00872parking would be on -site instead of on the street, as he felt if it
were on the street the surrounding neighborhood would be using it. •
Ms. Charleson said they had recommended that they be on the street in
j order to save trees on the site. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. A short
' recess was announced.
.
ZO-5-78 Amendment to the Zoning Code to amend parking standards for existing
q, ,
�
j buildings
Ms. Charle-son said the Ilarkincl Counnission had been meeting for the past
year and had tried to set up an in -lieu parking fee for the City. She
L;
explained that the proposed amendment would provide parking requirements
buildings
for additions to existing buildings and, although grandfathered
,
were not required to provide parking, if additions were made to those`,
buildings parking would be required based on the addition only. Further,
where those buildings did not have space for parking and in order to
avoid taring down building space to provide parking, payment to the
in -lieu parking fund could be made. The purposes of the proposal are.to'
alleviate future parking congestion caused by buildings with'inadequate
parking in the downtown business area; to retain the existing pedestrian
character of downtown Edmonds by providing for an in -lieu parking fund
}
for those businesses that are unable to construct the required parking .
on -site; to establish an in -lieu parking fund to be used for.acquistion,
'
designi and development of off-street parking facilities; and to extend.
the in -lieu payment option to businesses in the CW and IP zones where
land for on -site parking is scarce. The effect of the proposal would be
to require additional parking spaces to be built on -site, or that the
appropriate payment be made to the in -lieu fund when one of the following
t
occurs: 41) Expapsion or enlargement to an existing building (new spaces.
2 New con -
feet in the addition only);. O
:
will be assigned on.the square
struction requiring parking spaces; or (3) Substantial conversion of an
J:.
;.
existing building where the proposed use of the building will result in
at least twice the number of the required parking spaces as for the
use (e.g., conversion to a restaurant from a single-family home)-.
previous
In order'to reduce the impact on conversions, the`in-Lieu fee will be
4;
one-halfithat assigned for spaces required due to new construction:`
The purpose of reducing that cost for conversions is to encourage people
to buy into the fund rather'than'destroy landscaping to provide the
'
parking.' Ms. Charleson said the proposal would meet the policies
it existing buildings and dis-
of the Policy Plan because will preserve
courage demolition. She felt there would not be substantial negative -
.,-.
environmental impacts from the proposal. She noted that instead of
the buildings. fhe
having cars harked on the streets or on lots next: to
eveittu,il cl•fe.c1. wrnlld Ile I:o havr r1-nLl•rl l ly lucnll�ll lul ;will) �,I111r'r�li lilt-
�-
I111'.41111'/ 1,11 fill': 111' 1111Illllllp 11111n1 11 lll,l ll/Ib) I,I I Illy {II IIIUrh III III11 I1t1111 II
�,f,l i, 1I� 1.1j1 11 Ill, OW: ',1i "I"I ll 11, '. l.l',ll� , ;,fill. 11111 I,flll1 11-
•' ;:.
II111 1 11u1 1,I I I1;, II1 ,11 1111I , ,
follo'rred, revealing doubts that the iu11d could groan
5 '
A lenythy discussion
fast enough to be, useful, especially in view of,d not property Values
did not believe this
5.
and construction costs. Connrrissioner,Sittauer
to the He felt the parking should be
proposal was the solution problem.
the assessed. Commissioner hall noted that
constructed and then people
"downtown Edmonds" is being defined differently in different proposals
COt9MISS.IONER LaBELLE MADE A
,
and she felt one definition should be. used.
i COhV�1ISSIUtJE.R Sh1ITl1 SECONDED THE
MOTION 1'0 APPROVE ZO-5-7t1 AS PROPOSED. CY PLAN.
MOTION FOR THE REASON THAT IT CONFORMS IdITIi THE CO
IsMIT I ANDIMcGIBBON
LLE1
A ROLL CALL .VOTE WAS TAKEN, 1• 11*11 C0M01ISSIONERS LaGELLE,
HALL, AND DICKSON VOTING N0,
VOTING YES, AND COtit•11SSIONERS SITTAUER,
n»issioner IJall:er had departed
IN A TIE VOTE. (Col .) THE h10TION
_
RESULTING
. COt-itDICKSON THf: N MOVED, SLC019DED BY COt1P1ISS1phIER
FAILED. IT WOULD BE PROBABLE
FAILEDSITTAUER,
TO CONTINUE 7.0-5-7£1 TO A DATE CERTAIN WHEN
PRESENT. 1-1s. Charleson suggested that rea-
TIIAi A BULL COh1,115S10N 4JOULD BE
i as it a� dared the Com-
indicated for the benefit of the CounC'i1
fund.
a`
sons be arkili�i
mission did not agree with the administration of the p
i
4
EDMONDS PLANNING COJIMISSION
Page 4 - tidy 24, 1978