to develop further, with ideas brought back to the Committee for further review and discussion. D. Proposed 8th Ave South pathway south of Alder Street. Rob English (City Engineer) presented Mr. Adams’ proposal to build a pathway between 802 and 724 Alder St. in the unimproved 8th Ave right of way. The pathway would begin at Alder St and continue to the existing path on the south half of the 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets. Mr. Adams has offered to hire and pay a contractor to construct the path. The conceptual drawing submitted by Mr. Adams was shown to the committee. The history on previous City Council action related to the possible vacation of 8th Ave and the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets was discussed. In November 2005, the City Council decided not to pursue the vacation of 8th Ave and in February 2006, the City Council directed staff to build only the south half of the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 276 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 3 3 The Committee recognized and asked for comments from Mr. and Mrs. Martin who own 724 Alder St. The Martins explained their observations of how the path is used by citizens and how they believe a new pathway is not necessary. They also expressed that Mr. Adams is one of four property owners adjacent to the unopened 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets and he is the only owner in favor of constructing the proposed pathway. ACTION: The Committee voted to not proceed with Mr. Adams’ request to construct the proposed pathway. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 277 of 380    AM-5005     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/06/2012 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Planning/Economic Development Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Planning/Parks/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Action  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding step-backs. Recommendation Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to implement the code language changes indicated in Exhibit 1. Previous Council Action A public hearing was held by the City Council on July 26, 2011, regarding several proposed amendments to the city's downtown BD zones. One amendment, dealing with designated street fronts, was ultimately adopted. The City Council last discussed the specific proposal regarding step-backs in BD zones on August 23, 2011. Narrative The City Council considered the Planning Board's recommendations regarding four sets of amendments to the city's downtown BD zones at a public hearing on July 26, 2011. After committee review, one set of amendments regarding designated street fronts was approved on August 23rd. No vote was taken on the recommendation by the Planning Board regarding step-backs in BD zones. The specific language recommended by the Planning Board regarding step-backs is contained in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 3 contains the original public hearing agenda item from July 26, 2011. A short summary of the amendments is contained on page 19 of that exhibit, and the description of the pertinent proposal regarding step-backs in BD zones reads as follows: "3. Step?back requirements. Step?backs are no longer required in downtown buildings (currently, they are not required in the BD1 zone, while a 15?foot step?back is required above 25 feet in other BD zones). The Planning Board concluded that the current step?backs built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be feasible to enforce, and the design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards." Although the Planning Board recommended removing step-back requirements from all BD zones, no 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 278 of 380 step-back requirement currently exists in the retail core (BD1). The Council has the flexibility to consider adjusting step-back requirements in any or all of the remaining BD zones, and could, for example, decide it is appropriate to retain a less restrictive step-back (e.g. 5 feet instead of 15 feet) and/or decide that a step-back is appropriate for some BD zones and not others. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Planning Board recommended language regarding step-backs Exhibit 2 - City Council minutes Exhibit 3 - City Council public hearing packet Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 08/02/2012 02:38 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2012 02:39 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/03/2012 08:38 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/03/2012 08:59 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/02/2012 11:57 AM Final Approval Date: 08/03/2012  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 279 of 380 11 f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height – increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step- Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15- foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street. ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement. b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 280 of 380 12 Note: the diagrams on this page are deleted in the Planning Board recommendation. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 281 of 380 13 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section. 4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 282 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 13 specifically audit this project. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday, the City Clerk and he will provide responses to Councilmember Bernheim’s questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was speechless. She believes this will be looked at in a thorough manner. She looked forward to determining how to proceed in the future and appreciated Mr. Williams’ input regarding a policy to avoid this in the future. She wondered if the Council would have stopped the project if they knew the overruns were this high; remarking the Council should have been given the opportunity to make that decision. Councilmember Wilson commented the Auditor is not the appropriate arbiter of whether something is legal or illegal. Before the next Council meeting he suggested a definitive answer be provided by someone outside the City, whether that was an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General or the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office or some other entity. He summarized it was not appropriate for the Council or Mayor to pass judgment regarding what was legal or illegal. Councilmember Plunkett suggested scheduling an Executive Session with regard to what is legal and illegal, whether to pursue an investigation, etc. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council was contemplating whether the City has a cause of action that would be appropriately discussed in Executive Session as would be the defense regarding the request for equitable adjustment. Councilmember Plunkett commented Mr. Williams, Mr. Taraday and Mayor Cooper made every effort to make the information public as soon as they received it. The Council now needs to discuss how to proceed in Executive Session. Council President Peterson scheduled an Executive Session on September 6, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Cooper advised staff will answer the questions asked by the Council and schedule review of a purchasing policy on a future agenda. (Councilmember Wilson did not participate in the following items.) 7. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Community Services/Development Service Committee discussed this at their recent meeting and forwarded three of the Planning Board recommendations to the Council for further consideration. Development agreements are not part of this agenda item and will be scheduled for a future Council work session. Council President Peterson clarified tonight’s discussion did not include development agreements. The City Attorney will review the issue of development agreements and make further recommendations. Mr. Chave advised the City Attorney will provide background on development agreements at a future work session. Council President Peterson advised he has been working with Mr. Taraday to schedule a work session on land use issues. Councilmember Bernheim provided a PowerPoint presentation. He expressed support for the 45-foot depth for the storefronts and not allowing offices on the ground floor in the retail core. He did not support removing the step backs in the BD zone, at least at this point; and did not support allowing buildings as tall as 35 feet along the main retail corridors, Fifth Avenue and Main Street, noting he had seen no research or evidence proving these are good ideas. He provided photographs supporting his research that step backs are highly desirable and are necessary to preserve human scale, noting step backs are required in Kirkland and Friday Harbor. As support for his opposition to 35-foot buildings, he provided photographs of 1-2 story buildings along main shopping streets in Kirkland and Edmonds. He provided several photographs of buildings he liked. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 283 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 14 Councilmember Bernheim said he would not approve an increase in height limits on the main retail shopping streets just to keep a post office or build a boutique hotel. He envisioned the sky, the air above, the view, the pedestrian scale, trees taller than buildings as the City’s “seed corn,” the City’s heritage and the tourism golden egg and he would not sell it for the promise that residents could “save a buck on property taxes.” He suggested the following ideas be considered before approving a permanent height increase: • Limit the width of buildings on the street front (to break up buildings into smaller pieces) • Measure height from the main street instead of the center of the lot (so the height of the building slopes with the street) • Develop the alleys (to provide more storefront) • Limit the volume of the building to, e.g., 250% of the lot size (to give builder flexibility, but control maximum building mass) • Underground utility wires • Replace some on-street parking with a pedestrian pathway Councilmember Bernheim proposed the following: 1. Anywhere downtown, amend the Code to allow an extra 3 feet for solar panels (the City already allows unlimited extra height for church steeples, 3 feet for elevator penthouses and chimneys, 18” for vent pipes, and 30” for stand pipes. ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Maximum building height for lots in any BD zone should be between two and four stories • Stories above the second story should be set back 45 feet along Main Street and Fifth Avenue to match the recommended depth of the retail space. • All development in the BD zone above two stories requires ADB review after new guidelines are adopted. • Two stories along the main retail streets will protect human scale and pedestrian orientation. • Four stories everywhere in the BD zone with ADB approval except the valuable shopping streets. 3. Eliminate three-hour free parking • In BD-1 zone, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 4 hours. • In other downtown zones, to create commuter, transit-oriented parking, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 14 hours. Councilmember Bernheim suggested holding a town hall meeting where residents can be heard, and can work together to find common ground. He summarized economic development does not require changing the zoning code to allow taller buildings. Building heights can be raised but only if residents support that change in the community character. To promote economic development, zoning codes should be predictable and fair; there are many more solutions than raising building heights along main historical town streets. Councilmember Petso commented earlier this week she sent an email to some Councilmembers, Mr. Chave, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Clifton and Mayor Cooper conveying her analysis that the building height limit was 25 feet but the proposed amendments to Section C2 and C3 would change the height limit to 30 feet. Previously those sections allowed 30 feet with step backs for pitched roofs and the amendments appeared to allow 30 foot boxes. Mr. Chave answered 25 feet is the basic height limit in the BD zones and there are different ways to achieve 30 feet. For example in the BD1 zone, a 30-foot height can be achieved if the building has a 15-foot ground floor. In other BD zones a 30-foot height can be achieved with a step back and a 12-foot ground floor. The Planning Board recommendation eliminates the step back requirement but retains the 12-foot ground floor requirement. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 284 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE 60-FOOT AND 30-FOOT DEPTH TO A 45 FOOT COMMERCIAL DEPTH IN THE BD ZONES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE OFFICE USES FROM THE STORE FRONTS IN THE BD1 ZONE. Councilmember Plunkett relayed he would be unable to support this amendment, envisioning a property owner may not have a tenant without an office use. He preferred to allow the marketplace to determine whether an office such as a tax accountant locates in the BD1 zone based on their success. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was also concerned that a space would remain vacant if a building owner was unable to rent to a retail use. She did not support the motion. Council President Peterson commented service businesses currently located in the BD1 zone would be grandfathered. He pointed out this is not radical thinking; there are retail districts around the world and they exist for a reason. As a retailer he understood that although some service businesses attract customers, a consistent retail base is needed in the retail core. Shoppers in a retail area encountering spaces where curtains are drawn because it is a dental office will often turn around and proceed no further. He emphasized this is proposed for a very limited area of downtown, it is the right thing to do for the greater good of the retail core and it is endorsed by business leaders in the community. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a dental office cannot be visible to the street due to HIPPA requirements. She envisioned uses such as interior designers, insurance, etc. who bring money to Edmonds. She was not convinced that Edmonds should not allow those businesses as prominently as retail stores. She favored a mixture of businesses in the City. She observed grandfathering meant that existing businesses could remain and asked whether the grandfather clause would allow another office after an office tenant moved out. Mr. Chave answered a similar use could locate in the space within 6 months. He relayed there have been instances where the building owners do not always seek a retail use first and rent to whomever shows up which over time can erode the retail core. The Planning Board’s recommendation was only for the BD1, a very small area and only in the first 45 feet of the ground floor. In the BD1 zone offices can locate above or behind a retail uses. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3); COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Petso reported on the Public Facilities District Board meeting; these are generally good and exciting times for the PFD. Although items are not usually presented to the Council without review by a Council committee, Councilmember Petso explained the PFD is working on term limits for their boards and they plan to present their proposal to Council on a Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Finance Committee is nearly to the point where policy decisions can begin to be made on individual items, from staffing levels to hydrant maintenance, within the RFA. As it will be difficult to get Council enough information in advance to seek policy direction, she planned to tentatively agree to policies to get a preliminary model in place. She will avoid agreeing on more than a tentative basis until there is an opportunity for Council discussion. Councilmember Bernheim reported he was invited by the Muslim Association of Puget Sound to their beautiful new mosque in Redmond to break the fast. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 285 of 380 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting August 9, 2011   Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:  Council Member Adrienne Fraley‐Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director  Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer   Rob Chave, Planning Managaer   Jeff Taraday, City Attorney   Stephen Clifton, Community Services and                   Economic Development Director       The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.      A. Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project. Mr. English reviewed the scope and limits of the emergency repair and how agenda items A and B are related since both projects were on the storm pipeline in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad and Admiral Way. The emergency repair was completed by Interwest Construction and the final costs including staff time and testing was $75,858. ACTION:    Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      B. Report on Small Works Roster Solicitation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation Project and award contract to Michels Corporation in the amount of $64,020.00. The scope of the project was reviewed and an explanation was provided on the cured in place pipe (CIPP) method that will be used to repair 215 feet of existing 24-inch stormline in Dayton Street. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      C. Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to Brackett’s Landing North Parking Lot. The Parking Committee recommends a proposed ordinance to add a four hour parking restriction for Brackett’s Landing north parking lot in Section 8.64.065 of the Edmonds City Code. The parking lot currently has a posted four hour parking limitation and this change will allow the Police Department to enforce the restriction. ACTION:   Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.            08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 286 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 2 2   D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015. The proposed Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit would continue the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program in Edmonds. The purpose of the CTR program is to reduce the Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupant Vehicle commute trips and reduce vehicle related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install waterline as part of Lynnwood’s 76th Ave W Sewer Improvement Project The City of Lynnwood is designing a new sewer main for 76th Ave W to increase the capacity of their sewer sytem. The City of Edmonds has identified a watermain replacement project that falls within Lynnwood’s project limits. This agreement will provide for the coordination and combination of both projects into one to reduce costs and minimize the disruption to residents during construction. Mr. English reviewed a minor change to Section 6, “Payment Schedule” that reduced Lynnwood’s 8.5% administration charge to 2% during the project’s design phase. ACTION:  Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.      F. Potential amendment to downtown BD zones. The Committee initiated the discussion by identifying the development agreements provisions as the most complex and potentially controversial aspect of the amendments. Staff concurred, and agreed that the Council could elect to act on the other three items (designated street fronts and 45-foot commercial depth, uses in the BD1 zone, and step-back requirements). The Committee reviewed each of the three items in turn, with staff summarizing the Planning Board/EDC recommendations. The 45-foot commercial depth would help standardize the requirements among the BD zones. In regard to BD1 uses, it was pointed out that the Planning Board and EDC desired to do more work to review and refine the definition of service uses, but approving the current amendments to not allow office uses in critical storefront spaces would be a desirable first step. The concern over step-back requirements was that it was counter-productive in obtaining desirable building designs, particularly given historical downtown commercial building forms. City Attorney Jeff Taraday participated in the discussion of development agreements. He pointed out that the mechanism was authorized by state law and was already in the city’s code. Most observers believe that the state legislature’s intent was to replace contract rezones with the development agreement option, but this wasn’t made explicitly clear. Regardless, how development agreements are configured within the code can determine how open-ended or ‘tight’ the provisions are, and will ultimately determine how they are used to further the city’s expressed goals. He noted that staff believes more work needs to be done to provide guidance and clearer standards within the provisions so that the city can be assured that “we get what we want.” The Committee discussed forwarding the development agreement to the Council to schedule for a full Council work session, to be accompanied by a background memorandum from the City Attorney. This discussion did not have to be on the same night as the other BD zone amendments; it could be scheduled separately by the Council President when the City 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 287 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 3 3 Attorney was ready. Councilmember Plunkett noted his opposition to any provision that would provide a way to increase building heights. Councilmember Plunkett stated that he wanted the record to show he continues to believe the taller building clause in the proposed development agreement for downtown should be removed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed. ACTION:   1. The committee agreed to forward the first 3 amendments to the Council for further action, without a recommendation from the committee. 2. The committee agreed that the development agreement provisions should be scheduled by the Council President for further discussion by the full council, when the City Attorney’s information is ready.   G. Public Comments   Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, spoke in favor of retaining existing height limits and in opposition to proposed  Planning Board recommended development agreement.    Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, suggested making sure the Planning Board recommended development agreement  be very specific.    Mr. Adams of Seattle spoke in favor of Planning Board recommended development agreements.      The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.      08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 288 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 2 F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE RFQ FOR ARTISTS TO CREATE INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR PROJECT G. APPOINTMENT OF MARLA MILLER TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2011 Councilmember Bernheim requested the following changes to the minutes: • Page 17, last paragraph, delete the sentence, “He suggested including bike racks and an electric car plug.” • Page 23, second paragraph from the bottom, change “admirably” to “adequately.” COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. Council President Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he was absent from the meeting. Councilmember Wilson observed it was the Council’s normal process to refer the minutes to the Clerk for verification. Councilmember Bernheim responded he was trying to save the Clerk time. Councilmember Wilson recalled Councilmember Bernheim did say he wanted bike racks in the park but would not hold up his vote to get them. Councilmember Bernheim read the comments he made at the July 19 meeting from a transcript. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINING. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON USES PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN BD ZONES, COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, REDUCING MANDATORY STEP-BACKS, AND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED CITY GOALS Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendations: 1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. The current commercial depth requirement is 30 feet in the BD1 downtown retail core and 60 feet elsewhere in the downtown zones. The Planning Board felt the existing commercial depth requirements were contrary to the City’s goals for the retail core and felt a consistent definition of designated street front and street depth was appropriate throughout the downtown area. The Planning Board recommended a consistent 45-foot depth. Staff’s walkthrough of commercial spaces downtown a few years ago found nearly all commercial spaces, in the BD1 zone in particular, were approximately 60 feet in depth. Existing uses will be allowed to continue, the amended depth will only apply to new development. 2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. There are currently no restrictions as long as the use is commercial. In the City’s economic development goals and the downtown Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian activity and retail activity in particular is a core goal for the downtown BD1 area. The Planning Board recommended not allowing offices or professional offices within the 45-foot designated street front in the BD1 zone. Uses within the first 45 feet uses must be retail or service-related businesses. The Planning Board felt offices and professional offices do not rely on walk-in customers and some offices in the BD1 close off their visible windows to the public via 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 289 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 3 blinds, etc. Mr. Chave reminded the BD1 zone is a very small area, the two blocks radiating out from the center fountain. Retail and service oriented business would be allowed to locate within the first 45 feet; any commercial use including offices can locate behind the first 45 feet or in the upper story. 3. Step‐‐‐‐back requirements. There is currently no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. The other downtown BD1 zones require a 15‐foot step‐back above 25 feet. The Planning Board felt building design could be addressed by the existing design guidance that refers to presence of building on the street, differentiating lower portions from upper portions. Historic buildings downtown such as Beeson Building or Chanterelles derive their character not from a step-back but decoration, ornamentation, etc. which the Planning Board felt provided more building design enhancement than a step-back. 4. Development Agreements. Developers would be allowed to build according to normal development pattern in accordance with the current zoning or could propose a development agreement. Development agreements have a thorough public hearing process at both the Planning Board and the City Council and the final decision is made by the City Council. Under the Planning Board’s recommendation, development agreements would achieve certain specified goals. A developer would need to achieve two of the following three goals: 1) Attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification 2) The development incorporates one or more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post office, farmers market, or space for artists) 3) The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave explained the goal of tonight’s hearing was to identify what the Council wants to include in an updated code. The language could be amended such as strengthening or providing further clarity on some of the development agreement criteria. A number of the code provisions were adopted in 2006, about the time of the economic downturn. Therefore, the City has virtually no experience with the code provisions. The Planning Board, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and staff feel a down economy is an appropriate time to make improvements to the code where appropriate. The EDC had a lengthy discussion regarding development agreements as they relate to the City’s economic development goals. The EDC discussed and endorsed the Planning Board’s recommendations at their recent meeting. The EDC expressed interest in further defining service uses, which service uses were appropriate in a retail core. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any sense of urgency or request that the City Council make a decision tonight following the public hearing rather than listening to points of view and making a decision in the next weeks or months before the end of the year. Mr. Chave answered it is a legislative matter so there is no particular deadline. The Planning Board and EDC felt these were important issues and hoped the Council would address them as quickly as possible. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was a need for the Council to make a decision tonight. Mr. Chave answered the public testimony may indicate a need that he is not aware of; there is no specific deadline. Councilmember Petso referred to minutes in the Council packet that indicate the CS/DS Committee wanted to refer the environmental sustainability considerations to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and asked whether that had been done. Mr. Chave answered that is a separate issue, including broader incentives in the codes. The environmental aspect tonight is only related to development agreements. Councilmember Petso asked whether there had been discussion regarding something other than LEED for the environmental incentive. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board’s discussion primarily focused on LEED although they did discuss other standards. The problem is there are few other good environmental 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 290 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 4 standards; LEED is the best established standard at this time. The words “or equivalent” were included because other standards or ways of measuring environmental benefits may develop over time such as the Master Builders green building initiatives. If a developer could show their proposal had equivalent environmental benefits, it would be acceptable. He summarized it was not expected that a developer would complete the LEED certification process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what type of businesses would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave answered general office such as a corporate or business office or a professional office such as a doctor’s office would not be allowed in the designated street front. Both could occur behind the designated street front, in the story above or in one of the surrounding commercial zones. Conversely any retail or service use would be allowed. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff, the EDC and the Planning Board for their work. As Council liaison to the EDC, she is aware of the discussions that occurred at their meeting and the Planning Board minutes demonstrate a very thoughtful process. She referred to page 9 of the Planning Board June 8 minutes, where Board Member Cloutier moved that the motion be amended to delete the words “or three stories, whichever is greater” from Item B.1. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson. The minutes do not reflect a vote on the amendment. Mr. Chave recalled it was approved. Councilmember Plunkett observed the proposed development agreement would increase height to 35 feet. In Mr. Spee’s case, per the Planning Board minutes, he is planning that some portion of his lot will have a 4-story building. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether removing 35 feet from the development agreement and retaining the height in the existing code would eviscerate the value of the development agreement. He asked whether development agreements were predicated on an increase in height up to 35 feet and in some cases, depending on the lot, up to 4 stories. Mr. Chave answered the language in the development agreement states the development standards in general can be varied. The language regarding 35 feet is a limitation. Even if a developer wants to vary other regulations in the code, the height cannot exceed 35 feet. If the Council did not want to allow height above the existing feet, the language would need to be changed to not more than 30 feet. Whether it eviscerated the value of a development agreement was in the eyes of the beholder. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was value in a development agreement if the Council did not approve allowing an increase in height. Mr. Chave answered there could still be some value because other regulations could be altered via a development agreement. Some of the discussion by the EDC and Planning Board was regarding uses that they wanted to occur downtown such as a boutique hotel. Companies who develop that use considered the City’s zoning and indicated it would not be feasible under the existing 30-foot height limit and would require a few additional feet in height. The discussion by the Planning Board and EDC specifically referenced that input. Depending on the situation, particularly where a higher building would not impact the existing street scape and the use would potentially be a huge economic benefit particularly for tourism, the Planning Board and EDC felt strongly the opportunity for increased height was appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council had been told previously that a certain building could not be built but it was later constructed when required to build to code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a development agreement could be used with a variance. Mr. Chave answered the City’s variance criteria are very tight and absent something unique to the site, the variance criteria could not be satisfied. For example, he could not imagine a circumstance where additional height would be granted via a variance for a boutique hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the land slopes. Mr. Chave explained there are slopes throughout the downtown and it would be difficult to argue that because a particular property slopes, granting additional height would be so unique 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 291 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 5 that another site should not also receive a variance for slope. He summarized granting a variance on one site opened up to variances all over the City. Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side. Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted. Councilmember Petso observed this was supposed to be legislative but the discussion appears to relate strongly to a particular project that has yet to be submitted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this discussion is in regard to all the BD zones and the map on page 111 encompasses several blocks. To the extent any particular lot was discussed in the context of a hypothetical development, he supposed that could assist the Council in understanding the effect of the proposed changes as long as it was understood any discussion regarding a site specific application of the proposal was purely hypothetical. There is no quasi judicial land use application before the Council tonight. On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel, Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are tied to street sections rather than property lines. Councilmember Plunkett advised he heard a conversation that led him to believe this development agreement was pretty much centered around one potential developer. He was at a Historic Preservation Commission meeting when a representative for the developer of the post office made comments, believing he was speaking to the Planning Board. The representative stated all he needed to do was get the Council to change the code and they could construct a nice building with a number of nice attributes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this matter was still legislative when he heard something like that because he assumed this particular developer would ultimately submit an application. Mr. Taraday answered this is a legislative matter and while there may be developers/property owners in the community who lobby the City Council to adopt/not adopt the proposed amendments, they are free to do so in the context of approaching their elected officials about a legislative matter. Access to Councilmembers will change as soon as a development application is submitted; to his knowledge there is no application on file yet, therefore, the Council is truly in the legislative realm. Councilmember Plunkett clarified a developer could lobby a Councilmember as much as they wanted even if they would profit from the change. Mr. Taraday answered absolutely. Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 292 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 6 commercial is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides. He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who designated the street fronts. Mr. Chave answered the concept was first raised when the BD zones were adopted in 2006 and established only for the BD1 zone. The Planning Board ultimately recommended expanding that concept to the other BD zones. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut off a block short of James and mid-block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the definition of service uses. Mr. Chave acknowledged there was no definition for service uses. The EDC and Planning Board felt it worthwhile to forward the proposed amendments to the Council but want to review and further define services uses to determine whether some are more retail oriented. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was true that the height in the BD1 zone is 25 feet with a minimum 12-foot first floor ceiling height but the building height can be 30 feet if the developer includes a 15-foot first floor ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered there must be a 15-foot first floor ceiling height and the maximum height is 30 feet. Councilmember Bernheim clarified in the BD1 zone a 15-foot first floor ceiling was required. Mr. Chave agreed. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, owner of a commercial building and former contractor, commented all the BD1 zone changes are beneficial. She expressed concern with the development agreement, opining that development agreements were legislated to avoid cities being accused of spot zoning. In this case the development agreement is for a specific building and lists the things that a property owner wants to do with the building. The development agreement also allows a building to extend above the height limit. She recalled the City’s Comprehensive Plan refers to 3-story buildings, not 4 stories. She concluded a development agreement was a fancy way to get around spot zoning. Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has had a vacancy for four years. With regard to step-backs, he commented removing the step-back provision is long overdue. Although passage of that change five years ago was intended to reduce the perceived size of a new building as viewed from the street or sidewalk, it eliminates any possible duplication of layout for residential levels of a small mixed use building and it is architecturally unattractive unless above a fourth floor or higher. The code has adequate provisions without the step-back requirement to ensure esthetically pleasing and appropriate development downtown. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 293 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 7 With regard to development agreements, Mr. Spee pointed out a huge component of design downtown relates to the location of the site within the specific BD zone. Although the planner may have ideas, they must simply quote the code, play no part in the design even though a site may be perfectly situated for public open space, have overhead power lines could be undergrounded, or be perfectly situated for a certain use that deserved some concession to make it possible. The City’s unbending code language hurts the ability of a designer to take advantage of a site’s unique characteristics and prevents a flow of discussion between the developer and the planner which could result in a win-win project. Any development agreement requires public hearings and Council approval, thus eliminating the concern it would get out of control. He encouraged the City Council to approve the Planning Board’s recommendations as proposed. Don Hall, Edmonds, retail store owner and member of the EDC, urged the Council to pass the four proposed changes to the BD zone code, envisioning they will lead to better development, economic growth and go a long way toward bringing new business to Edmonds. Development agreements are the key to economic vitalization downtown. A hotel and apartments will add to the number of people that need the goods and services offered by downtown merchants. The use of development agreements would achieve the goal of silver and gold LEED building and require public amenities such as public restrooms, gathering spaces, and public art. He urged the Council to view the code change as a way to kick start the desperately needed economic revitalization downtown. John Reed, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, advised he was out of town when the Planning Board held the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the BD zones, ECDC 16.43. He expressed support for economic development and as a member of the Planning Board, supported recent changes to zoning at Firdale Village which among other things included significant height increases. He also supported the creation of the Edmonds Way Corridor zones and applauded the work of the EDC over the last 18 months. Regarding the proposed changes, he supported eliminating the step-back requirement but encouraged their use as an attractive design feature. He supported the changes to the primary and secondary uses in the BD zones and had recommended the BD1 zone be changed to full retail/restaurant and other commercial uses excluded although the Planning Board did not make that change. He supported changing the commercial depth on designated street fronts to a consistent 45 feet rather than the existing 30 and 60-foot depths. He expressed concern with 16.43.050, development agreements and its interaction with the development agreement section of ECDC 20.08. Section 16.43.050 allows all BD zone provisions except design provisions to be eligible for modification by a developer meeting only two criteria, some of which are loosely defined such as no square footage or percentage requirements and therefore could be minimal. Mr. Reed relayed ECDC 20.08 has two provisions that may be cause for concern; final plans and drawings are not required, conceptual drawings and general design criteria must be specified. These often change during design development as a project evolves. He questioned whether those changes would be transparent and public knowledge and whether follow-up hearings at the Planning Board and Council would be required. ECDC 20.08 also refers to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and existing code. He questioned whether the freedom to modify nearly all the major provisions of the BD zone code was consistent with this requirement. The 35-foot maximum height included a maximum of 3-story statement when considered by the Planning Board. That statement has been removed and he echoed the question whether that change was actually approved by the Planning Board. Some sloped lots would qualify for 4 stories which can be built if 35 feet is allowed without a story limitation. He believed 4 stories was 1 too many downtown and asked that the Council revise the statement to either limit development to 30 feet or 3 stories. He relayed his concern that the open ended nature of 16.43.050 may lead to litigation if/when an agreement meeting the basic but loosely defined criteria is denied by the Planning Board and City Council. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 294 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 8 Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendations, envisioning that the ability to use development agreements would stimulate economic development downtown. He pointed out there had been no new development downtown since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. Although the economy may be partially to blame, another cause is the rigid BD development standards. The only flexibility currently allowed in the BD zones is via a variance which requires a developer meet six criteria. Although the variance concept is well intended, meeting all six criteria generally prevents the granting of a variance. The development agreement provision will open new opportunity for controlled flexibility; developers will have more flexibility but the flexibility is controlled by the City Council. A development agreement allows for a win-win situation; the developer must give something to get something in return. With regard to the 35-foot maximum height, retaining the existing 30-foot height limit as Councilmember Plunkett suggested would eviscerate the value of a development agreement because although a building can be developed in 30 feet, it would prevent a third floor of apartments and the generation of sales tax and ongoing property taxes from those 17 apartments. As Mr. Spee has previously indicated, the additional floor of apartments would allow him to lower rents by $200/month. The tenants in his existing apartments in the Spee Building will attest he has not raised rents in ten years. He urged the Council to approve the amendments without delay so that much needed economic development can occur. Economic development is a real need, without economic development and as long as inflation exceeds 1%, annual levy lid lifts will be necessary. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the Planning Board minutes in which Mr. Chave stated a development agreement is similar to the contract rezone concept that the City no longer uses. She asked why contract rezones are no longer being used by the City, how development agreement are superior to a contract rezone, and whether the flexibility provided by a development agreement would open the City to lawsuits if one developer is granted something for a specific site and another developer does not get what they want. Ruth Arista, Edmonds, advised the extension of the designated street front on 4th Avenue to Daley was related to that being part of the Arts Corridor to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. As a business owner in three locations in downtown Edmonds, on the corner of 5th & Main, next to that corner on 5th Avenue, and currently further south on 5th Avenue, she supported the proposed designated street front map. She described a shopper at the corner of 5th & Dayton on Saturday where there are two banks and an empty store front turning around and heading back to the intersection of 5th & Main. The designated street front proposal is very important to businesses located further down the street. Store fronts with good eye candy keep people walking and going into one store after another. Some offices do a great job decorating their windows, and although the banks provide a terrific service, people are not drawn to a bank. The blue line identifying designated street front stops in the middle of the parcel because a retail business located on the corner of 2nd & Bell was unlikely to get much foot traffic. She expressed her support for the proposed changes. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, member of the EDC and the tourism subcommittee, explained whenever the subcommittee thinks of something wonderful for Edmonds, the need for more hotels arises. The proposed project for a boutique hotel on 2nd & Main is very exciting. She recalled from their presentation that the elevation between Main and Bell makes development tricky without an increase in the height. She agreed with all the previous speakers who supported the proposed changes. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the criteria for a development agreement related to a green building, recalling a grocery store that installed an ugly water tank in an effort to be green. He hoped that would not be allowed in the future to meet the criteria for a green building. He questioned how long a uses that allowed a developer to use a development agreement would be required to remain and how that use could be guaranteed long term. Public restrooms are an expensive amenity and likely not practical for a developer to provide. His goal was protecting Edmonds’ small town atmosphere and protecting existing 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 295 of 380 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 9 views downtown. He questioned how a green building protected views. With regard to increasing the maximum height, he recommended further consideration such as whether the requirements are appropriate. Only three people spoke at the Planning Board; another public hearing was likely to generate more public participation. He urged the Council not to make a final decision tonight and to consider this the beginning of the discussion. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, explained as a member of the EDC he supported the recommended changes to the BD zone. There was a great deal of discussion by the EDC regarding service uses in the retail core and the EDC recommended further vetting of service uses. He explained a service is an exchange of money for a product or service such as a hair salon. That definition is consistent with recommendations for the BD1 zone in the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled comments that prohibiting a drive-through would discourage banks from locating in the BD zone. When someone is told they cannot do something, it is easy to get around that; when someone is told what is expected, it is harder to get around. He recommended the “such as” clause in the development agreement amendment needed further specificity. With regard to requiring two of the three criteria for a development agreement to be met, he recommended requiring the use criteria be met and then one of the other criteria. He summarized development agreements were a way for the community and the Council to help shape the downtown area. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out 2500-3000 additional residents will locate in Edmonds in the future. He recommended including a criteria for the use of a development agreement that relates to a transportation system that will bring people downtown to shop. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was positive about the changes, but due to the hour and the urgency of the levy discussion, he proposed bringing this matter back for a special workshop. He has questions about raising the height limit to 35 feet and raising the standard height limit to 30 feet but it was unlikely the Council would work through those issues tonight. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO RESCHEDULE THIS FOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Council President Peterson recalled there was some concern the issues were not discussed by the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. He suggested discussing it at their August 4 meeting. In response to comments that this was to be reviewed again by the CS/DS Committee before forwarding it to full Council, he suggested the CS/DS Committee discuss it at their August 9 meeting and this item be scheduled on the August 23 Council agenda. Councilmember Wilson advised he would relay his questions under Council comments. Mayor Cooper encouraged Councilmembers to submit any questions/comments prior to the August 23 meeting. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ( Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to an interview of Human Resources Director Debbie Humann in the Everett Herald. Next, he reported on the legislative redistricting; the last meeting is in Seattle on August 9. Public hearings will be held in Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver and Olympia after the final decision is made in November. In 2000 a public hearing was not held after the final decision. Further information is available at 360-786-0046. With regard to the levy, he recommended forming a 100-150 member advisory committee. He suggested a levy include funds to purchase Al Dykes’ property and that it developed with a use that was beneficial to citizens. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 296 of 380 AM-4110   Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 07/26/2011 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Community/Development Services Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action  Information Subject Title Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding potential amendments to downtown BD zones. The amendments focus on uses permitted in designated street fronts in BD zones, commercial depth requirements, reducing mandatory step-backs, and providing for Development Agreements to achieve specified city goals. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendation (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Council's CSDS Committee discussed several staff-initiated issues pertaining to downtown BD zones and asked the Planning Board to review BD zoning issues (see Exhibit 7). Narrative After a number of months of discussion and work, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 8, 2011, on proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43, code requirements pertaining to the downtown BD zones. The Planning Board’s recommended amendments resulting from that public hearing are contained in Exhibit 1, which shows a markup version displaying changes from the existing code. A staff summary of the proposed changes is contained in Exhibit 2, and the Planning Board minutes are in Exhibit 3. An earlier staff memo describing some of the issues involved is contained in Exhibit 4, with the hearing draft of the amendments that was considered by the Planning Board contained in Exhibit 5. A map of the existing downtown BD zones can be found in Exhibit 6. Attachments Exhibit 1: PB draft code amendments Exhibit 2: Staff summary of PB recommendations Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes Exhibit 4: Staff memo from 6/8/2011 PB hearing Exhibit 5: Draft amendments from 6/8/2011 PB hearing Exhibit 6: Map of BD zones Exhibit 7: CSDS minutes of 8/11/2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 297 of 380 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 04:41 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/21/2011 03:25 PM Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 298 of 380 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 299 of 380 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 300 of 380 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 301 of 380 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 302 of 380 5 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards, unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of ECDC 16.43.050. Table 16.43-2. Sub District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 303 of 380 16.43.030 Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 304 of 380 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 305 of 380 8 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way, excluding alleys. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specified in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 306 of 380 16.43.030 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 307 of 380 10 Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi- cations: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single- family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground floor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first 30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 30 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 308 of 380 11 f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height – increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step- Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15- foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street. ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement. b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 309 of 380 12 Note: the diagrams on this page are deleted in the Planning Board recommendation. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 310 of 380 13 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section. 4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 311 of 380 14 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 312 of 380 15 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 313 of 380 16 16.43.050 Development agreements. A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for development agreements in ECDC 20.08. B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to the following limitation: 1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35. C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two of the following criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; 2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals: a. a hotel; b. a post office; c. a farmers market; d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities, examples include such features as public restrooms, additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering space and/or combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site design. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 314 of 380 Summary of Planning Board Recommended Changes to BD Zones  1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth  requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded map  covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60‐foot  requirement elsewhere. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is expanded in the code to include  all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify where the primary pedestrian areas are  throughout the downtown BD zones.  2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions to the  Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are allowed, office or  professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot 'designated street front.' In  addition, drive‐in or drive‐through businesses are prohibited in the BD1 zone. Existing non‐ conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code... i.e. they  would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In addition, other  kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e. behind the first 45 feet)  or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the emphasis would be on pedestrian‐ oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone.  3. Step‐back requirements. Step‐backs are no longer required in downtown buildings (currently,  they are not required in the BD1 zone, while a 15‐foot step‐back is required above 25 feet in  other BD zones). The Planning Board concluded that the current step‐backs built into the code  end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be feasible to enforce, and the  design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards.  4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the proposed  amendments (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes  sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. Approval  hinges on meeting at least two of three criteria, generally including (1) attaining at least a LEED  Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; (2) the development incorporates one or  more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post  office, farmers market, or space for artists); (3) the development includes enhanced public  space and amenities. Development agreements are authorized as an alternative development  approval process, requiring public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council, with  final approval by the Council. Notwithstanding the other criteria, a development agreement  cannot increase the height of a building to be more than 35 feet.        2011.07.15  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 315 of 380 APPROVED JUNE 22nd CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 8, 2011 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed, Vice Chair (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (BD) ZONES (FILE NUMBER AMD20110003) Mr. Chave reviewed each of the proposed amendments as follows: Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements: Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones (Map 16.43-1), which has been expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth requirements. At this time, the commercial height requirement for the ground floor space of properties along the designated street fronts is 12 feet. The 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 316 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 2 proposed language identifies a consistent commercial depth requirement of 45 feet, which replaces the 30-foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60-foot requirement elsewhere in the BD zones. Staff believes the 30-foot standard is too small to ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater standard of 60 feet outside the retail core (BD1). He reminded the Board that multi-family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in the BD Zones. Mr. Chave said the Board is specifically seeking feedback from the public about the proposed amendment to the commercial depth requirement, as well as the proposed Designated Street Front Map. He advised that staff measured a large number of commercial spaces in the BD zones in 2005 and 2006, with particular focus on the BD1 zone. They found that the vast majority of the commercial spaces had a depth of at least 60 feet. Therefore, they believe that a 45-foot commercial depth requirement would be reasonable to ensure an adequate amount of ground floor commercial space. Again, he emphasized that this requirement would only apply to properties located along designated street fronts. Step-Back Requirement: Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone, but there is a 15-foot step-back requirement in all other BD zones. In order to increase the height of a building from 25 to 30 feet, a 15-foot step-back is required for the portion of the structure above 25 feet. This requirement results in a significant loss in the amount of developable area and ends up prohibiting buildings from actually being constructed within the established downtown height limits. He said the proposed language provided for the hearing identifies a reduced step-back requirement from 15 feet to 5 feet. However, the Board is also considering the option for removing the step-back requirement entirely from all BD zones. The logic is that if the 30-foot height limit is adequate in the BD1 zone, it should be adequate for all BD zones. In addition, the step-back requirement does not really add any additional protection that is not already addressed by the existing Design Guidelines for the BD zones. He said the Board is seeking feedback on whether or not the step-back requirement should be reduced or eliminated. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone: Mr. Chave explained that the area one to two blocks radiating out from the fountain is known as the downtown retail core or BD1 zone. Members of the Planning Board surveyed the existing uses in this area and found that it is predominately retail and restaurant uses, with a fair amount of service uses that are generally compatible with retail uses. However, there are some uses that are not compatible, such as medical offices and/or other types of offices that do not have walk-in customers. These uses tend to want to wall off their businesses from the street front, which discourages pedestrian activity. If more of these types of uses are located in the retail core, they could undermine the viability of the existing retail uses. He particularly noted that medical uses are required to provide privacy to their patients. Because they have not been allowed to close off their front windows, they have used privacy screens inside, which have had the same affect. Mr. Chave said the Board has discussed the idea of prohibiting certain types of uses that are incompatible with the retail core. As per the proposed amendment in Table 16.43.020, retail, restaurant and service businesses would be allowed, but office and/or professional office uses would only be located outside the 45-foot designated street front. Another option being considered by the Board would be even more restrictive to prohibit office and service uses in the designated street front areas in the BD zone. Only retail and restaurant uses would be allowed. He emphasized that the BD1 zone occupies only a small portion of the downtown, and the use restrictions would only apply to the designated street front areas. Office uses would still be allowed elsewhere in the building behind the front retail-oriented uses or on the upper floors of the building. He noted that if the proposed language is adopted, existing nonconforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code. They would be allowed to continue as the same type of use so long as they remain occupied. Development Agreements: Mr. Chave explained that a development agreement is similar to the “contract rezone” concept, which is no longer used by the City. As proposed, the development agreement concept would allow flexibility for a developer to propose modifications to the development standards in exchange for providing a public benefit. He referred to the proposed code language in 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 317 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 3 Section 16.43.050, which includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. The Board is seeking specific feedback about whether the criterion is appropriate and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones. They would also like feedback about whether specific conditions should be attached to development agreements, as well as what development standards could be varied, and to what extent. Mr. Chave said that, as proposed in Section A, development agreements would be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a public hearing process. The Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council would conduct another public hearing before making a final decision. The Board’s recommendation and the City Council’s final decision would be based on whether or not a proposal is consistent with the City’s economic development and Comprehensive Plan goals and the downtown Design Guidelines. Mr. Chave reviewed that Section B outlines what can be approved as part of a development agreement. The language includes two options. One would allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. An alternative would be to allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height limits would only be allowed to increase to 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. He recalled that the Board specifically discussed the concept of using “stories” to address height. He explained that the topography in downtown Edmonds makes this approach difficult. Because of topographical changes, development on a single lot could accommodate up to three stories on one side, but four on another. He said the Board is particularly interested in hearing public feedback regarding this concept. Mr. Chave referred to the criteria for approval of development agreements, which is outlined in the proposed language for Item C. As proposed, in addition to attaining at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification, a development would be required to meet at least two of the following three criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification. 2. The development incorporates one or more of the follow uses designed to further the City’s economic development goals: a hotel, a post office, a farmer’s market, and/or studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave observed that, typically, sidewalks in the downtown are narrow and buildings are constructed right to the sidewalk. A developer could propose an expanded sidewalk or plaza area to enhance the pedestrian space, which would meet one of the criteria for a development agreement. He reminded the Board that a development agreement must be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the downtown Design Guidelines. Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and recalled the Board previously discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and is not really an ideal location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as commercial street front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at a joint meeting. He said staff recommends that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the BD3 zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not compatible with retail and/or commercial uses. Chair Lovell pointed out that Footnote 3 on Page 5 should be amended to identify a 45-foot commercial depth requirement in rather than a 60-foot requirement. Board Member Ellis requested further information about how nonconforming uses would be addressed. While he understands the uses would be allowed to continue for a time after the amendments are approved, he asked when they would lose their nonconforming status. Board Member Johnson answered that the businesses would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses as defined in ECDC 17.40. However, they would not be allowed to expand in any way, including the number of employees, equipment and/or hours of operation, except as provided in ECDC 17.40.050. If a nonconforming uses ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use would be required to conform to the zoning ordinance. In laymen’s terms, the property could be rented to another similar 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 318 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 4 business or to a permitted use. However, if the building is vacant for six months, it may only be used for conforming uses in the code. Board Member Clarke suggested that the Designated Street Front Map does not accurately represent how the City is legally platted into lots. Rather, it represents ownership. Mr. Chave explained that the map is divided into tax parcels, which are different than legal lots. In some cases, multiple lots are combined into a single tax parcel. As an example, Board Member Clarke specifically referred to the properties on the south side of Main Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues South. The property to the west of the alley is divided into three lots, and the same size of property to the east of the alley is identified as a single lot because it is under the same ownership. Board Member Clarke pointed out that requiring a 15-foot step-back on narrow lots for portions of a building above 25 feet makes development challenging, if not impossible. The stepped-back portion of the buildings would be nonfunctional. Mr. Chave explained that the step-back requirement is particularly onerous for properties that have two street fronts (the main street front and the alley). These buildings are required to step back 15 feet on each side. Board Member Clarke referred to the property located just west of 3rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the alley and questioned if it is legally possible to redevelop just one of the lots based on the current step-back requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that redeveloping just one of the lots would be very challenging. Doug Spee, Woodway, said he has an office on Bell Street. He expressed his belief that the proposed code amendments are well written and would benefit all property owners in the BD zones. They do not favor any particular land owner. He said that while the step-back concept works well for high-rise development in downtown Seattle, the Board should keep in mind that development in downtown Edmonds is limited to three stories. Asking a developer to step back the top floor can kill the design and make a project unfeasible. He expressed his belief that a step-back requirement is the wrong choice to prequalify a developer for the additional 5 feet in height. Another option would be to allow the additional 5 feet in height if a building is modulated. He pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has the ability to effectively control whether a proposed building provides enough modulation to warrant the additional 5 feet in height. A step back should not be the only way a developer can obtain the additional height. Mr. Spee referred to the proposed development agreement language (ECDC 16.43.050) and noted that the alternative language for Item B could be interpreted to allow building heights much greater than 35 feet if a developer proposes a 3- story building with tall ceiling heights on each floor. He suggested the language be clarified or that the reference to the number of stories be eliminated altogether. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, thanked the Board for the time and effort they have spent to work through the proposed amendments. He said he hopes that when they are presented to the City Council, they will be in a good frame of mind to support the Board’s recommendation. He said he supports most of the changes as proposed. He specifically said he believes development agreements would stimulate economic development in downtown Edmonds. He noted there has been no new development in downtown Edmonds since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. While the economy is partially to blame, he believes the other cause is the rigid BD development standards. Currently, the only flexibility allowed in the BD zones is through a variance, which requires a developer to meet six criteria. While the variance concept is well intended, it generally curbs the granting of any variance. He said he believes the development agreement provision would open new opportunities for controlled flexibility. Developers would have more flexibility, but the flexibility would be controlled by the City Council. It sets up the opportunity for a win-win situation where the developer has to give something in order to get something in return. He said he hopes the Board can reach a unanimous decision and forward their recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, referred to the Planning Board’s minutes of April 13th, which incorrectly quoted him as stating that “the step-back requirement should be applied in all BD zones.” His intent was to suggest that he did not see the logic of applying a 15-foot step back in any of the BD zones. Karen Wiggens, Edmonds, said she supports the Board’s proposal to prohibit office uses in the BD1 zone. It is important for the retail area to be pedestrian friendly. However, she is not sure she supports the idea of prohibiting service uses, as well. Many people who visit the nail and hair salons walk to their destinations. She said she also supports the proposal to change the commercial depth requirement to 45 feet for all BD zones and to eliminate the step-back requirement. She explained that she owns a building on 2nd Avenue South and James Street, and they are currently negotiating a 10-year lease 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 319 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 5 with Landau Associates, which will be good for her and for the City. Part of the reason she can negotiate the new lease is because she can offer additional space on the third floor, which can be expanded on the east side of the building. There is no reason for a 15-foot step back on her building. If she was not allowed to expand her building to the street front, the City would lose a good business, and she is not the only property owner in this type of situation. She said that while she supports the development agreement concept, she cautioned that the proposed language appears to address one specific property, which can be a dangerous approach. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell requested clarification of Mr. Spee’s comment related to the proposed language in Alternative B in ECDC 16.43.050 (height versus stories). He said he does not interpret the language to allow a 3-story building that is greater than 35 feet in height. Mr. Spee said he supports the concept of limiting building height to 35 feet. However, his interpretation of Alternative B is that a 3-story building could actually be much greater than 35 feet if each of the floors had a 16-foot ceiling height. He said he does not believe the language, as currently drafted, defines the maximum building height allowed. Board Member Clarke observed that Ms. Spee is a successful developer in other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. He asked him explain how a developer could construct a 4-story building when the height is limited to 35 feet, particularly given the height required to provide a 12-foot ground floor commercial space, as well as space to locate the mechanical equipment. Mr. Spee answered that if a lot is sloped, it may be possible to construct four stories on one side. He said that if the proposed Designated Street Front Map is approved as presented, his property would qualify for four stories because a portion of the development would be outside the designated street front area. Therefore, he would not be required to provide 12-foot ceiling heights for the ground floor space. He briefly explained how a 4-story development could be accomplished on his particular lot. Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the objective of development agreements is to enhance flexibility. The development standards do not take lot size and topography into consideration, and applying a one-size-fits-all approach does not allow flexibility for developers to explore other options that would enhance overall development without creating a monstrous development that the community does not want. He recalled that the purpose of the height limit is to avoid massive buildings. Mr. Spee pointed out that a 30-foot high building could not be considered large. He suggested that one aspect that is missing from the conversation is that topography creates a stadium setting as you approach the downtown. The one-size-fits-all approach does not acknowledge that a slightly taller building on 4th Avenue South and Main Street would not look different from uphill. Development agreements would offer flexibility for the City to allow slightly taller buildings that do not block view from uphill. They also allow developers an opportunity to try and sell something that makes better sense to the public and the City Council. He said he has spent several months trying to offer ideas for how his development could provide more benefits to the community, but the current code language does not allow flexibility to implement any of the ideas. Board Member Clarke pointed out that Mr. Spee also owns property in Redmond near their town center, which has potential for redevelopment. Mr. Spee said he purchased the property in July of 2008 and the permits to construct an 85-foot tall building were obtained in December of 2010. He said that while Redmond’s development standards are different, they are not necessarily any better. However, they do not have a building height requirement for their town center zone. The Board reviewed each of the proposed amendments and took action as follows: Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone: CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed table and noted that the only term currently defined in the code is “office,” which means “a building or separate defined space within a building used for a business which does not include on-premises sales of goods or commodities.” He noted that this definition is not particularly helpful, and that is why staff provided more descriptive language for office and service uses. He advised that the Board would review all the use classifications after the 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 320 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 6 University of Washington Team has worked out their proposal for form-based zoning for the Westgate and Five Corners commercial areas. He referred to the handout that matches the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes to the 1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which identifies very different kinds of service categories. He recalled the Board has talked about allowing personal service uses in the BD1 zone. He summarized that while they must deal with use definitions at some point in the future, the proposed amendment is workable because it includes terms that are used throughout the Development Code. Board Member Ellis recalled the Board previously discussed the option of prohibiting both office and service uses in the BD1 zone. However, the motion currently on the floor would only restrict office uses from being located in the designated street front areas within the BD1 zone. Board Member Stewart reviewed the updated results of the survey she and Board Member Johnson conducted to identify the current uses in the BD1 zone. They found that 35% of the designated street fronts were retail uses, 5% were art, and 23% were restaurant and food services. That means a total of 63% of the uses were retail and/or food related. In addition, 25% of the space was occupied by beauty and wellness uses, finance, insurance and real estate uses, and professional offices. Other uses occupied 4% of the space, and 8% of the space was vacant. Mr. Chave observed that professional offices occupy only a small percentage of the designated street front space in the BD1 zone. However, adopting the proposed language would eliminate the possibility of more of these uses locating in these critical retail areas. Board Member Cloutier recalled the Board’s previous discussion about what options a land owner would have if they are unable to rent their space for a retail use. If a space cannot be rented within a 6-month time period, he suggested it would be better to allow the space to be rented for a professional office use rather than remain vacant. He questioned how this need could be addressed. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment would offer no option for other types of uses, and a development agreement would not be allowed to modify the allowed uses, either. Board Member Stewart suggested the purpose of the proposed amendment is to serve a greater City need. Landowners have the option of adjusting their rent and/or terms to attract retail tenants. Mr. Chave recalled an experience shared earlier by Mr. Clifton in which he encouraged a property owner to think more carefully about the types of businesses he/she was trying to recruit. The property owner assumed the space was more suitable for office use, but he was able to convince him/her that a retail food business would be a better choice. The property owner was able to successfully recruit this type of use. Board Member Stewart emphasized that getting more retail uses in the BD1 zone will be positive for the landowners, too. Board Member Johnson pointed out that changing the uses allowed in the BD1 zone would not require a successful office use to terminate now. However, she felt the proposed amendment would be appropriate if the City’s intent is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. She agreed that service uses such as nail and hair salons could be part of the retail mix. She would even support allowing all service uses, but medical and other professional office uses should be prohibited. Board Member Cloutier agreed the City’s goal is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. However, he cautioned against limiting the property owners’ ability to rent their space too much. There should be some provision that allows nonconforming uses if that is the only type of use interested in the space. Allowing a nonconforming use would be better than an empty store front. Mr. Chave pointed out that the hardship to property owners would be mitigated by the fact that the use restrictions would only apply to the portions of buildings located within the designated street front. The limited use would apply to just a very small portion of the downtown area, and he would advocate holding firm on the areas that matter (BD1 zone). Board Member Clarke said it appears that the vacant properties in the BD1 zone are designed for retail rather than professional office uses. Mr. Chave added that much of the vacant space is in space that has never been occupied but was constructed for retail uses. Board Member Clarke said he cannot foresee a situation in which the proposed amendment would place a hardship on a property owner. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment represents the best interest of the public and provides a fair balance between the needs of the landowners and the current economic conditions. Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as proposed, drive-through businesses would no longer be allowed in the BD1 zone. The Board has generally agreed with this approach. However, as she reviewed the table of permitted uses, her attention was drawn to hotel and motel uses, both of which are permitted primary uses in the BD1 zone. She explained that a 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 321 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 7 motel is designed for auto travelers, and a hotel is defined in Chapter 21 as containing five or more separately-occupied rooms. A boarding house is a use that contains not more than four rooms for lodgers and boarders. She expressed her belief that hotel and boarding house uses seem to be more consistent for the BD1 zone, but perhaps motels should be excluded. Motels require an additional driveway access, which is similar to a drive-through business. If one is permitted and the other is not, it appears to be contrary to the desired pedestrian environment in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave acknowledged that, at one time, the terms “hotel” and “motel” were defined differently, but now there is much less distinction. He reminded the Board that the BD1 development standards prohibit additional curb cuts, which would address issues related to access. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the definitions she provided came directly from the existing ECDC. Mr. Chave agreed but said the definitions are old and need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member Clarke explained that the term “drive-through” references the fact that a user is maintaining their auto in the rendering of the service such as a coffee stand, a fast-food restaurant, etc. People are served while they remain in their cars. On the other hand, people who visit motels are required to park their cars to access their rooms. In the transient lodging world, which covers hotels, motels, etc., there is no such thing as a drive-through motel. Therefore, he suggested that motels are unrelated to drive-through uses. He summarized his belief that the City should not prohibit transient lodging facilities in the BD1 zone. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements: BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO ECDC 16.43.030 TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO 45 FEET IN ALL BD ZONES AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THE CORRECTION TO FOOTNOTE 3 (CHANGE 60 FEET TO 45 FEET). HE FURTHER MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT FOR BD ZONES MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Step-Back Requirements: CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE STEP-BACK REQUIREMENT BE ELIMINATED IN ALL BD ZONES. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Lovell said the logic behind his motion is that the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines provide that building design shall include façade articulation and/or modulation. Using changes in textures, materials and articulation can achieve the same aesthetic result as requiring a step back. He expressed his belief that even a 5-foot step back would be too much when multiplied by the entire width of the lot. Board Member Clarke observed that there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. Similar to how the commercial depth requirement was changed to be consistent for all BD zones, he said he would support a consistent step-back requirement. He said the existing architecture in the BD zones reflects the uniformity of no step-back requirement since no new development has occurred since the step-back requirement was implemented. As examples, he noted the Windermere Building, City Hall, the Harbor Building, and the condominiums built in downtown. He concluded that the step-back provision has not proven to be a valuable contribution to the building code. For uniformity and to be consistent with how the City is currently developed, he recommended the step-back requirement be eliminated. Board Member Ellis said he supports the motion to eliminate the step-back requirement for the same reasons that were stated by Board Member Clarke and Chair Lovell. He said he does not see why they should have a different step-back requirement for any of the BD zones. The current requirement is too blunt an instrument to accomplish its goal. Chair Lovell referred to written comments submitted by Vice Chair Reed, which state, “I think the step-back change is good, though upper floor step-backs are a good design feature that I would hope is still used. Otherwise, we could end up with shoe boxes for the sake of maximizing square footage.” 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 322 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 8 THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 323 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 9 Development Agreements: BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, USING ALTERNATIVE B. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier referred to Mr. Spee’s earlier concern that using the term “story” could result in building that are significantly taller than 35 feet if a developer chooses to construct three stories that are each 16 feet tall. He reminded the Board that the additional height would only be allowed via an approved development agreement, which would be reviewed by both the Planning Board and the City Council. If the proposed height of a development is unreasonable, the City would not be obligated to approve the development agreement. A developer would have to make a strong case to support why each story would have to be so tall, and each request would be weighed against the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan policies. Board Member Cloutier recalled that one Board Member expressed concern that if all provisions in ECDC 16.43.030 and 16.43.040 can be altered with the exception of height, these two code sections would be meaningless. He reminded the Board that any code diversion would have to be approved by the City Council as part of a development agreement. Mr. Chave added that a developer would have to make a case to support his request to modify a development standard. Board Member Cloutier said a Board Member also raised the question of what would happen if a developer chooses not to meet one of the requirements of ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave answered that the developer would be required to either amend the development agreement or request an entirely new development agreement, both of which would require a public process and final approval by the City Council. These inconsistencies should be caught during the development permit review, and no development permit would be issued for a project that does not meet all of the code requirements as outlined in the development agreement. While he actually recommended including the reference to “stories” in Alternative B, Board Member Clarke questioned if it is needed if the goal is to create flexibility. He asked if the 35-foot maximum height limit would provide enough safeguard that someone would not be able to build a taller structure. If so, then reference to “stories” is irrelevant. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that height has traditionally been regulated based on a specific height and not stories. The language related to stories was added at the request of the Board. It is not really necessary. Board Member Clarke said it is possible for a development that is 35-feet high to include a taller first floor to accommodate the mechanical equipment and a taller third story to provide a greater ceiling height for residential units. This would allow for development that is architecturally unique and different than a standard box. He noted that other municipalities are allowing flexibility in their codes for this type of development. He said he would support the motion, but he would like to amend it to delete the reference to “three stories.” Board Member Ellis suggested it would make more sense to change Alternative B to read, “A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height may only be increased to 35 feet.” Board Member Chave agreed that would be appropriate and would not alter the intent of the proposed language. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE WORDS “OR THREE STORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER” FROM ITEM B.1. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Clarke said he appreciates that the City Council takes the time to read the Board’s minutes because they have spent a lot of time on this issue. That is one of the reasons he has taken the time to have the discussion about building heights versus stories and the combination of the two. This discussion helps to lay the foundation so the City Council can see the complexity of the problem they face in the BD zones and offer a solution that meets the Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Policies to encourage positive economic development and suitability to the community in long-term investments with the anticipation of providing economic benefits for all stakeholders in the community. Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council and the public to have a clear understanding of the concept of highest and best use of the development of real estate. He explained that there are four criteria for evaluating the highest and best use of a piece of property: 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 324 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 10 1. Potential Development. The potential development must be physically possible based on current construction standards and standards associated with the site. 2. Legally Permissible. This falls directly under the zoning code and development standards to create the elasticity on legally permissibility. Flexibility in the code enables the highest and best use to expand and adapt to different market conditions, which is critical in the development arena. 3. Financially Feasible. This is a key concept for the community to consider. For example, if the cost of land and the cost of construction are both high, these costs must be covered by the economic feasibility of the proposed project. This is one reason why the step-back requirement is onerous. It reduces a developer’s opportunity to spread the financial viability over a larger footprint. The Board has enhanced the concept of highest and best use by recommending that the step-back requirement be eliminated and by establishing a uniform commercial depth requirement of 45 feet. Both of these amendments allow for more flexibility for the types of land uses that can be put in the BD zones. It also enhances the arena for financial feasibility. 4. Maximum Productivity. Maximum productivity is based on opportunity costs. If a developer has two alternatives, they must determine which one produces the maximum productivity of the asset. The zoning code helps the developer be able to choose the best of all the land uses based on economics at the time of development. Board Member Clarke summarized that if all four criteria can be met, there is a high probability that the project will be sustainable over the long term and improve the return to all stakeholders through increased tax revenues and enhanced use of the property by the community. He said the Board has worked hard to create an environment that meets and exceeds the goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the economic sustainability of the community. Developers will be able to speak to all four points with more flexibility, and there will be more opportunities for return to the community. Chair Lovell referred to Vice Chair Reed’s written concern about changes that occur after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave clarified that the staff cannot unilaterally change a development agreement. Changes would have to go back to the City Council for approval. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendment incentivizes the City’s goal of being sustainable by requiring Silver and/or Gold LEED or equivalent for all development agreements. It is also important to consider the concept of adaptive reuse so that the uses of buildings can be altered as the market changes without requiring substantial redevelopment. In addition, new construction should use local materials and other sustainable resources, be energy efficient, maximize day lighting to reduce electricity requirements, and safeguard the indoor environmental quality by eliminating the use of toxic materials. She summarized that return on investment is not just about construction costs, it also includes reducing operating costs over the life of a building. These measures will help improve the economic and social sustainability of the City. Board Member Ellis questioned how the Board came up with the four uses outlined in Item C.2. Mr. Chave said these uses were identified in discussions with the Planning Board and CEDC as priorities for promoting tourism in the downtown. Board Member Ellis asked if this list is intended to be exclusive of the things that are desirable or if additional uses could be added. Mr. Chave agreed that the four items may not be the only important and desirable uses, but they represent those that have been identified thus far. Board Member Ellis questioned if specifically identifying these uses would preclude other desirable uses in the future. Mr. Chave pointed out that the language could be amended in the future if more uses are identified. Board Member Ellis suggested that a better option would be to identify the four uses as potential examples, but not all inclusive. Mr. Chave cautioned against leaving the language so extremely open ended. Board Member Clarke suggested another option would be to add “or characteristics” after “uses,” and then include a provision that allows the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Council for uses or other characteristics that may be considered in the future. This would allow the document to be more flexible rather than restricted to just those four uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that this process would really be no less time consuming than a development code amendment to add another use. Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council to see that this concept was considered by the Board and their intent is that it not be limited to the four uses identified in Item C.2. Neither is the language intended to apply to the needs of 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 325 of 380 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 11 just one property owner. Mr. Chave said the items on the list have been pursued and talked about at various levels for quite some time. He said the list is intended to represent the uses that have been identified to this point. He noted that the City Council would also have the ability to add additional uses to the list prior to their final approval. Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that in previous discussions with the CEDC, public restrooms were identified as a desired public amenity. She suggested that the words “public restrooms” be inserted into Item C.3 as an example of a potential public amenity. Board Member Ellis requested clarification of how Criteria C.3 would be applied. Mr. Chave clarified that art features would only be required if the applicant chooses to utilize Criteria C.3, which calls for enhanced public space and amenities. Board Member Ellis suggested that the words “without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities,” be added at the beginning of the second sentence to make it clear that developers can propose public space and amenities that are not included on the list of examples. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO CHANGE ITEM C.3 TO READ, “THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES. WITHOUT LIMITING THE SCOPE OF ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES, EXAMPLES INCLUDE SUCH FEATURES AS PUBLIC RESTROOMS, ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS WHICH PROVIDE EXPANDED PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR GATHERING SPACE, AND/OR COMBINED WITH EATING OR FOOD RETAIL SPACES WHICH INCLUDE OPEN AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK. ART FEATURES VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC SHALL ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING AND/OR SITE DESIGN.” BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MAIN MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050 WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave announced that the Board Members have been invited to attend the CEDC’s June 15th meeting, at which the University of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team will provide a final update on their work with the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers before presenting their findings to the City Council. The Board would be invited guests of the CEDC and would not be voting on the item. He explained that after their presentation to the City Council, the Team would ask the City Council for authorization to begin the formal review of the Development Code and then the item will come before the Planning Board for review. Mr. Chave advised that Mr. Lien would be present at the Board’s June 22nd meeting to discuss the Shoreline Master Program Update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart announced that the City of Bellingham is sponsoring their 9th Annual Imagine This! Home and Landscape Tour on June 25th and 26th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She said she would not be able to attend the event. She encouraged Board members to visit http://sustainableconnections.org/events/9th-annual-home-and-landscape-tour for more information. She felt the event would be of interest to the Board given the City’s goal of implementing green initiatives in Edmonds. She would like ideas for promotional events to show off green projects that have occurred in the City. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 326 of 380 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 2 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 2 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 2 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 3 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 8 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 4 9 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 0 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 1 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 2 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 3 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 4 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 5 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 6 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 7 o f 3 8 0 0 8 - 0 6 - 1 2 C i t y C o u n c i l P a c k e t P a g e 3 5 8 o f 3 8 0 Item #__6a_ City of Edmonds  Planning Board   Meeting Date: June 8, 2011  Agenda Subject: Public Hearing on draft amendments to downtown BD zones.  Staff Lead /  Author:  Rob Chave    Initiated By:  City Council  Planning Board   City Staff   Citizen Request  Other:       The Planning Board had discussions on potential amendments to the downtown BD  zones during its meetings on March 9th, March 23rd , April 13th, and April 27th of this  year. The draft amendment language prepared for the public hearing show what the BD  zoning chapter would look like if the following features were included:  1. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions  to the Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are  allowed, office or professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot  'designated street front.' Presumably if these rules are adopted, existing non‐ conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code...  i.e. they would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In  addition, other kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e.  behind the first 45 feet) or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the  emphasis would be on pedestrian‐oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along  commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone. Another option being considered by the  Planning Board is to be even more restrictive, i.e. prohibiting office, professional office,  and service uses in the ‘designated street front’ of the BD1 zone. Only retail and  restaurant uses would be allowed along the street front.  2. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth  requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded  map covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and  the 60‐foot requirement elsewhere. Staff believes the 30‐foot standard is too small to  ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater  Edmonds Planning Board  Agenda Memo  08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 359 of 380 standard (i.e. 60 feet) outside the retail core. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is  expanded in the code to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify  where the primary pedestrian areas are throughout the downtown BD zones.  3. Step‐back requirements. The issue here is that it appears that the current step‐backs  built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be  feasible to enforce. This in turn ends up prohibiting a building from actually being built  within the established downtown height limits. In the sample draft provided for the  hearing, step‐backs are reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. As another option, the Board is  also considering removing the requirement entirely. Currently, there is no step‐back  requirement in the BD1 zone, but a 15‐foot step‐back is required in other BD zones.   4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the current  draft code amendment language (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in  ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a  development agreement. The Planning Board has been discussing whether these are the  right criteria, and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones.  For example, the Board has discussed not allowing these types of development  agreements in the BD5 zone (the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor).    08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 360 of 380 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 361 of 380 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 362 of 380 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 363 of 380 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 364 of 380 5 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards, unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of ECDC 16.43.050. Table 16.43-2. Sub District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12' 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 365 of 380 16.43.030 Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 366 of 380 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 367 of 380 8 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way, excluding alleys. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specified in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 368 of 380 16.43.030 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 369 of 380 10 Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi- cations: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single- family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground floor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first 30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 30 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 370 of 380 11 f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Step-Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 5 feet of any street front. Within the 155-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 155-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street. ii. A 155-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a 155-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 155-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step- back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a fivetwo-foot building setback can be combined with a 103-foot building step-back to meet the 155-foot step-back requirement. b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 371 of 380 12 Note: the diagrams on this page must be changed to match any changes to required the step-back (e.g. 0 or 5 ft) 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 372 of 380 13 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section, step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in subsection (C)(2) of this section. 4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 373 of 380 14 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 374 of 380 15 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 375 of 380 16 16.43.050 Development agreements. A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for development agreements in ECDC 20.08. B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. {The following Alternative to “B” is also being considered} B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to the following limitation: 1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two of the following criteria: 1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; 2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals: a. a hotel; b. a post office; c. a farmers market; d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists. 3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Examples include such features as additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering space, combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site design. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 376 of 380 ((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( !! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!! ((((((((((((( (((((((((((( (((( (((( ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!! ((( ((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (((( (((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((( (((((((((((((( ((((((((((((( (((((((( (((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((( (((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( (((((((((((((( (( (((((((((( ((((((((((( (((( (((((( ((((( ((((((( ((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((( (((((((((( (( (( ((( (((((((((( (( ! ! (((( (((((((((((( ((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (((( (((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! (((( ((((((((((( ! ! ! !! (((((((( (((( ! (( ! ! (((((((((((((((( (((((((( (((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((( ((((( ((((( ((((( ((((( (((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( ((((( ((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( (((( ((( ( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Br a c k e t t ' s La n d i n g No r t h Ol y m p i c B e a c h Br a c k e t t ' s La n d i n g So u t h Civic Pl a y f i e l d s Ci t y P a r k Ed m o n d s Ma r s h [e [e [e [e[e [e [e [e [e [e RS - 6 P PP P OS M P1 MP 2 CG W CW BC RS - 6 RS - 6 RM - 2 . 4 BD 3 BD 1 RM-1.5 BD 5 BD 4 RM - 1 . 5 RS-6 RS-6 RM - 1 . 5 RM - 3 BD 2 BD 2 BD2 BD 2 OR R- 1 9 7 9 - 4 R- 1 9 9 5 - 1 7 7 R -19 9 8 -20 7 R- 2 0 0 2 - 1 0 1 PRD 2002-102 M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES 2 N D A V E N M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST 4 T H A V E N A D M I R A L W A Y J A M E S S T R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N H E M L O C K W A Y H O W E L L W A Y S U N S E T A V E S H E M L O C K S T P I N E S T H O L L Y D R L A U R E L S T 3 R D A V E N B E L L S T M A I N S T 6 T H A V E N D A Y T O N S T H O M E L A N D D R W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y / S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S 7THAVEN W A L N U T S T 5 T H A V E S 7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y S E A M O N T L N E R B E N D R 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST 2 N D A V E S E D M O N D S S T 8THAVESBELLST 6 T H A V E S A L D E R S T S P R U C E S T A D M I R A L W A Y 8THAVES 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S S P R A G U E S T 4 T H A V E S 8THAVEN M O N D S W A Y / S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES 2 N D A V E N M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST 4 T H A V E N A D M I R A L W A Y J A M E S S T R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N H E M L O C K W A Y H O W E L L W A Y S U N S E T A V E S H E M L O C K S T P I N E S T H O L L Y D R L A U R E L S T 3 R D A V E N B E L L S T M A I N S T 6 T H A V E N D A Y T O N S T H O M E L A N D D R W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y / S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S 7THAVEN W A L N U T S T 5 T H A V E S 7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y S E A M O N T L N E R B E N D R 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST 2 N D A V E S E D M O N D S S T 8THAVESBELLST 6 T H A V E S A L D E R S T S P R U C E S T A D M I R A L W A Y 8THAVES 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S S P R A G U E S T 4 T H A V E S 8THAVEN M O N D S W A Y / S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S 08 - 0 6 - 1 2 Ci t y Co u n c i l Pa c k e t Pa g e 37 7 of 38 0 D R A F T M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting August 11, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Manager Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director Rob English, City Engineer Stephen Clifton, CS/Econ Dev Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director The committee convened at 6:17 p.m. A. Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” Barbara Tipton, Rich Senderoff, and Ann Heckman participated in the discussion, explaining that the benefits and purpose of establishing a tree board are outlined in the draft ordinance. A major purpose is to move the city toward obtaining the Tree City USA designation, since having a tree board is a necessary requirement for obtaining that status. The ordinance does not introduce any new regulations or requirements beyond what the city is already doing, but the designation would enable the city to seek funding to help in researching and promoting the benefits of trees in the community. The tree board could also serve as a resource the city could draw on. The Committee also briefly discussed existing penalties for tree cutting, and agreed to discuss this subject further at the September meeting. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the draft ordinance to the City Attorney to put in final form for consideration for adoption by the full Council. B. Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's Landing north and south of the ferry terminal. Brian McIntosh explained that the proposal to extend provisions to allow dogs to be on-leash in Hutt Park came about at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to a similar discussion for five other park areas in the City. Three of those parks were recommended to become on-leash (with restrictions) and Council decided not to extend that recommendation to Brackett’s Landing North & South. As Hutt Park was not part of the public hearing, it was decided to take this to Council Committee as the next step. Council President Bernheim tonight spoke in favor of extending the on-leash areas to both Brackett’s Landing North & South Parks adjacent to the ferry terminal. Consensus of the Committee was to move forward with the proposal for Hutt Park but deny the request to extend on-leash provisions to the Brackett’s Landing parks. ACTION: As this action would result in a code change, the Committee agreed that it should be forwarded to full Council as a public hearing at a future date. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 378 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 2 2 C. Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business zones. Rob Chave introduced the discussion by explaining that there are several items staff wishes to initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial uses, the zoning requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone. In addition, Stephen Clifton reported that staff has been fielding inquiries from major private interests on zoning requirements related to downtown; these interests range from individual property owners to developers of hotels and other projects. In all cases, concern has been expressed about working within existing code requirements. In light of the city’s adoption of its sustainability element, staff considers it a good time to see whether Council would be receptive to including incentives in the code that would promote features such as green building projects (LEED Gold being an example), expanded open space and sidewalk areas, or other amenities that would improve downtown streetscape and design. Additional height was noted as being something developers have asked about, and that small, carefully situated height bonuses implemented as part of a project-specific negotiated development agreement approved by Council, could be something that staff and the Council could develop within the code. Council Member Peterson noted that this could be something that fits well with the city’s economic development goals, as well as showing leadership in sustainability and green development. Council Member Petso expressed support for including green development standards within the code as a basic requirement, but said she did not support trading environmental benefits for any increases in height or other incentives. The Committee discussed the approach of asking the full Council to discuss the issue, or allow the Economic Development Commission to work with the Climate Committee and/or Planning Board to develop some ideas that could be brought back to the Committee for further discussion. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the staff recommended minor BD zone updates (review of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor zoning and street frontage mapping) to the Planning Board for review. The Committee also forwarded the commercial depth requirements to the Planning Board, asking the Board to review the existing depth for the BD1 zone along with the other BD zones; the Committee expressed doubt that the existing 30-foot depth in the BD1 zone is adequate to encourage sustainable commercial use. ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the issue of code incentives and/or requirements for sustainable development downtown to the EDC and Climate Committee to develop further, with ideas brought back to the Committee for further review and discussion. D. Proposed 8th Ave South pathway south of Alder Street. Rob English (City Engineer) presented Mr. Adams’ proposal to build a pathway between 802 and 724 Alder St. in the unimproved 8th Ave right of way. The pathway would begin at Alder St and continue to the existing path on the south half of the 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets. Mr. Adams has offered to hire and pay a contractor to construct the path. The conceptual drawing submitted by Mr. Adams was shown to the committee. The history on previous City Council action related to the possible vacation of 8th Ave and the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets was discussed. In November 2005, the City Council decided not to pursue the vacation of 8th Ave and in February 2006, the City Council directed staff to build only the south half of the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 379 of 380 CS/DS Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 3 3 The Committee recognized and asked for comments from Mr. and Mrs. Martin who own 724 Alder St. The Martins explained their observations of how the path is used by citizens and how they believe a new pathway is not necessary. They also expressed that Mr. Adams is one of four property owners adjacent to the unopened 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets and he is the only owner in favor of constructing the proposed pathway. ACTION: The Committee voted to not proceed with Mr. Adams’ request to construct the proposed pathway. 08-06-12 City Council Packet Page 380 of 380