The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-04-12 Planning Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board V REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 12, 2023, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION: Meeting Link:https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode:007978 This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 22 Draft Minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Summary of March 28 Planning Board Presentation to Council PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB) recommendation on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. The permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Interim Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001) Edmonds Planning Board Agenda April 12, 2023 Page 1 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT 13. NEW SECTION Edmonds Planning Board Agenda April 12, 2023 Page 2 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/12/2023 March 22 Draft Minutes Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from March 22 regular meeting. Narrative Draft meeting minutes from the March 22 Planning Board regular meeting are attached. As noted in the minutes, the planned public hearing for code amendment AMD2022-0008 was postponed until April 12, 2023. Attachments: PB230322 draft Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting March 22, 2023 Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Golembiewski. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair (online) Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier (online) Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell (alternate) Board Members Absent Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Richard Kuehn READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-0) WITH VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-0) WITH CHAIR GLADSTONE AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED, INCLUDING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE AMENDMENT AMD2022-0008 UNTIL THE APRIL 12, 2023 REGULAR MEETING. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Pagel of 7 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a AUDIENCE COMMENTS Finis Tupper, Edmonds Resident, stated that he sent an email to the Planning Board on February 8 and other emails since then and had not received a response. He asked if the Board had taken action to approve the minutes from their February 8 meeting, as he had not been able to locate any. He stated that the Board met on February 8, he tried to attend, but was not able to. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds Resident, commented on Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding the design review process and step back standards in the CG zone. She urged the Board to take an analytical approach to this and not rely on personal opinion. She recommended they review development codes from two cities in the region that have the same approach as the Edmonds code for step backs adopted in 2017. She also recommended they consider the codes from Bothell and Shoreline that have the same approach expressed in the interim ordinance. She urged them to consider what is best for Edmonds. She also asked them to look at the code language in Edmonds regarding design exceptions and decide whether it has the degree of flexibility that they want. Some cities require that a departure from the code achieves the same or better results than strict adherence to the code. Others y require that a departure from the code achieves a superior result. If they are going to add a requirement for step 3 backs on a project, it should be balanced out with the amount of flexibility in the code language around exceptions. L Roger Pence, Former Board Member, stated that last night at the City Council meeting, Parks, Recreation, and o Human Services Director Angie Feser made a presentation on a property acquisition that the City is working on — approximately 1.1 acres on the south side of 232nd Street SW in the 9300 block. This sounds exciting and positive. He noted that the Planning Board, who is also the Parks Board, should be weighing in on property acquisitions. He also brought up the SR99 Community Renewal Project. The City had an open house on this project five months ago. Until recently this had been on the extended agenda for March, but it is no longer there. This is an important project, and he is concerned that the project has gone dormant. N ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Postponed until April 12, 2023: Public Hearing on Design Review Process and Step Back Standards in the CG Zone (AMD2022-0008) UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Planning Board Handbook Board Member Maxwell said he couldn't find anything in the handbook that would give the Board quasi-judicial powers. He doesn't see that they do anything other than make recommendations. He noted that there are references to parts of the code that have been repealed, and he is concerned that is the part that gave them the quasi-judicial power. He recommended following up with the City Attorney on this and taking another look at the handbook and the code. Planning Manager Levitan explained that there are two quasi-judicial reviews that the Planning Board is responsible for — rezones and development agreements. This information can be found in Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Chapter 20.01 where it details all the different land use application types. He explained the Board's role in this process, which is to make a recommendation, as opposed to the final decision. Board Member Maxwell thanked Mr. Levitan and said he was comfortable with the handbook as presented. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD HANDBOOK AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. March 28 Planning Board Update to City Council Chair Gladstone noted that she will be making the presentation, and Vice Chair Campbell will be assisting. She asked if anyone else wants to present or attend the meeting. She also asked for input on what the Board thinks is important to provide to the City Council. Chair Gladstone commented that in the past they presented on what the Board had done over the year and what was on the agenda going forward. She thought that this is a good opportunity for the Council to tell the Board where they think it is particularly important to hear from the Board and if there is anything else they think should be on the extended agenda. She also thinks it is a possible opportunity to directly share the Board's feedback on the vision statement. Regarding the vision statement, Vice Chair Campbell was concerned that the City was not interested in getting feedback. She said she was interested in hearing if the vision statement was validated by the feedback that was received from the community. She also wanted to know the next steps and the Planning Board's role in that. She said she wanted to make sure that, if they are providing feedback on the Comprehensive Plan, they have the appropriate framework on which to couch their responses and make sure they're approaching it in the way the Council wants. Board Member Golembiewski thought the meeting with Council would be a good opportunity to discuss the overall process in which the Comprehensive Plan update is going to happen and how the communication will happen between the Council and the Planning Board. She is struggling a bit with things coming to the Planning Board from the City Council without a direct question or request for input. It seems as if it's more of a courtesy review. She feels there is confusion between staff, the Council, and the Planning Board as to what their role is on some of the elements that are forming the Comprehensive Plan. She would like more clarity on which items are just for information and which items the Board will be taking action on. Board Member Maxwell commented that there was a Stormwater Plan presented at the City Council meeting that did not go through the Planning Board. His understanding was that they would see this at the appropriate time during the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Levitan agreed. He explained there are plans that don't require a public hearing before the Planning Board such as the Stormwater Plan. This is different than the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Element. The Planning Board typically holds a number of different work sessions on all the individual Comprehensive Plan elements, and that will be later in 2024. 2023 is going to be dominated by information gathering, public outreach, technical analysis, and background research. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Staff will start to synthesize all of the information into goals and policies as well as some of the narrative in the individual elements. This is where the Planning Board will start to provide feedback on policy language, hold a public hearing for public input, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council so that they can consider the Board's recommendation. The Climate Action Plan was adopted last night by resolution at the City Council. It is not adopted by ordinance and not technically part of the Comprehensive Plan. It moved through the Climate Protection Committee, and there was no role laid out for the Planning Board in that process. He explained that there had been requests by Council to bring this to the Planning Board in the interim period between the February 28 introduction to Council and the March 21 adoption by resolution, but in a way this just created more confusion about the Planning Board's role. The Council has some discretion to identify other topics of interest outside of code amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Planning Board to review. He explained that if there are specific topics or documents that the Planning Board would like to have a more official or more formal role in reviewing, they could express that to the City Council. Board Member Maxwell asked if staff could provide a summary to Council of the way the Board and Council interact. Board Member Cloutier explained that the Climate Action Plan is not binding and is not legislation; it is basically a list of good ideas to pursue. It is up to the Planning Board to take action on parts that they can. Regarding stormwater, in the past staff has come before the Board to present new standards. He thought the last time was about three years ago. He noted that it is a very slow process, but this is the way the cycle works. Chair Gladstone noted there are a lot of planning efforts that go on that may provide information to a Comprehensive Plan that are not necessarily things that would go through the Planning Board. The Stormwater Plan is one of those; the Water Plan is another. However, there will be a Utility Element in the Comprehensive Plan that will incorporate some items from those other documents. The vision statement is the foundation of what follows in the Comprehensive Plan so those are two very different things. She thinks there needs to be clarity about what the pieces of the Comprehensive Plan are that they are supposed to be providing recommendations on. She thinks this is a good question to discuss with Council. One of her big questions is about when the appropriate touchpoints are for the Planning Board. Is it when staff is just formulating ideas before they take it to the public? Is it after they take ideas to the public? This is an important question because it makes a big difference as far as when and how the Planning Board weighs in. Board Member Cloutier explained that it is generally a mixture of those. Almost always, staff has a draft first with a range of options that are within bounds. This saves a lot of time and energy. He doesn't think it usually happens where it goes to the public before it goes to the Planning Board unless it is something that is not directly the Board's responsibility like the Stormwater Plan. Vice Chair Campbell summarized that the Board would like to have a discussion to try to narrow down what Council is looking for from the Board, when the touchpoints are, and what their expectations are. Board Member Maxwell thought the Board's feedback on the vision statement should also be included in this. He thought that the Board's impression was that it appears to do a good job of capturing what Edmonds' residents would like to have happen in Edmonds. Mr. Levitan discussed the vision statement validation process and the possibility that it might need some additional review depending on how the community feedback process goes. Chair Gladstone stated that her takeaway from the vision statement discussion was that it was a good statement of values of the community, but not necessarily a vision statement. Value statements are not going to help shape Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a policy. Board Member Maxwell agreed and suggested adding that the next step should be a visualization exercise where they imagine what it looks like when you walk down the street in Edmonds in 2040. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, THAT THEY SAY TO COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE THE STATEMENT AS A STATEMENT OF WHAT EDMONDS' CITIZENS VALUE AND THAT THEY ALSO FEEL A GOOD NEXT STEP WOULD BE AN VISUALIZATION EXERCISE OF WHAT EDMONDS WOULD BE LIKE. Board Member Cloutier said he liked the idea of discussing what Edmonds would be like in the future but he thinks that is the whole idea of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision. BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION BY SAYING THAT THEY AGREE THAT THE VISION STATEMENT REPRESENTS THE VALUES THAT EDMONDS' RESIDENTS ARE SEEKING, AND THEY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THOSE VALUES ARE ENVISIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. Board Member Cloutier clarified that the vision statement is just header in the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't need to include a lot of detail or nuance. It is implemented through the Comprehensive Plan and the code changes. Mr. Levitan pointed out that there are recurring themes listed below the vision statement which contain more specificity and aspiration. He suggested that staff could try to tie those in better. He noted that this went through the process with a lot of public input. The results were synthesized into a succinct vision statement, and they don't want to rewrite it completely. Those guiding themes are going to be some of the guiding principles and overarching goals within the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Mitchell said he wasn't sure if they were at the point where they can bring this up to Council other than saying they are waiting for it to be validated. He doesn't think anything more than that is justified. Vice Chair Campbell agreed and said she would be voting against the motion because the important thing they need to know is what the Council wants from the Board. THE MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Mitchell said he would like to ask Council about plans for the waterfront such as an emergency overpass or other infrastructure projects that could impact planning for that area over the next 20 years. Board Member Cloutier explained that the multimodal terminal which had been proposed by WSDOT for the waterfront area is not going to happen. BNSF is supposed to start construction of the second rail through Edmonds in 2023. There is no plan for an emergency connector yet. He stated that the Board's role in this process is to just sit and wait. They will simply review what comes before them to see if it fits with the Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Mr. Levitan noted that the current Comprehensive Plan references the multimodal terminal. This is something that will need to be addressed in the update. As they get into actual chapter and policy development, those are types of things that the Planning Board is going to be able to bring up in the update process. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Events and Code Amendments on Extended Agenda Vice Chair Campbell asked for more information about the transportation open house in June and said she would like to find out if the Planning Board will have a touch point before that. Mr. Levitan summarized that there would be two major phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. He stated that the first phase of the Planning Board's involvement in the Comprehensive Plan update process will be community engagement. After that they will begin working on the details of the elements. As staff starts to develop the community engagement plan, they will bring the Board in where relevant. A lot of that will be informational in nature. There will likely be some interim items on the agenda before the transportation open house or other open houses so the Board is comfortable with the topic. He referenced Roger Pence's comment and noted that the Highway 99 topic was inadvertently left off when he y was working on this, but it will be added back. He commented on the extremely packed extended agenda and 3 noted it is subject to change. He expects that some of the code amendments will have to get pushed out to provide more opportunities to brief the Board on what the intent is for the open houses. Those items will be filled into the extended agenda. Those are the touch points in the beginning where the Planning Board can o provide input about what they want to hear from the community. He discussed generally what to expect with N the open houses. He commented on the importance of this being a recurring discussion as far as what the open houses might look like and including the Planning Board in the programming of the events. There is a lot up in the air until they see what happens with proposed legislation in Olympia. In general, staff will be providing relevant information and gathering community feedback. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the complexity of the housing issue and urged staff to reconsider the order of the events so that they allow more time for the more controversial topics. She asked for clarification of the process that staff intends to follow for the open houses regardless of the content so that Planning Board knows where it is appropriate to weigh in. Mr. Levitan thought they could reorder the events. He will work with Public Works to talk about the transportation open house and identify potential touch points for the Planning Board.1 Mr. Levitan asked for feedback about the upcoming meetings. Does the Board want to host at their regular meeting? Do they want open houses to be in lieu of meetings or in addition to the two meetings per month? Vice Chair Campbell said she would love to be involved with hosting as they can but she expects that meetings will occur on different days, times, and locations in order to meet the needs of the community. Board Member Golembiewski suggested working in additional meetings to times when there is already a bit of a break like longer months where there is an additional week between meetings. Mr. Levitan stated that staff will work on the schedule and try to find dates that work well. Board Member Maxwell said he values community input enormously so if there were a tradeoff, he would rather have more open houses and fewer meetings with more items on the agenda. 1 Chair Gladstone left the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Board Member Martini asked about alternatives to having in -person open houses. Mr. Levitan explained there are typically also surveys and online open houses in addition to the in -person open houses. There will be a consultant on board to help with the planning of outreach and the equitable engagement framework. Vice Chair Campbell commented that having more than three major items on an agenda has not worked well in the past. If they take up one of the regular meetings to do an open house instead it will slow them down significantly. She spoke strongly against removing any meetings. Board Member Cloutier commented that they talk way too much about things that are not on the agenda. They could move along faster if they focus on the agenda and get the work done. B. Extended Agenda There was discussion about potential reprioritization of topics. Mr. Levitan will work on updating this before the next meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Campbell thanked staff for sending out information via email ahead of meetings. This helps to save time in the meetings. She commented on the need to continue to improve meeting processes in order to have more productive meetings. She invited anyone interested to join her and Chair Gladstone at the Council meeting next week. She expressed appreciation for how engaged everyone is and the value of their comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and invited anyone to let him know when he goes off topic. Board Member Mitchell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and said is looking forward to getting some work done. Board Member Golembiewski agreed but said she struggles with not having a linear process. &ID1III I]N►111IplinW The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 2 Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 10 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/12/2023 Summary of March 28 Planning Board Presentation to Council Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History On March 28, Chair Gladstone and Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell met with the City Council to discuss the Planning Board's recent and upcoming work plan. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell is developing a report that summarizes the meeting, which will be provided in advance of the meeting. Packet Pg. 11 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/12/2023 Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB) recommendation on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. The permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Interim Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History The City Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. Per RCW 36.70A.390, interim ordinances may remain in effect for up to six months. As such, a permanent ordinance needs to be adopted by Council before June 10, 2023, in order to maintain any of the provisions of the interim ordinance. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Board to take public testimony and consider the recommendation provided by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on a permanent ordinance, before forwarding on their recommendation to City Council. Interim Ordinance 4283 added an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The interim ordinance amends the development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in August 2017 via Ordinance 4078. Ordinance 4078 established a step back requirement for buildings that are adjacent to RS (single-family) zones. Interim Ordinance 4283 added the same step back requirement when a proposed building in the CG zone is located across the street from an IRS zone, "unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board." The interim code language also requires a two-phase design review process by the ADB, like that in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet. Buildings less than 35 feet tall continue to be reviewed administratively by staff. Prior to Ordinance 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (4278) in October 2022 that contained required step back language. That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the concept to require step backs for buildings across the street from IRS zones was carried forward as part of Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process. The Planning Board held a work session on the topic on February 15, 2023 (approved minutes in Attachment 6). Planning Board members had a variety of thoughts and opinions related to both the design review process and the step back requirements. Some members expressed support for a permanent ordinance requiring a two-phase public hearing before the ADB while others inquired about the possibility for a Type II review process that would provide opportunities for public notice and Packet Pg. 12 6.A comments while not requiring a quasi-judicial review by the ADB. Members also discussed the pros and cons of requiring a step back for buildings across the street from an RS zone. The ADB discussed interim ordinance 4283 at their January 26, 2023 meeting (approved minutes in Attachment 4) and began deliberations on recommended language for a permanent ordinance at their regular meeting on February 23 (draft minutes in Attachment 5 and link to meeting video also provided), with the discussion continued at a special meeting on March 8 (draft minutes in Attachment 8 and hyperlink to meeting video provided). Regarding the design review process in the CG zone, the Board unanimously approved a motion on February 23 recommending: 1) a two-phase public hearing process and decision by the ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet in height when across from or adjacent to RS zone properties, and 2) a Type II staff review process for all other projects in the CG zone with buildings greater than 35 feet in height, which would provide an opportunity for public comment on those projects (such as properties along Highway 99) without a public hearing. All projects less than 35 feet in height in the CG zone would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff using the Type I process (no public notice). The ADB also discussed options for building step backs, with a focus on buildings across the street from an RS zone. There was general agreement in support of the Board having discretion about when to apply building step backs in the CG zone, which has been the case since the adoption of Ordinance 4078 in 2017. There was less consensus about what the appropriate step back should be and whether that should be applied uniformly when projects are across the street from an RS zone, with the applicant required to demonstrate why the step back should not be required. Staff noted that factoring in the width of the right-of-way and required building setbacks might be appropriate when considering whether a step back should be required for buildings across the street from an RS zone. At a special meeting on March 8, the Board reviewed several generalized sketches created by staff to better visualize the interaction of building heights, step backs, and right-of-way widths and discussed the option of altering the step back language from the interim ordinance, eliminating it entirely, or keeping it. Ultimately, at the March 8th meeting, the ADB approved a motion on a 4-3 vote to retain the step back language from the interim ordinance in the permanent ordinance, which requires a step back when RS- zoned properties are located across the street from the CG zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. The minority opinion was to remove the automatic step back requirement for properties across the street (unless waived by the ADB at the Phase I public hearing) and instead rely on the ADB's existing discretion to require design changes when deemed necessary, including step backs. The three code changes recommended by the ADB have been included in the draft permanent ordinance (Attachment 3), which also includes additional minor refinements proposed by staff to provide clarity and consistency with existing code language (see Narrative section below). Public comments are included in Attachment 9 and include comments both in support and in opposition to the code language recommended by the ADB. Staff Recommendation Take public testimony on the draft permanent code language forwarded by the ADB, as supplemented by staff (Attachment 3). The Board should then discuss the proposed design review processes and building step back language and offer any desired changes. If additional time for discussion is needed, the topic could be added to the Planning Board's April 26 agenda. Otherwise, the Board needs to make a Packet Pg. 13 6.A recommendation on permanent language so it can be forwarded to Council for their consideration and action prior to the June 10, 2023 expiration of interim ordinance 4283. Narrative Several related pieces of code are recommended for update in the draft permanent language to clarify the existing design review process codes or the proposed changes, which are shown in StFikethreu.1 /underline text in Attachment 3: 1) The design review process cross-reference in ECDC 16.60.020.D updated from ECDC 16.60.030 to ECDC 20.12.010. 2) The illustration in ECDC 16.60.020.D is proposed to be updated prior to final adoption by Council to reflect the step back language that is eventually approved. 3) When all CG design reviews were done by staff, the Site Design and Layout design exception process in ECDC 16.60.030.C.3 was decided by the Hearing Examiner. If the ADB will be reviewing future projects in the Highway 99 area, staff is proposing that they review any design exceptions too. 4) Type II -A design review process added to table in ECDC 20.01.003.A for buildings greater than 35' that are not adjacent to or across the street from RS zone. 5) Staff is proposing to eliminate the process language in ECDC 20.12.080, since it was added to the table in ECDC 20.01.003.13 several years ago. 6) Staff is proposing to remove the process schematic in ECDC 20.12.005.1), which is confusing. 7) Staff is proposing to to amend the process applicability language in ECDC 20.12.010 to include Type II -A and III -A processes and design exceptions in ECDC 16.60.030.C.3. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Interim Ordinance 4283 Attachment 2 - Council Minutes 12.10.2022 Attachment 3 - Draft Permanent CG Design Review and Step Back Language (AMD2022-0008) Attachment 4 - January 26, 2023 ADB approved minutes Attachment 5 - February 23, 2023 ADB draft minutes February 23, 2023 ADB Meeting Video Attachment 6 - February 15, 2023 PB Approved Minutes Attachment 7 - updated Herald NoticePB_PublicHearing_AMD2022-0008 Attachment 8 - March 8, 2023 ADB draft minutes March 8, 2023 ADB meeting video Attachment 9 - Public Comments Packet Pg. 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ORDINANCE NO.4283 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance 4278; and WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and Packet Pg. 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278), step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13 and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010 (as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020 instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: DocuSigned by: Nl,L,1�4 MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: DocuSigned by: 7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022 PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4283 al Packet Pg. 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 101h day of December, 2022. DocuSigned by: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None Y/10'2 U/15'' 75" None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. 2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. Packet Pg. 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. IF4 i Q C ro m Y N .- v a a a a� inN 0.N <N -,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r, Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Packet Pg. 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. IO W,&a nay (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Pg. 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single- family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. Packet Pg. 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has Packet Pg. 24 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart: Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process &Eaa nal}ryyvy 7 RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffw qwo o} AnRrI I COd Cid1u A� DKWW DOW ! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys. I � E � k— — — — — — — ----------_ hood D"ee 4JA41PPV-W [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020 regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the Packet Pg. 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. Packet Pg. 26 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. Packet Pg. 27 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: Packet Pg. 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. Packet Pg. 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. Packet Pg. 30 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 6.A.a 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. Packet Pg. 31 6.A.b Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.b Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 - Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 - Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 - Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 Proposed Code Revisions - 16.60.030 o 16.60.030 Site development standards ■ Design buildings exeeeding75 feet in height identified in ECDC eixeeeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type 1 deeision. Rega oess of-I.Ah-At -dir-ed, all pr-qjeets proposed in the GG zone must meet the design ;., .h-is se tio_, Proposed Code Revision - 20.12.010 o 20.12.010 Applicability ■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A decision. ■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.b Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.b Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.b step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods... Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.b Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind." Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type 111-A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 37 6.A.b Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND." Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 38 6.A.b Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 39 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c Chapter 16.60 CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE Sections: 16.60.000 CG zone. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. I 16.60.000 CG zone. A. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district. B. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: 1. "Amenity space" means outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an amenity or benefit to people. 2. "Auto sales use" means facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use. 3. "Frontage" means the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street. 4. "Primary frontage" (or "primary street frontage") means the frontage for a property that is adjacent to only one street or, for a property that is adjacent to more than one street, the frontage that is adjacent to the street that is considered primary over any other streets to which the property is adjacent. 5. "Step -back" means the upper portion of a building that is required to be set (or stepped) further back than the minimum setback otherwise required by ECDC 16.60.020(A). C. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the general commercial district. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. Packet Pg. 40 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 I 16.60.005 Purposes. The CG zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use of land; B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists; C. Encourage attractive mixed -use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial uses; and D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsections (B) and (D) of this section; 2. Halfway houses; 3. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Indoor storage facilities that either comprise less than 40 percent of a permitted primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory building or buildings comprising less than 40 percent of the total leasable building space used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s). 3. Outdoor storage areas that are integral to a permitted primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or Packet Pg. 41 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 garden/nursery sales; provided, that such outdoor uses are screened from adjacent residential zoning districts. C. Prohibited Uses. 1. Mobile home parks. 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to a permitted use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health -related purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-1 3, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC, 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city limits: Packet Pg. 42 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c a. A public park; b. A public library; c. A nursery school or preschool; d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for religious worship; f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and i. A public hospital or hospital district. 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section to the nearest physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance from Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses; Packet Pg. 43 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Floor Area CG None None 57102 0715" 75'3 None Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. Z The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls Packet Pg. 44 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. C. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. Packet Pg. 45 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 v a c m @ u •c dl 41 qr N n t.1 t1 t V L—d r, q T 4 N -,L Ya mn, f 5--t4r* 16'-2"41 Nofe_ Numenrdl Rdnges for the Pedeslridrtlone dnd the Activity zone dre lypic& but -do nof ronrmfover when requirements of this rhdpter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building step -back wWhen adjacent to or directly across the street from IRS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to -an adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall-b-e step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. These reauirements aDgly unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board according to ECDC 20.12.010. 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. Packet Pg. 46 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 I 7 4 1 1 1c 3 a 2 M a 7E� 1 dt Is d—k— Itrlr�duaprtrulGr (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) (Illustration to be updated to reflect permanent step back language) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. Packet Pg. 47 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or Packet Pg. 48 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. B. Parking, Access, and Bicycle Storage Standards. 1. Parking Requirements. Vehicle parking shall be provided as follows: a. Nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and b. Residential uses, an average of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square feet, an average of 1.25 parking spaces per unit that is between 700 and 1,100 square feet, and otherwise 1.75 spaces per unit. c. In addition, guest parking for residential uses at a minimum ratio of one guest space for every 20 required parking spaces. d. For mixed -use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and commercial uses provided the director finds that the proposal is supported by a parking study and/or nationally recognized parking standards and that the site plan assures access for all shared parking uses. e. Parking meeting the nonresidential parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. 2. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial space in a mixed -use development with a shared parking plan is exempt from off-street parking requirements. 3. The development services director may approve a different ratio for the vehicle parking required by the standards of subsection (B)(1) of this section when an applicant submits parking data illustrating that the standards do not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio shall include, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, and the anticipated peak and average parking loads of all uses. The director may approve a parking ratio that is based on the specific type of development and its primary users in relationship to: a. An analysis conducted using nationally recognized standards or methodology, such as is contained in the Urban Land Institute's most recent version of the publication "Shared Parking" or the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication "Parking Generation"; or b. A site -specific parking study that includes data and analysis for one or more of the following: i. One -quarter -mile proximity to a bus rapid transit station and methodology that takes into account transit -oriented development; Packet Pg. 49 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 ii. Use of transportation demand management policies, including but not limited to free or subsidized transit passes for residents and workers; iii. On -site car -share and bike -share facilities; iv. Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle parking needs as the general population; or v. Other methods that reduce the need for vehicle parking. 4. All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except as otherwise allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between two to four feet in height. Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40 percent or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses. 5. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking standards relating to bicycle parking facilities. 7. Driveways Accessing Highway 99. All driveway connections to Highway 99 must meet the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation, including minimum requirements for distance between driveway access connections, which may be up to 250 feet to help promote traffic safety and minimize pedestrian - vehicle conflicts. 8. Paths within Parking Lots. a. Pedestrian paths in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands. b. Pedestrian paths shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on -site buildings as well as to pedestrian walkways that border the development. c. Pedestrian paths shall be a minimum of six feet in width and shall be separated from the parking area either horizontally or vertically (e.g., with curbs). Where paths cross vehicular lanes, raised traffic tables should be considered if feasible. Packet Pg. 50 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum of every 100 feet. 9. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground Floor. a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the ground floor of the building, the following standards may be applied regardless of any ECDC standards that otherwise conflict: i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. iii. A mixture of full and reduced width parking stalls may be provided without demonstrating the stalls could also be provided at full width dimensions. 10. Drive -Through Facilities. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following: a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. b. No more than one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. 11. Pedestrian and Transit Access. a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing pedestrian routes where applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking or access areas. c. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required. d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other. C. Site Design and Layout. Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the form of either a pedestrian -oriented design area or an alternative walkable design area, as Packet Pg. 51 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 described in subsections (C)(1) and (2) of this section; provided, that an exceptions process, pursuant to subsection (C)(3) of this section, may be allowed under the provisions of this section. Additional site design and layout standards in this section must also be met. 1. Pedestrian -Oriented Design Area. Unless otherwise permitted under subsection (C)(2) or (3) of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a pedestrian -oriented design area. a. Primary Frontage. At least 50 percent of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept. The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3,000 square feet and has met the requirement. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; or iv. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. b. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage. Vehicle parking, other than where permitted for vehicle sales use, shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 0 F�3 CE�d6�''L��.�3-'�'��X�+l+�.]7�p,ry3�� I 2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option. An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section may be allowed by the development services director only for sites that the director has found to have unique and significant constraints related to pedestrian access and for which a phased design plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the Packet Pg. 52 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c development services department. While they currently may be largely auto -oriented, walkable design areas have a high potential for walking, bicycling and transit service. If a development is allowed to use this standard, it shall be subject to the requirements of this subsection. a. Building Placement. For any new building permitted on a property after August 1, 2017, a minimum of 50 percent of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line or within 65 feet where a five-foot landscaping area is provided between the parking lot and the sidewalk. When site constraints preclude strict compliance with this requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. b. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; iv. The location of any alley or parking areas; or v. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. c. No more than one double -sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage. d. A pedestrian entrance must be located on the primary frontage. Sau nq %.de lao ng p i—y street shall 6e PBdeetridn er1r.— to *d Alhi, SD feel of the 1wt moemy ilne ��rrf 11111AMfar1' -'�� ■rrrrr rrrrrrrrR� •��'�. T�ix i�w�f �• y 4� Primary street +mmaee e. Required amenity spaces, under subsection (C)(4) of this section, shall be located to connect the building to the street as much as practicable; provided, that amenity space may also be located between buildings where the space will be used in common. Packet Pg. 53 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Design. An exception to the exact requirements of subsection (C)(1) or (2) of this section may be allowed by the hear'^s Architectural Design Board under a Type III -A decision process to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses when the following criteria are met: a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange and has unique pedestrian access constraints or is primarily used for motor vehicle sales; b. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening; c. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage; d. At least 25 percent of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the building to the street in a manner that encourages pedestrian use and include seating, landscaping, and artwork; e. Where a site has multiple buildings (excluding accessory utility buildings), 50 percent or more of the required amenity space shall be located between buildings to allow for shared use; f. No more than 50 percent of vehicle parking, other than that associated with a permitted vehicle sales facility use, may be located within 20 feet of the front property line; g. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space 4. Amenity Space. Amenity space is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities. a. An area equivalent to at least five percent of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity space. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least five percent of the additional parking area. b. The amenity space shall be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, such as, but not limited to, seating, paths, gazebos, dining tables, pedestrian -scale lighting, and artwork. A minimum of 10 percent of the required amenity space shall be comprised of plantings, which may include tree canopy areas and other shade or screening features. Native vegetation is encouraged. Packet Pg. 54 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 c. The majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms: i. Recreation areas: an open space available for recreation. The area may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or recreational use. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not comprise more than 15 percent of the total area. ii. Plazas: an open space available for community gathering and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by either building facades, with strong connections to interior uses, or close proximity to the public sidewalk, especially at the intersection of streets. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape; provided, that trees, shade canopies, and other landscaping, as well as water features and artwork, may add visual or environmental features to the space. iii. Squares or courtyards: an open space available for unstructured recreation or community gathering purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping. Water features and artwork are optional. iv. Exception. A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity space; provided, that it: (A) Is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage; (B) Is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for growing edible produce; and (C) Includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies 5. Lighting. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut off' fixtures. a. Parking lots shall have lighting poles that are a maximum of 25 feet in height. Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have pedestrian -scaled lighting focused on the travel path. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. b. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered lighting may be sufficient. Packet Pg. 55 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 c. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/canopy. D. Building Design Standards. 1. General. To provide variety and interest in appearance, the following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least four of the elements will be used to vary the design of the site: a. Building massing and unit layout; b. Placement of structures and setbacks; c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities; d. Composition and character of open space, plant materials and street trees; e. Variety in architectural elements, facade articulation, and/or building materials; f. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Building Design and Massing. a. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top," which may be achieved through differences in massing elements and/or architectural details. b. The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as facade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and other design details. c. Primary Frontage. On the primary frontage, to provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, 50 percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from this standard may be approved when the facade will not be visible from the public street due to the placement of other buildings on the site; provided, that the requirements of subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section shall apply. Packet Pg. 56 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c b , ■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all wirrr�ows $nd glass door$, but not mirrored finishes; i. On the primary frontage, no vehicle parking shall be located within the first 20 feet of the first level of a building facing the street except where such parking is underground. d. All Other Building Frontages. All street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of a dead-end street, shall comply with the standard below. i. Thirty percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height shall be made of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Windows shall not be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40 percent in order to meet this requirement. e. Wall Treatment. Building facades not subject to all requirements of subsection (D)(2)(c) or (d) of this section are intended to not display blank, unattractive walls to the public or to other building tenants. To accomplish this, walls greater than 30 feet in length shall have architectural treatment that incorporates at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: i. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). ii. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. iii. Belt courses of a different texture and color. iv. Projecting cornice. v. Projecting metal or wood canopy. vi. Decorative tilework. vii. Trellis containing planting. Packet Pg. 57 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 viii. Medallions. ix. Artwork or wall graphics. x. Vertical differentiation. A Decorative lighting fixtures. xii. Glazing. xiii. An architectural element not listed above that is approved by the director to meet the intent of this subsection. [Ord. 4277 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4251 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 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. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary activity, any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the Packet Pg. 58 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 required available parking for the other business use below the standards established in this chapter. C. Ongoing Uses. 1. Audio equipment at drive -through facilities shall not be audible off site. 2. Development subject to the standards of this chapter shall continue to meet the standards of this chapter except as specifically permitted otherwise. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Zoning Accessory Contingent Outdoor dining Essential Site specific compliance dwelling unit critical area public rezone letter review facilities Lot line Formal Shoreline Technological Development Zoning text adjustment interpretation substantial impracticality agreements amendment; of the text of development waiver for area -wide the ECDC by the permit, where amateur radio zoning map director public hearing antennas amendments not required per ECDC 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA Critical area Comprehensive determinations determinations variance plan amendments Shoreline Preliminary Contingent Conditional Annexations exemptions short plat critical area use review if public permits hearing (where requested public hearing by hearing examiner is required) Minor Land Shoreline Variances Development amendments to clearing/grading substantial regulations planned development permit, where Packet Pg. 59 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V residential public hearing development is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor Revisions to Shoreline preliminary plat shoreline conditional use amendment management permits Staff design Administrative Shoreline review, including variances variance signs Final short plat Land use Design review permit (where public extension hearing by requests architectural design board is required) Sales Guest house Preliminary office/model formal plat (ECDC 17.70.005) Final formal Innocent Preliminary plats purchaser planned determination residential development Final planned Staff design residential review (ECDC 20.12.010.B.2) development B. Decision Table. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Recommendation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board by: Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City council City council examiner/ADB examiner Notice of No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No application: Open record No Only if (1) If Yes, before Yes, Yes, before Yes, before public hearing or appealed, director hearing before planning board planning board open record open decision examiner or hearing which makes which makes 3 Packet Pg. 60 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III -El TYPE IV TYPE V appeal of a final record is board to examiner recommendation recommendation decision: hearing appealed, render final or board to council to council or before open decision to render council could hearing record final hold its own examiner hearing decision hearing before hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III -A process Closed record No No No No Yes, Yes, before the review: before council the council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12 080 Appeal 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. I 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a 3 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staffs determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120-day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staffs decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staffs ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. Packet Pg. 62 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process A! IFIUU%yS PN*o t% Pftw2 �l Cow"01" ILti4Cd� W GNpny7 I I oeslel 1��.' .—— — — — — IL rep patlw�rl �F ; ----------------- i o-nr l Wwa [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.010 Applicability. A. Downtown Business (BD) zones. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. B. General Commercial (CG) zone. In the General Commercial zone, design review occurs depending on the site- and project -specific situation. Packet Pg. 63 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 1. If an application contains a building greater than 35 feet in height and the project site is adjacent to or across the street from the IRS zone, the Architectural Design Board reviews the project and issues the design decision as a Type III -A decision. 2. If an application contains a building greater than 35 feet in height and the project site is not adjacent to or across the street from the RS zone, staff reviews the project and issues the design decision as a Type 11-A decision. 3. If an application contains no buildings greater than 35 feet in height, staff reviews the project and issues the design decision as a Type I decision. 4. For any application that proposes to use the site design and layout exception in ECDC 16.60.030.C.3, the Architectural Design Board reviews the project and issues the design decision as a Type III -A decision. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing - Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding Packet Pg. 64 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria - and their relative importance - that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing - Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: Packet Pg. 65 DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 6.A.c a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. Packet Pg. 66 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staffs determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre - application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. Packet Pg. 67 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 68 6.A.c DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - ATTACHMENT 3 I 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision - No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 69 6.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting January 26, 2023 Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr (on Zoom) Maurine Jeude (on Zoom) Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom) Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom) Board Members Absent Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused) Corbitt Loch (Excused) APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Other Councilmember Dave Teitzel Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration up there on 84th which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large structures and single-family homes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes ' Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January 26, 2023 Pagel of 5 Packet Pg. 70 6.A.d The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet. NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance 4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes — one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance 4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input. Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB. Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods. Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks. He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than saying just "across the street' he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered. Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the developer know what they are thinking. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code, Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 71 6.A.d but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with these developments. Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale. At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher. Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes. Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space, underground power lines, and other infrastructure. Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99 corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against single family homes. Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect. It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred. Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a I0-foot setback. He agreed that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for multifamily projects. Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January 26, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.d acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate. The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial issues with the BD zone downtown. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units. Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street, and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred. Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue. Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much weight as they give those in the downtown area. Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more discretion. Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings. Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door to the same type of zoning. Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.d as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged they would have to justify their decisions. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS-1 zone would no longer exist, and the single- family homes along 84th could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re - look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Review ADB Handbook Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it would be very helpful. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board. Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the Board for their good work. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.e CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5ffi Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director Other: Councilmember Dave Teitzel The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on 84t' and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single - Architectural Design Board Meeting t; Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Pagel of 9 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.e family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan. Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low- income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind them. Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 76 6.A.e to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals. Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236th and 84th West which has been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit - oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need of transit -oriented development attributes. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone. Written Comments: Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting: • Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum • Theresa Hollis — 2 emails • Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 77 6.A.e NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the proposed step back be based on architectural justifications. She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so great that it would mitigate the massing. She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice, removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless the ADB does not determine them necessary. Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied that they are; it is project specific. Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283: • Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007. • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. • Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.e Considerations on the design review process: • Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year. o Projects maybe controversial. • Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities? o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities? • If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply ... during subsequent design review". o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing. o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones. Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed. How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation, modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like. Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects? Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused. Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements. Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real. She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 79 6.A.e ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community. She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017. Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor. She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the street. Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the development community while still considering community concerns. Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She thinks it should be a two-step process. Issue 1: Design Review Process • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone • Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone Architectural Design Board Meeting t; Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.e Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public hearing Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across the street from RS zone Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference. He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one- sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision. Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity. Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already regulated at their discretion. Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance. Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.e in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2). Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision. Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot building heights. Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options. Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing) • Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required • Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision. There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings. Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information, and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1. Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community members' comments about concerns around step backs. Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is. Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2. Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner, or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting t; Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.e There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more information. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS None ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting t; Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment 6 6.A.g CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Special Hybrid Meeting February 15, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the special hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. in Council Chambers noting that this was a repeat of the February 8, 2023 meeting. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Mitchell read the land acknowledgement. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Todd Cloutier Lauren Golembiewski Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Nick Maxwell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Richard Kuehn Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2022 JOINT MEETING WITH THE TREE BOARD AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER, MAXWELL, AND GOLEMBIEWSKI ABSTAINING. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25, 2023 MEETING WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE IN HER EMAIL. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Gladstone recommended moving New Business Item B regarding the Design Review Process to just after Audience Comments. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 84 6.A.g AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Written Public Comments related to February 8 Meeting Planning Manager Levitan noted that the City had received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and following the February 8 meeting, which are attached to the agenda packet. • Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1 • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map Additional Public Comments: David Cohanim, Synergy Construction, Inc. stated he was representing developers of the project at 2365 84t' Avenue West. They have been working with the City of Edmonds on this project for quite a while. Plans were submitted for design review that met all relevant criteria under the municipal code. Now the project has been stopped by the actions of the City Council. They are unable to move forward, and there has been substantial financial impact due to this. The Emergency Ordinance that was enacted by the City Council calls for substantive changes to the nature of the proposed structure that were not present in the zoning code at the time they submitted for review. This project has been called out repeatedly by city staff as the impetus for these moves. He expressed concern that Judi Gladstone is a neighboring resident of the project under discussion and has spoken out about her position regarding the project and the zoning issues associated with it. Since the Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Council on which Ms. Gladstone serves as Chair, he expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He recommended that Chair Gladstone recuse herself from any matters pertaining in any way to the project under discussion as well as zoning and related legislation associated with the project, particularly with regard to CG zoning. Stanley Piha spoke regarding transit -oriented development which he believes should be as significant a focus of the Planning Board as it is at the current state legislative session. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, an act related to promoting transit -oriented development, a station hub means all parcels that are fully or partially within a quarter -mile radius of a major transit station. Further defined in the senate bill, a major transit stop means a site that has been funded for development or a site on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on high -occupancy vehicle lanes. Mr. Piha stated that governance creating transit -oriented development activities should be a priority of the Planning Board. Community Transit recently announced the proposed shuttle service from the Edmonds Kingston ferry terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station with stops along the way. As a result, the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 2386' and Highway 99 will be one of the most transit -concentrated hubs in the city of Edmonds. It is the only intersection that will have both north and south Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the highway. This creates an opportunity to create a transit - oriented development radius as defined by the senate bill allowing the most accessible access to public transportation. He noted that multifamily properties already exist across the street from single-family zoned properties on 80 Avenue between 236ffi and 238th. He spoke in support of a suggestion at a recent Architectural Design Review Board meeting to create a transition between the CG zone and the single-family zone by changing the single-family zones along 84t' to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. He stated that the quarter -mile radius from 238ffi and Highway 99 should be viewed by the Planning Board as a transit -oriented development opportunity. Promoting density here will provide a means of addressing the housing crisis and promoting easy access to all Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 85 6.A.g forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. He thinks all properties within this radius should be excepted from the conditions outlined in the Emergency Ordinance to allow needed housing to be built. Finis Tupper (online), Edmonds resident, expressed concern about where Edmonds is headed and the way that the current government is operating. He expressed frustration that he was unable to attend the February 8 meeting because of technical difficulties. He is concerned about open and transparent government and stated there are consequences for violating the Open and Public Meetings Act. Glenn Douglas (online), Gateway community, stated he is getting ready to put together another citizens' petition regarding persistent speeding on 80 Avenue West. He thinks adding a 261-unit apartment building at 236t' and 84t' will only exacerbate this. He thanked anyone on the Board who helped get the new stop signs put in at that intersection, but it is not enough. He is frustrated that the southbound radar feedback sign has not been reinstalled, and the northbound radar feedback sign has not been activated. He suggested relocating both radar feedback signs to more effective locations. He commented that asphalt speed bumps have been recommended by neighbors. He would appreciate some feedback or some kind of response. Deborah Arthur said she also tried to get on for the last Planning Board meeting and had technical difficulties. She requested clarification about the area along 84d' they are talking about developing. She expressed concern about speeding traffic along the side streets in this area and pedestrian safety issues she has witnessed. NEW BUSINESS B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Chair Gladstone stated that she has been involved as a private citizen on this issue. It is her intent to continue to serve impartially and take in information as she would on any other issue coming before the Planning Board. Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that was presented on February 8. He explained that due to a lack of recording and other technical difficulties, that meeting was being repeated. He reviewed some of the history and provisions of Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283. It requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height; requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB, and is valid for six months from adoption (June 10, 2023) with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. He reviewed considerations regarding the design review process. Right now, they are seeing about one new project per year. He asked for feedback on whether the ADB should have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities. If so, is the two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? He discussed existing and interim step back requirements including factors to be considered regarding across -the -street step backs. He reviewed design tools and requested feedback on additional design tools to be considered. He requested feedback and stated this would go back to the ADB on February 23 for additional code refinement and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to Council. The Council must adopt permanent standards by June 10, 2023. He summarized some of the previous discussion. Board Member Mitchell asked how the Supplemental EIS plays into this. Planning Manager Levitan explained that was added as part of the Council budget package as part of the 2023 project to analyze some of the Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 86 6.A.g development assumptions within the Planned Action EIS related to trip generation and the ability to handle stormwater. He pointed out that the Planned Action EIS went through all the required processes and was subject to public comment and potential appeals which did not happen. Staff is working on ways to integrate this analysis with the needed environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update as a whole. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the projects in the CG zone are not required to go through the ADB, are there any other opportunities for public comment in the permit process to get feedback on the design or the proposed development? Planning Manager Levitan thought there would be an opportunity for a Type 2 public process even though it would be reviewed administratively. Board Member Golembiewski stated that the process of going through the ADB seems counterintuitive to the subarea plan which was designed to streamline development in this area. She thinks public input is important, and she is comfortable as long as the public has the opportunity to provide comment for staff to review. She spoke to the importance of believing that staff will be working in the best interest of the community. Vice Chair Campbell spoke to challenges with public comment opportunities as has been heard tonight. If they are not going through the ADB process, what else can the City do to make sure people's comments are heard? Planning Manager Levitan stated that a Type 2 process would require public notification be sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project property. If someone comments on that they become a party of record and would be notified of any notice of decision and would have the opportunity to appeal the project if they wished to. Vice Chair Campbell asked about the possibility of expanding the notification radius to reach out to a greater number of people. Planning Manager Levitan thought it could be discussed. Chair Gladstone asked about the vision of the Planned Action EIS. Planning Manager Levitan replied that a Planned Action was done recognizing the role of high -capacity transit coming down Highway 99 and that the area has the potential to meet a lot of the City's identified housing needs, especially multifamily residential. There was a public process in establishing the subarea plan as well as doing the environmental review through the State Environmental Policy Act. The general intent of the Planned Action was to evaluate transportation and stonnwater impacts in that area so it would streamline development. Chair Gladstone requested more information about the history of the CG area and the EIS so they can get a better accounting of this. She also suggested that a joint meeting with the ADB might be helpful to get their perspective before making a recommendation. Chair Gladstone asked about differences in street widths in the CG zone. Planning Manager Levitan thought street widths vary in that area from about 40 to 80 feet; however, this would apply only to CG-zoned properties that are directly across from RS zones so it would be very limited. Vice Chair Campbell said she would like to see additional information and more detail about the equity piece related to whether step backs would be required. She is concerned about the language in the proposed ordinance that says that step backs would be required unless the ADB determined that they weren't needed. If that condition is left in there, it is important to set out clearly what those requirements are. She can see the benefits to having the flexibility in there but expressed concern about potential inequities between developers. Chair Gladstone asked about the reason for the shift in the emergency ordinance to add review by the ADB regarding step back requirements. Planning Manager Levitan thought the emergency ordinance reanalyzed the ability for the ADB to have discretion about whether step backs are needed and implemented the two-phase design review process. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 87 6.A.g Board Member Mitchell asked if there is still an ability by the developer to prove to the ADB that step backs aren't needed. Mr. Levitan explained that the applicant can state why they don't think they are needed when they present their design. He offered to bring back more information about this. Board Member Mitchell agreed with Vice Chair Campbell's concerns about consistency. He noted that in his experience step backs are the first thing to go. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the possibility that a developer would propose no step backs on either adjacent properties or across the street the way the code is written. Mr. Levitan explained that in the interim ordinance the discretion for the ADB applies to both adjacent and across the street. The language could be changed if desired. There was some discussion about how the code language development process happens with the Planning Board. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Manager Levitan explained that at the last meeting he had reviewed the visioning process and the vision statement: "Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. " The next step in the process will be to do a citywide mailing with a QR code and other opportunities for people to log on to a survey to provide their feedback. He had also asked for general feedback from Planning Board members on the vision statement. The general consensus was that this isn't necessarily a vision statement, but it is just stating what we are. There was a general thought that a vision statement should be more aspirational and forward looking. Board Member Maxwell commented as long as they have the time it would be great to have an additional mail out survey. He stressed that there should be opportunities for people who aren't comfortable with technology, don't have access to smart phones, or have other accessibility issues to be able to respond as well. Board Member Martini agreed that they really need to remember accessibility for the disabled and aging community. She wonders how much feedback they would get from them if they had to go online versus having a survey mailed to them or an opportunity to call a phone number. Planning Manager Levitan thanked them for the feedback. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 88 6.A.h �� OF EbMo� CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING /17 i ggo PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60 and 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding a new Architectural Design Board (ADB) review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The permanent standards are intended to replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Ordinance 4283. NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds FILE NO.: AMD2022-0008 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: April 12, 2023 Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for all inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on April 12, 2023, at 7 p.m. The physical location is at Edmonds City Hall, 1215th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom. us/I/87322872194?pwd=W FdxTWJ IQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.i CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting March 8, 2023 Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Devt. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Teressa Hollis, Edmonds resident, urged the Board to get the most complete information available to make a decision on the interim ordinance. She cautioned against listening to the developers' perspective when they say that step backs call the economic viability of a project into question. She discussed other projects this developer has done and noted that it's not possible to make any accurate predictions about the future of a specific project in light of this ordinance. She referred to a question from the Board about the why the City Council created the interim ordinance and referred to Resolution 1512 which was created to answer that question and explain why the debate from 2017 is being reopened. She asked if the Board had considered the implications of Edmonds adopting a one-off approach when staff suggested that right-of-way width is a criterion for defining step back. She couldn't find this criterion in the codes of any other city in the region when she checked. She stated that mandating step backs with a sensitive boundary is a judgement call. She noted that in 2022 staff presented background information to the City Council and concluded that step backs across the street were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supported by policies in the Planned Action report. She played a recording of Director McLaughlin from a previous meeting related to this topic. She recommended code language that describes the step back dimensions on those CG parcels that have a boundary with single family but no other criteria. She recommended adding verbiage to the itemized list about design review in the code which invites Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 90 6.A.i the applicant to submit departures that provide equal or better moderation of the bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the code. Natalie Seitz said she had sent some information to the ADB previously about this topic. She asked that they give this area the same due consideration that they gave to the folks who live near the BD2. She expressed concern about the heights and stated that the development being permitted for residential apartments is already two stories more than was envisioned for this Planned Action. She hopes for fair and equal treatment for all Edmonds residents. Deborah Arthur said she agreed with Natalie Seitz that height is the issue. She hopes they can figure out a way to build these places without creating a tunnel view for residents and a vacuum of heat with no breeze or sky. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Ordinance Related to the CG Zone Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of this topic related to step back requirements for projects 35 feet and above in the CG-zoned properties with single-family residential (RS) zoned properties across the street. The ADB is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Board on potential permanent language. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption of that permanent ordinance. At the February 23 ADB meeting there was consensus and a motion approved that recommended that these types of projects be required to go through a Type II quasi-judicial review process meaning there would be a two-phase public hearing before the ADB when projects are adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned properties. As part of that same motion the Board recommended that the City implement a Type II review process for all other CG projects. This requires public notice and public comment but does not require a public hearing. Projects below 35 feet in height would continue to be reviewed through a Type I review process. There was a consensus from the ADB on the step back requirement. Staff was provided direction to provide better graphics to illustrate the potential impacts of step backs as it relates to massing and scale and potential shadow impacts. He emphasized that tonight they are not focusing on the height of the buildings but only on the impacts of the step back requirements. The interim ordinance, as currently written, requires an initial step back of an additional 10 feet at a 25-foot building height. Once you get to 55 feet you are required to have an additional 10-foot step back. There was discussion from the ADB at previous meetings and general consensus that Board members were comfortable with having that second step back be elevated from 55 feet to 65 feet. This also should be clarified as part of the motion tonight. Director McLaughlin clarified the context and background of the quote by her referred to by Teresa Hollis from a previous Council meeting. She stressed that staff supports the design tools that the ADB has access to and recommends they are used on all projects. Step backs may very well be the answer for projects that are across the street from single family residences, but staff wants the ADB to be able to make that decision with all the tools that are available based on the contextual nature of the site. Clarification questions were asked and answered. Director McLaughlin made a presentation showing illustrations of the impacts of potential step back requirements for CG properties across the street from RS zones with various scenarios. She showed examples Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 91 6.A.i of differences in modulation which is another tool available to the ADB in their toolkit. She reviewed the effects of heights and various step backs on shadows. She reiterated that this is not a conversation about building heights but only the step back. She also pointed out that these images are worst -case scenarios which would only happen for a portion of the day in the spring. From noon on there would not be any shadow impacts from across the street. Board Member Strauss commented that the graphics help to really see the impact. She notices a bigger visual difference with the step backs at 55 feet rather than 65 feet. Board Member Schmitz commented that when the ADB reviews buildings taller than 35 feet things like modulation will be strong tools for them. Board Member Herr said he didn't see a big difference with the shadows. By the time summer comes around those shadows don't even exist. There would be more in the winter, but there's also not much sun in the winter so there is no shadow. He pointed out that the illustration also shows a sunny day with a clear sky which is not very common until summer. He stated it is important to keep in mind where they live. He also stressed that the number of available lots where this shadow impact is going to apply is limited. Chair Bayer pointed out that if a house is sitting west of a 75-foot building they aren't going to see morning sun regardless of step backs. Vice Chair Brooks commented that considering that they live in the Pacific Northwest, they need to optimize what little sun they have in the wintertime. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that the major issue is specifically in the way that the step back requirements are phrased. The ADB already has existing discretion to recommend a whole host of design principles and standards when something comes before them as part of the Phase 1 public hearing. The interim ordinance says that step backs are required unless the ADB says they are not. The options available to the ADB are: • To not carry forward the language related to step backs in the interim ordinance and use the authority they already have with in the two-phase public hearing to require step backs on a case -by -case basis. This would effectively strike the applicability of the section that previously applied only to adjacent properties, but Ordinance 4283 amended it to apply to properties across the street as well. • To keep the language the way it is written now which requires step backs at 25 feet and 55 feet for properties across the street from RS-zoned properties unless the ADB deems they are not warranted in the Phase 1 public hearing. An applicant would have likely have to come forward with two proposals. They could present without step backs and state their case why they don't think they should be required for their project, but they would be taking a risk in doing all that work without any input from the ADB. • To modify criteria such as right-of-way width or other situations where step backs shouldn't be required. Director McLaughlin emphasized that with regard to light, the difference between the step backs is very small. Chair Bayer stated that the issue for her is still the mass. What are significant issues with requiring step backs? Is it financial? Director McLaughlin noted there are a lot of expenses that go into the first design review. The developer's team makes their own design judgements based on their interpretation of the codes and policies that are in place on that particular site. With the current code the design team would be forced to put the step backs in or make two sets of designs which is double the expense. Also, with the design justification the discussion Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.i at the first meeting is going to be solely about step backs and not about all the other tools the ADB has at their disposal to mitigate massing. Staff s preference has always been to mitigate massing and use all the design tools available in the existing development standards. This allows the ADB to use their full discretion to optimize design to make a building effective and fit into a site. She believes that when it is done in a prescriptive way it hyper focuses the conversation and puts the design team on the defense when it may not be the best tool for mitigating massing. Board Member Strauss asked if staff is available to architects/developers to come in with some sketches of the site and proposing ideas. Planning Manager Mike Clugston said there are two types of meetings where that could happen — a pre -application meeting which is a paid meeting and a Development Review Committee which is a free meeting. Anybody who is going to build a building like this is going to come and talk to staff beforehand. Board Member Strauss noted that the developers have plenty of opportunity to come in and discuss with staff what the requirements are. Board Member Loch asked what the City has in terms of policies or guidelines regarding shadow impacts. He also referred to the tree code and noted that many single-family homes could be shadowing themselves with trees. He wondered about the difference between shadows from buildings and shadows from trees. To him they seemed the same. He also asked if a 75-foot building would be allowed on a street that only has 60 feet of right- of-way or would there be a dedication requirement so that ultimately the setback is more like 80 feet. Mr. Clugston said that 60 feet is the right amount to be looking at. The setback is taken from the property line. Whether the whole area is developed doesn't matter. 60 feet is the right of way for most of Edmonds; there are only a few that are different widths. It includes the street and sidewalk. Regarding shadows in the code, he stated he was not aware of any code that had any sort of numerical values that they would measure. There may be some language in the Comp Plan but it would be very general. Director McLaughlin thought that this is something that could be included in the submittal packet. Board Member Jeude noted there is language around light. Director McLaughlin agreed but said it is very subjective. Regarding the question about trees and shadowing, Director McLaughlin was not aware of any language preventing trees from shadowing houses. Board Member Brooks commented that a building is solid, and a tree has branches so you will get some filtering. You can see through a tree, and they blow in the wind so it's a shifting shadow. Board Member Schmitz agreed with addressing the bulk and scale of buildings but expressed concern about focusing solely on property line step back height because they may lose the nuance of the developer and architect being able to address other concerns. There may be better techniques to make those units valuable to people who will ultimately be living in them such as balconies, shadow box windows, and other techniques that will address privacy concerns. In his experience if there are very strict requirements it limits how you can design a building and makes a lot of buildings look very similar. If there's very little flexibility a lot of developers won't approach the City with options, and Edmonds will end up with a lot of similar looking "wedding cake" buildings. By using the toolkit the ADB already has, they would still have the ability to address privacy issues, especially these across the street shadowing issues, with simpler mitigations than broad brush requirements. Board Member Strauss argued that it is really hard for the ADB to tell developers who come in and present their designs that they can't do what they want. If it's not in the code she thinks the developers won't agree to it. Board Member Schmitz replied that the ADB already has the authority to tell developers what the City would like to see. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Strauss noted that step backs are a big suggestion. Also, the ADB does not end up seeing the developer again so they don't even know if they comply. Director McLaughlin noted this would be a quasi-judicial decision; the developer would have to abide by it. Planning Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 93 6.A.i Manager Levitan noted that the first phase of the two-phase public hearing is where the developer would introduce the concept. If they introduce a concept, is within the ADB's purview to say what they want to see before the applicant comes back for the Phase 2 public hearing. This is something that the ADB is already able to do. Director McLaughlin noted that staff ensures the ADB's decision is adhered to all the way to the certificate of occupancy. Board Member Jeude asked about a previous project the ADB had reviewed which the applicant had later parceled off. She wondered if this was a way they had gotten around the ADB's recommendation. Senior Planner Clugston explained that it was not. The buildings will end up looking exactly like the ADB recommended; they are just parceling it in a different way. Board Member Strauss commented on difficulties with that decision because the Board was mixed in their opinions. She thought it would have been easier if it had been clear in the code. Board Member Loch recommended bifurcating the question into the topic of step back above 25 feet and then any other step back issues. Board Member Strauss asked Board Member Schmitz to explain his reasoning for recommending the step back at 65 feet instead of 55 feet. Board Member Schmitz explained how this makes it less complicated and more affordable for developers. This has a big impact for those trying to provide affordable housing. He asserted that from the street the average person would never notice the difference between a 55- foot step back and a 65-foot step back. Board Member Strauss referred to the graphics provided by staff and said there appeared to be a big difference between the 55 and 65-foot step backs. Chair Bayer agreed. Board Member Schmitz thought that the lower -level step back would make the most difference. Board Member Brooks asked if modulation causes similar complications for developers. Board Member Schmitz explained that modulating creates depths in the facade. Vertical modulation provides the most relief in a building because you can break the mass up into what looks like several smaller buildings. Horizontal step backs reduce the bulk of the building by pulling the building back further. Director McLaughlin noted that they don't have prescription around modulation. She thought if there is prescription in the step back, the developers might spend their money there in lieu of modulation or other techniques that could be used to mitigate massing. There was discussion about the ADB's ability to require modulation on projects they review. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, THAT THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS NOT INCLUDE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 25 FEET WHEN ACROSS FROM SINGLE FAMILY (RS) ZONE. Upon request, Board Member Loch clarified his motion. He explained that he hasn't been shown that it makes a material difference in the impacts to the area. He also doesn't think it's good for the City to put an optional regulation that the applicant won't know how to satisfy. This is not fair to the applicant or the neighborhood. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, THAT THE ORDINANCE REMAIN AS WRITTEN IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE 25-FOOT STEP BACK AND THE 55-FOOT STEP BACK. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.i Board Member Schmitz commented that if they push the step backs higher it won't make a difference with shadows, and they have other tools that can be used to address bulk and scale better than step back in an arbitrary way. Board Member Strauss agreed that it would not make a difference with shadows, but from a bulk standpoint it will make a difference. MOTION PASSED 4-3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 1:09 PM To: Planning Subject: Planning Board public hearing AMD2022-0008 - T. Hollis comments Attachments: Planning Board Public Hearing 4-12-23.docx My comments for the Apr 12, 2023 public hearing are attached. Please distribute them to the members of the planning board. This Word document contains hyperlinks to the code repositories of Bothell and Shoreline for the members of the board who want to do further research. Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 96 6.A.k Planning Board Public Hearing on 4-12-23 for interim ordinance 4283 I strongly support the requirement of building step backs when a CG project is located across the street from an RS zone. This design feature is a common mitigation to the bulk and mass of a tall building that needs to transition to a less intensive residential zone. Here is the development code (pasted from the web) of two nearby cities that require step backs 'across the street': Bothell and Shoreline. The step back requirement is often evaluated in the context of the maximum building height and the required set back from the property line. Those dimensions are also included in the information copied from the cities' code repository. Note that Edmonds' height maximum is 75 ft in the CG zone. A. Downtown Bothell 1) Bothell's code language about building step backs for structures next to or across the street from a residential -only zone: https://bothell.municipal.codes/BMC/12.64.203 Special Height Regulations are established to create an appropriate height relationship between new development within the Plan Area and existing buildings in adjacent residential - only zones. They shall be required for parcels located in Districts as indicated in BMC 12.64.101 through 12.64.109 District Requirements Site Development Regulation Charts. Where required, the following regulations apply: A. Adjacent to Residential -only Zones. Where new development is on a parcel adjacent to a parcel with residential -only zoning: As shown in Figure 12.64.203 Special Height Regulations — A. Adjacent to Residential -only Zones, the height of new development shall not exceed a height of 3 floors above finished grade within a 65 foot buffer from the minimum required Special Setback line Adjacent to Residential -only Zones (see BMC 12.64.210). The first 10 feet of the upper -level setback shall not be used as a roof terrace to protect privacy of residents on abutting properties or across an alley. District Property F Required min. Height Limit Residential -Only Zoning Fig. 12.64.203.A. Special Height Regulations - adjacent to residential -only zones Packet Pg. 97 6.A.k B. Across the Street from Residential -only Zones. Where new development is on a parcel across the street from a parcel with residential -only zoning: As shown in Figure 12.64.203 Special Height Regulations — B. Across the street from Residential -only Zones, the height of new development shall not exceed a height of 3 floors above finished grade within a 65 foot buffer from the minimum required Front Yard Setback line (see BMC 12.64.207). RF Required min. Frontal, District Yard Setback Height Limit Zoning i( Street Fig. 12.64.203.B. Special Height Regulations - across the street from residential -only zones 2) Bothell's district -level dimension regulations are documented below. See the zoning map map at the end of this section for context. 12.64.102 Downtown Neighborhood District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height 2 floors & 20 feet maximum height 5 floors & 65 feet; (H) 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 0 ft / 10 ft; (SR 522) Packet Pg. 98 6.A.k 12.64.105 General Downtown Corridor District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height 1 floor & 20 feet maximum height 4 floors & 45 feet 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 20 ft / no max 12.64.107 Park and Public Open Space District Requirements. 12.64.202 Building Height minimum height n/a maximum height 35 ft 12.64.207 Front Yard Setback minimum / maximum 0 ft / no max 12.64.108 Campus District Requirements The UW Bothell Campus shares a part of it's west boundary with single family residential. The boundary is at the back yard property line of the single family parcels. The mitigation to the tall campus building's mass is deep building site setbacks, not step backs. The code is here: https://bothell.municipa[.codes/BMC/12.64.108 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.k 3) Bothell's zoning map and map legend • �+ u ■R■aRRR■■ MEN I OEM NEW Homo ■ ■ '� ■■■ ■r am u �rll: women a Wolin min E ■111� lllllr �rlll li111Y, "4 Ac oP, CB, q 1 f J f 1 4 SPECIAL REMLIT LEMND • r`� f r '� \�\ Min�raumiiayht i`\ �k�t�catot.al - Sp,,M weigh, Limn S,c s.�ti...1]Ei]0].0 P 290' Y 1l4 mlk :C00' � I Packet Pg. 100 6.A.k MAP LL-(iEND Downtown Care 5" 5eCtion 12 .101 Downtown Neighborhood See Section 12.64.102 Downtown Transition District S" set6m 12,64.103 SR 522 Corridor See section 12.f4C104 General Downtown Corridor See5ecdon 12b1.1M 5unriseNalley View Neighborhood seese tim 12AGA.to6 Park and Public Open Space See SeCkm 12,64.10T Campus See Seaton i 26n_109 5R 522 Corridor Affordable Housing Overlay See sKma 12AA.i m.4 Special Riverfront Overlay See Section 12M.104.0.2 4 Floor Height Overlay See Section 12.64.102A Special Open Space Requirement Aff ire se-cvor,12." 304.D Anderson Building See Section 120.101J8.2 • • Plan Area Boundary - Parking Exceptions See 5eckm 12.64.10t,&3 Pedestrian Oriented Retail Required See 5et%ior% 12.64.101,A Neighborhood Center Overlay (NCO) See Section 12A4.10SA .... ■ Required New Pre -Located Street 5" $"Iion 12J64.341 A,2 Required New Pedestrian WaIkvway See Section 12.64.301.1)2 A B,C,D Split Parcel District Boundary See Section 12A4.100f x-3 Corner Entry Required See Section 12A4206.&3 Mobile Horne Park Overlay See Section 12.64.104.&3 GDC Affordable Housing Overlay �eEi �Eiuio-i 12.54.10s_1k4 Downtown Transition Overlay See sedtion 12.6 .103.8.1 B. Shoreline ZDowntown Transition District Affordable O H ousirlg Overlay See Section 12.64.104.BA 1) Chapter 20 of Shoreline's code contains the language about building step backs for commercial buildings next to or across the street from single family residential zones. 20.50.021 Transition areas. httas://www.codeoublishin2.com/WA/Shoreline/htmI/Shoreline2O/Shoreline2O5O.html#20.50. 021 Development in commercial zones NB, CB, MB and TC-1, 2 and 3, abutting or directly across street rights -of -way from R-4, R-6, or R-8 zones shall minimally meet the following transition area requirements: a) From abutting property, a 35-foot maximum building height for 25 feet horizontally from the required setback, then an additional 10 feet in height for the next 10 feet horizontally, and an additional 10 feet in height for each additional 10 horizontal feet up to the maximum height of the zone. From across street rights -of -way, a 35-foot maximum building height for 10 feet horizontally from the required building setback, then an additional 10 feet of height for the next 10 feet horizontally, and an additional 10 feet in height for each additional 10 horizontal feet, up to the maximum height allowed in the zone. Packet Pg. 101 6.A.k b) For development within the Aurora Square Community Renewal Area, maximum building height of 35 feet within the first 10 feet horizontally from the front yard setback line. No additional upper -story setback required. 2) Table 20.50.020(3) — Dimensions for Development in Commercial Zones (Certain rows for setback and height are shown. The full table is here: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shoreline/html/Shoreline20/Shoreline2O5O.htm1#20.50. 020) Commercial Zones STANDARDS Neighborhood Community Mixed Town Business Business Business Center (TC- (NB) (CB) (MB) 1, 2 & 3) Min. Front Yard Setback (Street) (see Oft Oft Oft Oft Transition Area Setback, SMC 20.50.021) Base Height (a) 50 ft 60 ft (b) 70 ft 70 ft Exceptions to Table 20.50.020(3): a) The following structures may be erected above the height limits in all commercial zones a. Roof structures housing or screening elevators, stairways, tanks, mechanical equipment required for building operation and maintenance, skylights, flagpoles, chimneys, utility lines, towers, and poles; provided, that no structure shall be erected more than 10 feet above the height limit of the district, whether such structure is attached or freestanding except as provided in subsection (3)(f) of these exceptions. b. Base height may be exceeded by 15 feet for rooftop structures such as elevators, arbors, shelters, barbeque enclosures and other structures that provide open space amenities and their access b) Base height may be exceeded by eight feet for properties that qualify for SMC 20.40.465(D) or 18 feet for properties that qualify under SMC 20.40.465 3) The City of Shoreline's zoning map is rendered as a 11x17 inch pdf and can be viewed with a browser: https://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/52116/63760837192967000O Submitted by Theresa Hollis, Edmonds Resident, via email on 4-7-23 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.k Levitan, David From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:23 AM To: Planning Cc: Levitan, David Subject: Kirkland design guidelines doc Attachments: Kirkland-design-guidelines-pedestrian-oriented-business-districts.pdf Members of the Edmonds Planning Board, I am forwarding design guidelines for the City of Kirkland as an example of a well developed technical document that describes site and building design principles. It is more extensive than the ADB handbook used in Edmonds. On pages 5-10 it describes the level of importance of specific design techniques based on the purpose of the neighborhood. Read the document sections for districts that have a mix of commercial and residential uses, are pedestrian oriented, and allow tall buildings next to residential zones since that matches the Highway 99 planned area in Edmonds. The section on scale begins on page 28. This section is directly relevant to the recommendation you will develop for changes to the Edmonds development code on building step backs. I found this document to be objective and educational. I hope it will inform your group's discussions. (Mr. Levitan, please reformat the attachment as a Word doc if you have a version of Adobe Acrobat that allows that, since that is a format standard used by the board. The original doc is found on the web here: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/planning-amp-building/o-4785-design-guidelines-pedestrian- oriented-business-districts.pdf ) Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 103 6.A.k Clugston, Michael From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:24 PM To: Citizens Arch Design Board Subject: Fwd: ADB's Mar 8 mtg - public comments on code departures for the CG zone Hello, I sent this message to each member of the ADB, but the email addresses I used were invalid for Alexa, Joe, and Steve Please forward this email to them. Thank you, Theresa Hollis ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:18 PM Subject: ADB's Mar 8 mtg - public comments on code departures for the CG zone To: <Joe.Herr@edmondswa.gov>, <Maurine.Jeude@edmondswa.gov>, Strauss, Lauri (Arch Design Bd) <Lauri.Strauss@edmondswa.gov>, <Steve.Schmitz@edmondswa.gov>, Bayer, Kim (Arch Design Bd) <Kim.Bayer@edmondswa.gov>, <Alexa.Brooks@edmondswa.gov>, <Corbitt.Loch@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>, Levitan, David <David.Levitan@edmondswa.gov> These comments describe my understanding of the City Council's modification of the CG design code in interim ordinance 4283, and how code departures can be justified in the design review process codified in section 20.12.020. The phase 1 meeting is (among other purposes) for the applicant to present departures from the development code. The applicant's exercise of their responsibility for presenting departures to the step back requirement is what the City Council intended. To confirm the Council's intent, see Dec 10, 2022 Council approved minutes, last paragraph on pg 30 and continuing to page 31. Excerpt: "With this amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that step backs are not required due to local circumstances." The findings of fact related to this ordinance are in the council packet for Jan 24, 2023. The last finding states Council "would benefit from a planning board recommendation on that ordinance and related subjects." I think it is a big stretch to assume that finding of fact means the ADB should narrow the circumstances in which step backs are required by using one feature of 'local circumstances' — right of way width. There are other relevant 'local circumstances' that an applicant could use to justify a departure from the step back requirement. Design techniques that reduce the perceived mass of a building are well documented in the code of other cities in our region and in design literature. Such design elements can be used by the applicant to justify the departure. A representative but not complete list follows. They describe hypothetical projects on the boundary of the CG zone. The applicant's design flexibility is increased by not prescribing a single 'local circumstance' in the code. • Parcels on the neighboring residential zone are at a higher grade than the CG parcel(s) in the proposed project and only 1 step back at the 6t" floor is needed to reduce the perceived mass of the new CG building. • The first floor of the proposed mixed use project has horizontal massing and an awning such that the height of the building is not fully visible and is not overwhelming to a person at the street level. • The site design increases the setback with a front courtyard with public amenities that invite the pedestrian onto the property and creates a focus that minimizes the impact of the building's upper stories. Packet Pg. 104 6.A.k • The building modulation, materials, and color make the project appear to be multiple side -by -side buildings that transition to the 3 story multi family buildings on adjoining parcels. The use of step backs would disrupt the visual effect of multiple buildings. • The design of the lower floors and the street scape zone have a strong set of human scale features that reduce the perceived mass of the building for pedestrians. • The corner CG parcel both adjoins IRS parcels (back yards abut) and is across the street from IRS parcels. The wedding cake effect of step backs on 2 faces of the new project is recognized by the design industry to be unattractive design (and is expressly prohibited in some jurisdictions' code). • The face of the CG building is across the street from the side yards of the IRS zone's single family homes. The movement in and out of the single family house' front door does not include the new CG building in it's line of sight. Existing landscaping in the IRS zone blocks the CG building occupant from seeing into the backyards of the residences. • The multi family's building face has residential characteristics at each ground floor apartment entry such as two steps up from the sidewalk to the entry, with a planter or small porch and effectively transitions to an IRS zone. (see image below of a building in Vancouver B.C) • The IRS parcel across the street is permitted for a non-residential use so the new project is not impacting the residents of single family homes. Although the process of presenting code departures is an accepted industry practice, the Edmonds development code section 20.12.020.A.2 does not explicitly state that the applicant may submit code departures in phase 1 of the design review. Consider adding language that has the same intent as Kirkland's code on Architectural and Human Scale in the Central Business District: "As an alternative, the City may approve other techniques, elements, or methods of consistent with the following criteria 1) The alternative is generally consistent with the downtown plan provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the design guidelines. 2) The alternative clearly provides superior moderation of the architectural bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the required techniques." Kirkland's code language on how to moderate bulk and mass is much more lengthy than Edmonds' code. I am not presenting ideas on how to moderate bulk. I am presenting sample language for how to explicitly invite an applicant to submit departures. ( See chapter 92.30 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kirkland/) A second local jurisdiction has brief language in their design review forms: "Please describe in narrative text and on plans any specific requests for development standard departures, including specific rationale(s) and a quantitative comparison to a code -complying scheme." A third jurisdiction inserts the phrase "provide an equal or better result than the requirements of this section" in many of their code chapters to describe an acceptable departure. Packet Pg. 105 6.A.k In closing, I encourage you to keep sight of the purpose of step backs - to use site and building design to cause a 75 foot building to transition to the surrounding single family zone. My recommendation is: 1) Delete the sentence in 16.60.020.D "These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review..." 2) Add a sentence or two to the itemized list in 20.12.020.A.2 that invites the applicant to submit code departures during phase 1 of the design review process. Regards, Theresa Hollis Edmonds resident Photo credit: PlannerDan location: Vancouver B.C. Packet Pg. 106 6.A.k Clugston, Michael From: Levitan, David Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:22 PM To: Stanley Piha; Clugston, Michael Cc: McLaughlin, Susan Subject: Public hearing for AMD2022-0008 postponed to April 12 Planning Board meeting Importance: High Hi Stanley: I am writing to let you know that the Planning Board public hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow evening has been postponed until April 12. David David Levitan I Planning Manager Planning and Development Department City of Edmonds, WA 425-771-0220, ext. 1223 david.levitan a,edmondswa. og_v From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:03 PM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Thank you for the confirmation David and the clarification. Much Appreciated. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4t" Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanlev(@stanlevre.com www.stanlevre.com From: Levitan, David[mailto:David. Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:43 PM To: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com>; Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Packet Pg. 107 6.A.k Hi Stanley: Your comments have been received and distributed to ADB and we will print out hard copies. Tonight is not a joint meeting but instead two separate meetings (the special ADB meeting is at 5:30 pm and the regular Planning Board meeting is at 7 pm). Planning Board will not be discussing the topic this evening, so we will include your comments in the meeting packet for the March 22 public hearing. David Get Outlook for 10S From: Stanley Piha <stanley@stanleyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:17:46 PM To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>; Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Dear David or Mike, Would you please confirm receipt? Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanley@stanlevre.com www.stanleVre.com From: Stanley Piha [mailto:stanlev@stanlevre.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:17 AM To: Tevitan, David' <David. Levita n @Ed mondsWa.Gov>; 'Clugston, Michael'<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Cc: 'McLaughlin, Susan'<susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comments for this evenings PB and ADB Meeting Dear David and Mike, I would appreciate it if you would distribute these comments to the Planning Board and Architectural Design Board in advance of this evenings joint meeting. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 210141h Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 x1 stanley@stanleyre.com www.stanlevre.com Packet Pg. 108 Memorandum: 6.A.k To: City of Edmonds Planning Board and Architectural Design Board From: Stanley Piha Date: March 8, 2023 Dear Planning Board and Architectural Design Board Members, As you discuss the matter of step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family residential zoned properties, please consider: Transit Oriented Development should be a significant focus of this Planning Board and Architectural Design Board, as is at the current State Legislative Session. 2. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, which is an Act relating to promoting transit -oriented development - a "Station hub" means all parcels that are "(b) fully or partially within a one - quarter mile radius of a major transit station" 3. Further defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, a "Major transit stop" means a site that is or has been funded for development as: (b) a stop on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on high occupancy vehicle lanes. Like the actions occurring at the State level, governance Creating Transit Oriented Development opportunities should be prioritized by this this City Planning Board and Architectural Design Board. • The Recent announcement by Community Transit related to its 2024 Transportation plan Proposes a Shuttle Service from the Edmonds Kingston Ferry Terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station. There will be stops along the way, including the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 238th and Highway 99. • This makes the intersection of 2381h and Highway 99 one of the most, if not the most transit concentrated hubs in the City of Edmonds. 238th and Highway 99 is the only intersection in the City with both North and South Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the Highway. • This creates an opportunity to designate a Transit Oriented Development radius as defined by the Senate Bill from this intersection, allowing the most accessible access to public transportation. The investment in public transportation has already been made. This is an opportunity to take advantage of that investment. • To piggyback on a suggestion made at the prior Architectural Design Board meeting regarding the CG Zone issues you will be reviewing this evening, it should be noted that multi -family properties already exist across the street from single family zoned property on 84th Avenue between 236th Street SW and 238th Street. In response to the clamoring for a transition between the CG Zone and the single family zone across the street, it was suggested to create the transition by changing the single family zones along 84th between 238th and 236th to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. By doing so, the transition is accomplished and those properties along both sides of 84th would already be in the sphere of the Transit Oriented Development radius to provide for additional future housing density. Packet Pg. 109 6.A.k • The quarter mile radius from the 2381" and Highway 99 intersection should be viewed by this Planning Board and Architectural Design Board as a Transit Oriented Development opportunity. Promoting density described in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to support this one unique transit hub will provide a means to not only address the housing crises our region is facing but to promote easy access to all forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. In consideration of the unique opportunity to plan and create Transit Oriented Developments, all properties within a one quarter mile radius of the Bus Rapid Transit hub at 238" and Highway 99 should be excepted and removed from the conditions outlined in Emergency Ordinance 4283. Those properties within the one quarter mile radius and within the boundary of the Highway 99 subarea should be permitted to be developed now, to create housing now, all in accordance with the existing conditions outlined in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Conflict of Interest — Planning Board Chair Gladstone As noted at the February 2023 Planning Board meeting, Planning Board Chair Gladstone has gone on record more than once opposing a proposed project on vacant land we are part owners of at 23625 84tn Avenue West. Planning Board Gladstone has expressed her opinion several times to require step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family zoned properties. Contrary to her assertion that she will participate in this evenings discussion in a fair and balanced manner, her past statements clearly demonstrate that she is biased in favor of requiring step backs for CG zoned properties across the street from single family zoned properties. Given this bias she cannot be a fair arbiter in this discussion. Planning Board Chair Gladstone should recuse herself from this discussion on the agenda this evening. If Planning Board Chair Gladstone does not voluntarily recuse herself from this discussion on the agenda this evening, the remaining planning board members and the Architectural Design Board Members should move to remove her from this discussion. Respectfully Submitted, Stanley Piha Packet Pg. 110 6.A.k Levitan, David From: Glenn Douglas <glenndouglas46@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:50 AM To: Planning Cc: Theresa Hollis; Sue Pool; Sue Oskowski; Ann Marie Stacker; mgburke3140@comcast.net; Randy Hollis; Dawn Burke; becki chandler; Dennis Pool; Council Subject: AMD2022-0008 (Step Back Ordinance) Dear Planning Committee members, I reside near 84th Ave W and 236th Street SW where the Terrace Place development is planned for construction. This 75' tall building is going to be an eyesore for our quiet, single family residential neighborhood regardless of it's architectural design. We are all concerned about the impact of adding 500+ adults, children and their vehicles to our neighborhood. We feel very little thought has gone into the lack of infrastructure including roads, intersections, sidewalks curbs, street parking, and city parks which are all either overcrowded or lacking entirely. I personally believe changing the zoning of this property from residential to commercial in conjunction with the Highway 99 project to be a huge overstep and not in the best interest of the community. All that being said, the approval of the Step Back ordinance as a requirement for any 6 or 7 story building is a small, but important improvement to make the building less foreboding and somewhat less inhabited. You don't have to go far south on Highway 99 to see many 6 or 7 story apartment buildings with no step backs to realize how out of place Terrace Place will look here. I understand the pressure from the state legislature to provide more "affordable housing" in our cities, but I don't think they have this in mind for a neighborhood consisting of single family homes without the infrastructure to support such a development. Please keep these factors in mind during your approval process. Best regards, Glenn Douglas Packet Pg. 111 6.A.k Levitan, David From: Djemo Kazic <djemok58@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 8:13 PM To: Planning Subject: AM D2022-0008 To whom it may concern, I live on 236th SW and 84th ave. I am against any tall Building being built on the vacant lot across the street. We already have a very busy Street With almost daily accidents nearly happening. We have a homeless problem on OUR Street and Dont want more unfamiliar Faces. We Dont want our neighborhood ruined With contsruction and random people. Those type OF dwellings always create more Crime. We have enough mail theft as it is. Please reconsider the Notion to Building anything besides single family homes Thank you. Djemo Kazic Packet Pg. 112 6.A.k Levitan, David From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 5:28 AM To: Citizens Arch Design Board; Citizens Planning Board Cc: Clugston, Michael; Council Subject: Board Review of CG zone step backs - additional information referenced in 20 Feb Memo Attachments: 2021_Sales_Tax (1).pdf, Edmonds_Population_Income_2020.pdf, Edmonds_Population_2020 (1).pdf, Edmonds_Population_Race_2020.pdf; Edmonds_Population_CIP_2021.pdf, Edmonds_Property_Value_ 2021.pdf Hello, Good morning. Would a member of the planning board and architectural design board please confirm receipt of this information including attachments? I would like to follow-up and provide the maps identified in the February 20th memo sent to the ADB and planning board "Interim ordinance 4283 - CG Zone step backs" I hope you will review the attached maps and note the following: • SR 99 is the beating heart of commercial revenue bringing in more than 4 times the sales taxes annually then downtown and twice that of Westgate (see notes on 2021 Sales Tax Distribution map). I hope you are already aware that residential land use is generally not self supporting - meaning that the property taxes generally do not offset the amenities provided to residential areas. Taxes generated from commercial land use supports residential land use types. SR99 is by far the driver of where the City's residential land use amenities are funded from. countine both sales tax receipts and park fees collected from development. • Facility investments (dots) are primarily located downtown. The existing SR99 and South Edmonds population is already significantly under-resourced (e.g. 1/12 the per capita parks when compared to downtown and a quarter to a third of per capita parks when compared to other areas) the investments show that the City is not planning to make up for past inequitable investments or support future growth. • The majority of investments (streets) are state funded in the SR-99 corridor and is projected out to 2043 which visually inflates the graphic depiction of local investment in this area. • Edmonds' population has shifted to the east, and the current population of the Highway 99 area (east of 84th and 76th) exceeds the downtown area population (west of 9th; 220th and Puget). This shift will accelerate based on the planned action. • Areas to the east of the City have lower household income and are much more racially diverse when compared to downtown. • Areas of redevelopment on the SR99 corridor are located directly adjacent to some of the lowest residential property value areas in the City creating displacement pressure. • Please visit the Washington state department of health, health disparities mapping for Edmonds: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/wtnibl/WTNIBL/ (shown below). Please note that populations around Highway 99 areas receive significantly increased environmental exposures due to the highway. In my view it is a profound moral issue that this population lives with health impacts from the SR99 coordinator, has a greater population than downtown but does not receive the corresponding investment benefits from the commercial tax revenue. When the health disparities and the appropriation of tax generated in the SR99 to downtown is understood in conjunction with the historic and current diversity of this area it should be understood as institutional racism. Packet Pg. 113 6.A.k ? © Go Back to Topic Selection Envimnmental Health Ad Rank Disparities V 2.0 6 Environmental Id l' 7 -- Exposures Diesel Exhaust PM2.5 1.111 $ Emissions Ozone Concentration .hl 2 PM2,5 Concentration 1.111 7 Proximity to Heavy Traffic .Id ■ Roadways Toxic Releases from Facilities .hl 6 (RSEI Model) I also want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the statements made during the February 23 ADB meeting. • The city administration has determined the current FEIS to be sufficient. This occurred concurrently with the SEPA responsible official resigning and was not based on the substantive requirements of the Washington Administrative Code (19 Sept 2022 memorandum re: Ordinance 4079-Planned Action for the SR99 Subarea). Please note the City administration's position is fundamentally inconsistent. The City administration is simultaneously asserting that the FEIS is adequate and are advising against the council and boards implementing the planned action evaluated in that FEIS. The FEIS planned action included: "across the street from single family zone provide 8-foot step back from the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16- foot upper storm step back from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet" (page 1-7 FEIS). A supplemental EIS has been approved and funded by the Council. • The City administration has put a single development proposal at the center of this policy issue by using a shadow study for a pending development application. Please consider the following questions: Is the shadow study representative of all development? Was the shadow study conducted for a range of dates to reflect representative shadows between the equinox (least impacts) and solstice (most impacts)? Does it take into account the shadows that would be cast by a similar situated building on the east side of Highway 99 where the topography is different? • This is not a project review and the boards are not required to evaluate the issue within the narrow constraints recommended by the City administration. It is, in my view, unwise and bad planning to narrowly consider the implications of policy questions. The boards can simply seek to uphold the Interim Ordinance until the Supplemental EIS is complete. • Code adoption is a separate process that comes after the adoption of a planned action and FEIS. The City Administration and Council did not put zoning in place consistent with the planned action goals and FEIS. Every day the City permits development that was not visioned by the planned action that is not mitigated (for many resource areas including displacement) disregards the FEIS and planned action public processes and this community. The City administration is advocating for a code consistent with their past decision -making (Hazel Appts) and not with the planned action vision for 3-4 story apartments, affordable housing, 6 story mixed use, and commercial development that creates jobs. If you want more multifamily housing density (and to kill your commercial breadbasket) then that should be a point of further evaluation and outreach to this community. We deserve that process. We know what happens when those who are more invested in downtown decide what is best (see issues summary below). The council and board are not districted which means that you do not have to "be from this area" to advocate for its interests, in fact you are called to represent all of Edmonds with the same fervor and favor as downtown. Packet Pg. 114 6.A.k Issues Summary Extensive paving and lack of tree canopy .._ High-speed, heavytraffic arterial with I , few safe pedestrian or vehicle crossings Lack of sidewalks on side streets makes _ it hard for on foot, bike, or wheels iin = neighborhood to access Hwy 99 services Shoplifting hot spot Vacant building...... • ....... Motels - domestic violence hot spot - Aging buildings in poor or below average condition Burned -outbuilding - Large underutilized site { Vacant parcels _ Oversized WSIDOT-rights-of-way inhibit _ mobility and prevent development Thank you for your review of the maps and this e-mail. I would appreciate your vote to maintain the Interim ordinance or putting stronger protections in place in alignment with the current FEIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Thank you, Natalie Seitz Equity -driven policy = better outcomes for all Edmonds residents 3 Packet Pg. 115 6.A.k Clugston, Michael From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 6:41 PM To: Citizens Arch Design Board Subject: Fwd: Board review of CG zone step backs Attachments: 20230220_CG Stepback Memo to Boards.pdf, Attachment 1 - 20220919_Hwy99 Upzone comments.pdf The City staff did not mention my February 20th memo, he mentioned an e-mail only. Did you get my February 20th memo (attached)? Please read what is actually in the FEIS when you are listening to what director McLauglin says - this is what is in the Final Environmental Impact statement: Upper story stepbacks - Adjacent to single family zones provide 10•foot upper story stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet_ Provide 20- foot upper -story step back from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet- - Across the street from single family zones provide eight foot stepback for the portio n of the bu i Id ing a bove 2 5 feet_ Provide 16• foot upper story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet. Thank you, Natalie Seitz ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@edmondswa.gov> Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:56 AM Subject: RE: Board review of CG zone step backs To: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com>, Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-arch@edmondswa.gov>, Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Clugston, Michael<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Hi Natalie: Your comments were received by both the ADB and Planning Board, and hard copies will be provided at Thursday's ADB meeting as a supplement to the meeting packet. David David Levitan I Planning Manager Packet Pg. 116 6.A.k City of Edmonds Planning Division 425-771-0220, ext. 1223 david.levitan@edmondswa.gov From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 5:47 AM To: Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-arch@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens- planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Board review of CG zone step backs Hello, Good morning. Since the first hearing is only a few days away. Would a member of the ADB and Planning Board confirm receipt of the memo I sent on the 20th? Thank you! Natalie Seitz On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:23 AM Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Good Morning. Would you please review and consider the attached memorandum to the Architectural Design and Planning Boards for the upcoming public hearings on February 23rd (ADB) and March 8th (planning board). I would appreciate your support of the stepbacks identified in the existing state environmental policy act, environmental impact statement (EIS) for the SR99 planned action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 - CG Zone Step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR99 community in 2017. Thank you for your time and consideration of this information. Packet Pg. 117 6.A.k Thank you, Natalie Seitz On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:14 AM Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Good morning. I wanted to reach out because I finally had the opportunity to watch the ADB meeting last night. I am incredibly concerned about how the stepback issue was presented to the board and the resulting discussion. I would like to develop a memo that will explain my concerns with: • How growth management act elements are being considered to evaluate bulk and massing, • The SR99 planned action, process and environmental review, and • Equity. I want to thank CM Titsel for bringing up the process equity issue for ongoing reviews. However, I feel substantive issues were left unaddressed in the way the issue was presented to the board and I would like the board to immediately begin to consider the following while I draft the memo: • It is my understanding that the ADB did not review the setbacks when the planned action was adopted, so this is the first policy level review of the upzone step backs and whether it meets the vision of the planned action, and • The current step back code did not undergo environmental review prior to adoption. The environmental review for the planned action included across the street step backs. The upzone of this area without across the street step backs did not undergo environmental review. I wanted to make these two pieces of information immediately clear because I think the review by the ADB should take into account the bulk and mass that was visioned through public process with this community and underwent environmental review as critical pieces of missing context to consider these changes. To continue with or use the current code as a baseline is to continue with code that did not receive these regulatory checks. In light of these concerns, and since board members identified that they are less familiar with this area, I would like to encourage you to review the type of development visioned by the planned action and design specifications that underwent environmental review in the FEIS. I think you will find it enlightening as to the type of smaller scale development that the Community visioned and the City identified it could achieve in the CG zone which is what allowed this area to be rezoned. Packet Pg. 118 6.A.k I have a lot on my plate so please reach out to me immediately if you are unable to use a resident -drafted memo in your deliberations. Would you please also let me know the latest acceptable timeline to include a resident drafted memo in your deliberations? Thank you, Natalie Seitz Packet Pg. 119 6.A.k To: Edmonds Architectural Design Board Edmonds Planning Board Edmonds City Council Edmonds Mayor From: Natalie Seitz Date: 20 February 2023 Re: Interim ordinance 4283 — CG Zone Step backs During the Jan 26, 2023 Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting there was discussion of housing affordability, highest and best use and equity during the deliberation of bulk and scale for the CG zone. I want to provide this memo to provide a fuller context to those discussions. This memo is divided into a limited discussion of the Growth Management Act in relation to the housing element, the Planned Action and environmental review in relation to highest and best use, and Equity. Would you please contact me if you have any questions or concerns with the content presented in this memo? I am writing this memo, in acknowledgement of the housing shortfall nation-wide and regionally. We need more housing in our city and the lack of housing affordability prevents many populations from accumulating wealth. Housing affordability results from both high - and low -end units entering the market and up -zoning creates local impacts acknowledged by the GMA (see below). I am seeking to hold the city of Edmonds accountable to mitigation and the housing visioned for this area that will receive the brunt of the local impacts. I am also asking you to recognize how that this up -zone is functioning within the city's need to meet regional growth standards in protection of single family residential in other neighborhoods. Growth Management Act This section seeks to contextualize the housing affordability within the Growth Management Act (GMA) including discussion of recent proposals at the Washington State Legislature. At a very high level the stated planning goals of the GMA for that the urban growth, housing and public facilities are to encourage development where public facilities exist and promote a variety of housing types [RCW 36.70A.020 (1), (4) and (12)]. The 2017 Upzone of the CG consolidated housing types in one of the least resourced areas of the city. For example: there is a 12:1 per capita park disparity between South Edmonds/SR99 when compared to downtown and a 3:1 - 4:1 disparity ratio when compared to Five Corners and North Edmonds, it has known fire service gaps (including 2 burned out complexes), there is currently no stormwater treatment prior to discharge to Lake Ballinger and many of our arterial streets do not have sidewalks and limited street lights. This is a subset of the resource gaps (and it should be noted these are public facilities that other areas of Edmonds have in abundance). I want to start here because I think it contextualizes the consolidation and increase of housing in the CG zone as a foundational abortion of GMA. Specifically looking toward housing there are a couple of resources and developments since the 2017 upzone that I want to make you aware of: Packet Pg. 120 6.A.k • Cracking the Zoning Code — This is a great and comprehensive resource that addresses housing, affordability and race. • This 99% Invisible podcast on the Missing Middle does a good job of explaining why high -density development was sited in communities like SR99 along the west coast in place of middle housing. • Prior to the upzone, in 2016 the SR99 condor was identified as a moderate risk for displacement, all other areas of Edmonds were identified a low risk (1). 1 believe that the risk factors for displacement in the SR99 community may be higher than identified in 2016 due to: the 2017 upzone and its implementation, Light Rail construction in adjacent Mountlake Terrace, buildable lands report, and existing approved and pending land use applications. • The GMA was amended in 2021 to establish anti -displacement standards and specifically require consideration of racial disparate impacts and displacement and recognizes "areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning and development regulations and capital investments" (RCW 36.70A.070). • There is recent legislation HB 1110 (and companion bill SB 5190) in the Washington Legislature to address middle housing options and require preemptive anti - displacement actions. During the Jan 26th ADB meeting discussion members cited the regional need for housing as a consideration towards maximizing the building heights in the CG zone. Maximizing building heights will only further simplify and exacerbate the unstable housing structure, contribute to displacement within the CG zone and adjacent neighborhoods and further exacerbate the critical shortfall of city services in this area. During public comments in 2017 the city stakeholders were informed that the planned action area had some of the most affordable homes in the city and the impact on single family homes needed to be mitigated. Many homes in the surrounding community have already experienced an increase of approximately 40% in value in the past three years, while this may seem like a good thing, poorer residents and those living on fixed income are currently (today) being displaced. Residents currently living in modular homes within the CG zone will be displaced from this area and supporting community (usually by significant distances) or become homeless. While I wish this were an exaggeration it is not, this is what happens when the lowest - income housing is eliminated. This is the reality of the SR99 area. While housing affordability will regionally improve with new units, this will not be the effect locally within the SR99 corridor without anti -displacement strategies in place prior to redevelopment and low income residents are currently being displaced. Many anti -displacement strategies are critically dependent on centering community voices in city re -development processes, matching anti -displacement strategies to neighborhood conditions and long-term investment (refer to Cracking the zoning code and Attachment 1). A two -tiered review of development and multi-lingual noticing and interpretation is needed, and is a key anti -displacement strategy for this community. Lastly with regard to HB 1110/SB 5190. 1 want to simply state the 2017 up zone does not provide but rather eliminated middle housing in this area. The only similarities between the 1 Puget Sound Regional Council: https://Psregcncl.maps.a rcgis.com/a pps/M a pSeries/index. htm l?a ppid=1769d732e3de4905 baObf5ffaf75f6O2 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.k CG and HB 1110/ SB 5190 is that they address zoning and housing. They are different in how they function for the housing structure and foundationally different in intent. The 2017 upzone has no anti displacement strategies (standards that would be required if the upzone occurred today) and is leading to an exclusionary housing structure in this area. In contrast the past and proposed legislation provides middle housing and requires anti -displacement prior to upzoning. It is an oversimplification to conflate the type of growth in the CG zone with middle housing bills. Planned Action The community vision identified in the planned action and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be the used as the City's highest and best use for the CG zone. I would like to identify the following context information: • The planned action identifies mixed -use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. "Create housing choices attractive to people from all walks of life." With regard to housing, this community identified three- to four- story apartment buildings as the desired outcome and the planning scenario identified three-story apartments with taller mixed use with residential densities for those uses ranging between 51.2 to 82.6. • The planned action and SEPA compliance documentation identify upper floor step backs. Both as recommendation 6.8 and as mitigation incorporated into the planned action for adjacent and across the street: "across the street from single family zone provide 8-foot step back from the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16- foot upper storm step back from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet" (page 1-7 FEIS). • The city has not undertaken locally -funded mitigation as identified in the SEPA compliance documentation (Environmental Impact Statement. EIS). The redevelopment of highway 99 is a state -funded action. • The city council has approved the development of a supplemental EIS due to the environmental impacts that are already evident in planned action implementation in Ordinance 4079. Please review attachment 1 which is a subset of the documentation developed in support of the supplemental EIS. During the Council discussions in late 2022 that led to the passage of interim ordinance 4283 Council President Tibbott reminded us that the Hwy 99 redevelopment is the largest undertaking in the history of Edmonds. The complexity is very high, and it will take time for Council and city staff to correct the issues that have become apparent since action was taken in 2017. • The zone is being primarily utilized for housing and not for the mixed commercial, commercial -mixed, and housing use as intended. The thresholds set for the planned action are: 3,325 residential dwelling units and 1,634,685 square feet of non- residential uses. The current issued permits in the CG zone represent 10% of the housing units allowed under the planned action with another 10% of the total allowed housing units currently being proposed —This is 20% of the planned action total, while currently less than 1% of the non-residential square feet have been issued permits or are proposed. I think it is useful context for the ADB and planning board to consider the range of uses visioned for the CG zone which is a primarily commercial, mid -rise mixed use and mid to low-rise residential. In combination the vision of the planned action should be used as the "highest and best use" of the CG zoning code. Maximizing the housing allowed any Packet Pg. 122 6.A.k individual parcel does not implement the vision for this area. Maximizing the parcel level housing will economically prohibit the mid to low-rise apartment buildings visioned by the planned action from occurring. Developers will not propose these housing types if the boards seek to "maximize" rather than execute the vision of the planned action. In short once you allow one development to maximize housing, you cannot go back. Maximizing housing at the parcel level will also prohibit the full re -development of the zone because it is clear that the total residential units allowed by the planned action will be exhausted far before the commercial redevelopment occurs. The CG zone does not have sub -zone designations. Because of the breadth of what is allowed in the CG zone a two-step public review process is needed to conform individual site plans to the overall mixed vision. Similarly, because the zone allows taller building heights for mixed and commercial uses, there need to be stringent step backs from some feature to make the three- to four-story apartments vision achievable. In this zone step backs are not "artificial" thev are needed to create the housing choice visioned by the planned action. The Council's interim ordinance 4283 seeks to keep the step back promises made to this community and documented in the existing EIS. It should be in effect (at a minimum) until the supplemental EIS is complete. This will allow the supplemental EIS the ability to consider different options to meet the planned action vision, bring the planned action into conformance with current environmental and anti -displacement requirements, mitigate and prevent the likely outcomes from this zone: the community being exploited or individual developments from being challenged for not being in conformance with the planned action. Equity I would like to challenge your perceptions of this area of Edmonds. Please take the time to look through the resources identified in the Growth Management section and the 99% Invisible podcast. The land use pattern we have in this City and siting high density residential in the most racially diverse and underserved areas is typical of many on the west coast and it is not an oversight. Before I talk about underinvestment, I want to briefly state some process inequities: • The first discussion of the removal of step -backs occurred approximately 1 hour after the last public meeting for the planned action and SEPA. The removal of step backs was not functionally part of the public visioning or environmental review process. • This area is diverse with many people speaking languages other then English in the home. It is my understanding that public involvement and meetings were not translated or interpreted. • In 2017 the CG zone was consolidated and left up to planning department discretion without a public process until the emergency ordinance. When compared to the differentiation of zoning classifications downtown, the swath of CG in the SR99 corridor with the actions to create a "sense of place" left undefined by the planning process is unfathomable for the primary commercial area of the city. • As noted during the January 26t" ADB meeting, downtown has a two-step public development review process for development that is a fraction of the size of what is occurring in the SR99 corridor. • The ADB was not part of the CG zone updates and has not previously reviewed the CG zone for conformance with the planned action vision. Packet Pg. 123 6.A.k The 2020 Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Hwy 99 corridor was never implemented through new development code design guidelines in 2020. Specifically, land use policy # C2 states " Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design ... and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties." The building design standards in development code section 16.60.030.D focus on the principle of 'variety' and are silent on the principle of 'transitions to less intensive zones' that are identified in the planning documents for this area. With regard to investment: the SR99 corridor/CG zone is located in an area of current and historic racial diversity and it is my understanding that this area, similar to adjacent areas in Shoreline, was redlined. The SR99 corridor is also the commercial sales tax driver of this city and is the second most densely populated area (second only to NE of Five corners, not downtown Edmonds). The City council created maps illustrating the investment pattern, property value and population including race of the City prior to the 2022 budget season. I have a pending public records request, and hope to provide them to you as part of this packet (I will send them once I receive them). It is difficult for me to succinctly describe the profoundness of the resource disparity of this area. Imagine an area that is thriving with commercial business (roughly 2/3 of the current commercial sales take revenue) but all that investment goes to a different area of town. Now imagine that occurring every year for 60 years. There are reasons why the city until recently only owned a half -acre of fee simple property in this area (now it is up to roughly 1 acre), why the city counts unopened rights of way as parks serving this area (see photo), why there are prolific park disparities even in comparison to noncommercial neighborhood in less diverse areas of the City, why the city undertakes a $15M renovation to Civic Park instead of the mitigation for the CG up zone, why this is the only area of the City with a ridiculously underinvested in shoreline (Lake Ballinger), why this area has a thriving commercial area but has overhead utilities, limited streetlights and no sidewalks. Drive the other half of Lake Ballinger in Mountlake Terrace sometime and understand a fraction of the investment that should have been here in comparison to an adjacent non-commercial area that is not in Edmonds. Because of the underinvestment the City now considers this area to be a definable blight under state law (see attachment 1), this is simply the result of local - taxes generated from this area not being spent here for 60 years. So it is difficult to hear the boards and City talk about how we should accept development that is not in alignment with the vision because of sidewalk and street light improvements. This area should have had those amenities decades ago through our tax dollars and identifying development as the only way to get those amenities now omits the decades of City inaction. In summary, the up zone is causing impacts to this community and does not meet current standards, the up zone is not being implemented in accordance with the planned action, setbacks were promised and have a land -use function within this zone, and those who live here are people too. I say this last bit because we are often not treated with similar consideration as those who live in the downtown view corridor. The desires for quality of life, aesthetics, livability, local consideration, neighborhoods and neighbors (our elderly that Packet Pg. 124 6.A.k are being displaced) that we recognize are not less because the city has so prolifically underinvested in this racially and economically diverse area. People in this area deserve every due consideration that is regularly provided to people living downtown. I would like to ask that you keep the interim step backs in place until the Supplemental EIS is complete and the City has the opportunity to evaluate options to meet the vision for the planned action. The current breadth of the CG zone to allow fully commercial and fully residential uses is confusing and does not provide developers sufficient assurances that proposed applications meet the vision for this area, which leads to a loss of their time and money. I have tremendous sympathy for developers affected by the interim ordinance; however, the interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the planned action to this community. I can also understand the desire of some to maximize the building heights in order to maximized the density far in excess of the residential densities (51.2 to 82.6) visioned for the planned action as a regional benefit. Seeking to maximize housing in the SR99 corridor in excess of the vision will bring more units to market BUT within the local context serves to protect whiter and wealthier Edmonds neighborhoods from needing to meet growth targets. If you do choose to reduce or overturn the building height step backs, I hope you will engage on some amount of personal reflection for this fact. The SR99 community is bearing the brunt of both past and present underinvestment, and growth that is not supported by existing infrastructure. While limited improvements have been made the city has shown with Civic Park (instead of park mitigation for the upzone), the PROS plan, and ongoing budgets that the tax dollars from this area will continue to be redirected to downtown Edmonds. There needs to be space to equitably meet the overall housing need while not forcing this diverse and underserved area to be so heavily impacted. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Parkland serving the SR99 area Photo 1— Un-improved utility ROW that is closed to public by "no trespassing' sign is currently identified as the Interurban Trail Special Use Park. The Interurban Trial is actually located along 76`" Avenue W. in this area. Packet Pg. 125 6.A.k To: Edmonds City Council Edmonds Mayor From: Natalie Seitz Date: 19 September 2022 Re: Ordinance 4079 — Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea I would like to provide the following comments to the City and Council for consideration for the scheduled review of Ordinance 4079. 1 am providing these comments with the specific request to Council to supplement the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), OR amend the Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea. Supplementing the EIS or amending Highway 99 Subarea plan is critical and time sensitive to ensure sufficient mitigation for existing and newly identified significant adverse impacts including blight, parks, fire services and the displacement of residents from the City of Edmonds. I have organized my comments into two sections addressing SEPA review and Council Action. would appreciate the opportunity to virtually meet with the City and Council members at your earliest convenience to go over the comments and answer any questions you may have. SEPA Review In accordance with Section SB of Ordinance 4079: "This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the SEPA Responsible Official to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures (Emphasis added)." As further specified in Section 5B the purpose of this review is to determine if amending the ordinance, supplementing or revising the Planned Action EIS is warranted. Therefore WAC 197- 11-405(4) is also relevant to the SEPA review: A supplemental EIS (SETS) shall be prepared as an addition to either a draft or final statement if.• (a) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts, or (b) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Based on a review of the 11 August 2022 Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review Memorandum to Council "11 August 2022 Memo", the city has not met the requirements of Ordinance 4097 and SEPA as amended by the agency SEPA procedures (including procedures contained in Ordinance 4097). Specifically: 1. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to environmental conditions. In the 11 August 2022 Memo environmental conditions were only analysed as a result if implementing the preferred action. This by definition is "impacts of development" and not the "environmental condition" as required by Ordinance 4097. The environmental condition of the planned action area has been 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 126 6.A.k significantly altered by the effects of the pandemic on economic conditions, displacement, and delay in critical fire services (re: Plum Tree fire). These conditions have resulted in the City now undertaking consideration of the SR99 corridor as a blight. The environmental conditions relative to Parks has specifically been altered with the update of the PROS plan which set forth new levels of service and provides new information on the geographic distribution of park resources (see attachment A updated based on the Final 2022 PROS plan). 2. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to the impacts from development. As noted in bullet 1: the city is now undertaking consideration of the SR99 corridor as a blight. "Blight" is a significant impact as defined by WAC 197-11-440(6)(e). The city has also documented significant park impacts associated with the stormwater upgrades which is a connected action to the ordinance (January 2022 Lake Balinger Regional Stormwater Facility Feasibility Report). In addition to these significant impacts the Growth Management Act has been amended to specifically require consideration of racial disparate impacts and displacement and specifically recognizes "areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning and development regulations and capital investments" (RCW 36.70A.070). The planned action is a significant cumulative displacement impact to this area (please refer to Attachment 2 of my 1/31/22 PROS Plan comments to Council that discusses the effect of the planned action on displacement in greater detail). Growth without investment in parks and infrastructure will also result in significant impacts which are further identified in bullet 3. 3. The city did not evaluate the relevance of assumptions and findings with regard to required mitigation measures. A major feature of the Growth Management Act is that the development and providing of public services and facilities and services needed to support development should occur concurrently, and planning and plan implementation actions should address difficult issues that have resisted resolution in the past, such as: Providing adequate urban services for the concentrated growth in those areas, and the siting of essential public facilities (WAC 365-196-010(1)(f)&(g)). The city has identified multiple mitigation measures in Ordinance 4079 which have not been met and are now resulting in significant impacts: o The city's mitigation for Fire and Emergency Services states that the city "will regularly review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have enough advance time to address the needs." Clearly the city has not addressed delays in service to the planned action area which has resulted in significant delays in response times to recent fires in the area (re: Plum tree fire). o The city has not met park mitigation requirements and has made erroneous conclusions in the 11 August 2022 Memo the "mitigation identified is still appropriate for development in the planned action area." Ordinance 4079 set forth 6 specific actions from the 2014 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2014 PROS plan) that were required to mitigate impacts. The city accomplished none of the six actions and the 2014 PROS plan has since been superseded by the 2022 PROS plan. Mitigation from the 2014 PROS plan as identified in Ordinance 4079 has not been identified or carried forward in the 2022 PROS plan therefore the City's conclusion that "mitigation identified is still appropriate for development in the planned action area" is inaccurate because 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 127 6.A.k the assumption that park mitigation would be undertaken is clearly not relevant. Please note that implementation of the required mitigation from the 2014 PROS plan is and has been feasible because the City currently carries an $8M surplus over reserves. The 2022 PROS plan also identified significant resource gaps to the SR99 area (attachment 1), and set forth new service level requirements both of which constitute new information for evaluation of the planned action. The investments specifically identified for the SR99 area ($3,890,900) in the 2022 PROS plan will not address past development allowed in the SR99 area in accordance with the growth management act (WAC 365-196-010(1)) and are not sufficient to support future growth (see attachment 2). There have been no new investments since the 2017 Ordinance and the population has grown from 2017 to present, in conjunction with and independent of the planned action, and this area will grow significantly further in the next 6 years based on approved and pending land use applications alone. Simply put one new park will not keep up with growth - the level of service provided to this already critically underserved area has decreased from 2017 to present and will further decrease further from now to 2028 resulting in significant direct and cumulative park resource impacts (refer to 2/23/22 comments to Planning Board and 3/1/22 comments to Council). o The city is not properly mitigating for impacts identified in bullet 2 including blight, displacement, and significant park impacts associated with meeting the stormwater requirements for development. 4. The City has met the substantive requirements for a supplemental EIS under both subsection a and b of WAC 197-11-405(4): o subsection a: There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts - The planned action has undergone a substile change which has been documented to have a significant impact on parks. As noted in bullet 2 the Lake Balinger Regional Stormwater Facility is a connected action to the planned action. However, the facility is located outside of the planned action area. The planned action requires that all development (meeting stormwater requirements is a part "development") must be within the planned action area. The proposed regional facility location constitutes a substantial change that is currently documented by the city as resulting in a significant park impact. o subsection b: There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts —There is significant new information detailed in bullet 2 and 3 that identify documented and probable significant adverse impacts not identified in the EIS or mitigated by the City. 5. The city has not undertaken notices of the planned action review as required by SEPA (as amended by the agency SEPA procedures). Please refer to attachment 3. Council Action Council action is needed to address deficiencies in the EIS and address impacts of the Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea. Council action is necessary because: 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 128 6.A.k • The council took action above the SEPA Responsible Official in adopting the findings of the EIS in Ordinance 4079, taking action to adopt or amend the findings of the planned 5-year review is consistent with past council action on this matter. The substantive requirements identified in the WAC 197-11-405(4)(b) have been met to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (bullet 4). • Ordinance 4079 5B. specifically identifies action vested in the Council (i.e. amending the ordinance): "Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS." • Council has taken action to amend zoning (BD2) outside of planned review periods and without documented determinations of significant impacts, both of which are present for the Planned Action for Highway 99 Subarea. • Council positions represent all Edmonds residents, it is Councils responsibility to ensure all Edmonds residents are provided equitable pubic process and staff allocated resources as part of its oversight function. The City and Council have sufficient information and must supplement the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the WAC, OR amend the Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea. If the City chooses to undertake a Supplemental EIS, then appropriate funds should be allocated in the upcoming budget. 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.k Attachment 1: Park Area Comparative Analysis 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 130 6.A.k A - North B - Five C - Downtown D - South E - SR99 Edmonds Corners Edmonds Corridor Open space (1) 7.96 41.16 26.46 0 0 Community Park (1) 12.05 45.27 21.88 0 0 Neighborhood Park (1) 12.26 1.22 5.26 5.61 1.82 Special Use/Waterfront 4.06 0 54.96 0 4.16(6) Park (1) 9,939(2) 13,172(3) 7418 (4) 12,324(5) 2020 Census Population 2020 Census —80% White —70% White —85% White —70% —60% Demographics (white (7) White White alone, rounded to nearest 5%) 3.53 11.47 Total Park / 1,000 2.85 0.94 population (8) 3.12 3.57 0 Total Open Space / 0.80 1,000 population Final 2022 PROS plan $1,911,100 $25,296,200 $26,872,858 (9) $9,474,400 proposed investment Notes (A) N of Caspers St / Puget Dr (B) S of 196th St SW, N of 220th St SW, E of 9th Ave (C) W of 9th Ave, S of Caspers St (D) S of 220th St SW, W of Esperance (E) S of 220th St SW, E of Esperance (1) Based on parks as they are identified in Draft PROS plan Figure 5. City -owned Parks & Open Space (2) Census tracts 502 and 503. Census tracts don't directly line up and include small portions of neighboring jurisdictions so this is a slight overestimate. (3) Census tracts 504.02, 504.03, 504.04 (4) Census tracts 505.01 and 505.02 (5) Census tract 508 which would support the calculation for both South Edmonds and the SR99 Corridor include unincorporated Esperance. This total is an estimate based on City of Edmonds total 2020 population minus the tracts associated with area A, B and C. In 2020, South Edmonds is more populous than the SR99 Corridor. The South Edmonds/SR99 combined population is a slight underestimate since the population for Area A is a slight overestimate (see note 2). (6) Includes land that do not meet the definition of Park. (7) Area demographics range considerably from tracts that are 80.3% white alone to 63.7% white alone (8) Please note that these areas were calculated based on solely on resources located within area boundaries identified by the PROS Plan public engagement map. In some cases, areas like Downtown would experience higher City -provided Park services then what is reflected in this table since it is located is within the 2-mile service area for Yost Park. (9) may not include meeting Civic Stormwater requirements (approx. $0.5M) 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 131 6.A.k Attachment 2: Consideration of Growth and Development ASK: I am providing this information in support of the development of a multi -cultural community center serving the SR99 community (ref: stakeholder outreach with the Korean Community Services Center, Pg. 206) The Draft PROS plan and CFP would benefit from additional consideration of growth and development in relationship to Objective 2.1: Address accessibility barriers (socio-economic, language, physical, geographic, transportation) to parks and programs and allocate resources to address known gaps and anti -displacement strategies. The consideration of growth and development is inherent in development of the Parks and Recreation element: "Level of service standards should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to factors influenced by growth and development, to allow for counties and cities to more clearly identify the impact on the demand for park facilities resulting from new development" (WAC 365-196-440). Growth and Development should be a key consideration in the CFP. There was not sufficient information provided in the Draft PROS plan to illuminate where growth currently proposed within the City (see map from Slide 12 of the buildable lands report presentation provided to the Planning Board on 13 October 2021— Edmonds Pending shown in blue). This map does not include issued land use applications like GRE Apartments (193 New Residential Units). There is significant growth already approved and targeted to the SR99 corridor. N Edmonds CITY Boundary Edmonds MUGA _ Edmonds R@n(ing short Plat - FWMI Hat - MuRlfamlfy Mixed -Use Ea. Co.r.nunih Maas Cai*butvAGq�ioF 4ionf�w. KnG Cw.gr. N[4 Sta6r Pa.ia G15 Esri Carudx Esri HUT G.,MR yt•C +F+h INOahWrIA, MErVNASA USCG &—. of I.na Man.gwne EPA HPS, n5 Cn hu LISO.A SDi Es Admia DS. U.',M W A N&°A CG AFtN fwoinwn NCEAS. NLS OS N?AkC adrtx Yr-07n FGjkA—tart GSk Gnla.d FEW, Inm w a-d#w CIS usw c�xr.ruryH 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 132 6.A.k The University of Texas Uprooted Project' provides tools for evaluating and preventing the likelihood of displacement. This tool kit has been used in the Puget Sound region to develop anti -displacement policieS2. In 2016, the SR99 condor was identified as a moderate risk for displacement, all other areas of Edmonds were identified a low risk'. I believe that the risk factors for displacement in the SR99 community may be higher than 2016 due to: the redevelopment plans for SR99, Light Rail station, buildable lands report, and existing approved and pending land use applications. The University of Texas Uprooted Project developed the following risk factors: Who is most vulnerable to displacement? X Y tis Persons of People 25 and Renters People making at or Households Color alder without a below 80% Median with children Bachelor's Degree Family Income in poverty The 2015-2019 American community survey narrative profile for tract 5094 (east side of Hwy 99, Edmonds) identifies that: • For people reporting one race alone, 57.7 percent were White; 3.2 percent were Black or African American; 0.7 percent were American Indian and Alaska Native; 11.7 percent were Asian; 1.4 percent were Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 12.6 percent were some other race. An estimated 12.7 percent reported two or more races. • 36.2 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher • Renters occupied 56.5 percent of occupied housing units • Median income of households was $65,948 and median earnings for full-time year- round workers was $47,664 • 17.7 percent of children under 18 were below the poverty level Many anti -displacement strategies are critically dependent on centering community voices in city re -development processes, matching anti -displacement strategies to neighborhood conditions and long-term investment. A multi -cultural community center serving the serving the SR99 community is a needed resource both to fill a recreation deficit but would also be a key investment that would support the city implementing anti -displacement strategies in this area in association with current pending land use applications. Please prioritize a multi -cultural community center serving the SR99 community in the PROS Plan CFP. University of Texas Uprooted Project: https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproiect/ z Skyway -West Hill and North Highline, King County: https:Hkingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/community-human-services/housing- homelessness-community-development/documents/Plans%20and%20Reports/KC-SkywayW Hill-N Hln-ant-dsplcmnt- stratrpt.ashx?la=en 3 Puget Sound Regional Council: httos://osreecncl.maDs.arc2is.com/aoos/Mai)Series/index.html?aooid=1769d732e3de4905baObf5ffaf75f6O2 4 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/narrative- profiles/2019/report.php?geotype=tract&tract=050900&state=53&county=061 9/19/22 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment 3: SEPA Notices , k\ k� //E 0` E IL J92 4§ 0 { §E- .� § ƒ E 2 2\ -z2 a Aj/ (A zod B E ] 7� �2�0= .,] { E2 0-1 < 2 £ 0 LU §#7§� $E2�m >E�I2 0c & »/§ƒ �■_�� `k �.0 tc 20 5"-§ \ M§Er CL �k§]) kƒ2&E U) u2, / 21 ." -S - a�±2® ) V3 0 E� �ƒE& 2k=a3 °�- ) .E '{'[ ] )ka)ƒ /§\() E�2e] Cu § (k § / 0 0 >1 Emu 7 ) 71� j; Lf)9C #'»--/~ N.$°0§/ E2a±$) f2§$[@ 91%2 Packet Pg. 134 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/12/2023 Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001) Staff Lead: Rose Haas Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rose Haas Background/History Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regulates uses and development standards in the city's different zoning districts, with Chapter 16.45 covering the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Per ECDC 16.45.010(C), day-care centers in the BN zone are identified as a primary use requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which is a Type III-B land use application that requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The city has received a citizen -initiated code amendment proposal (AMD2023-0001) to: 1) designate day-care centers as a Permitted Primary Use in the BN zone under ECDC 16.45.010(A), which would eliminate the need for the CUP; and 2) Add outdoor play areas associated with day-care centers as an exception in ECDC 16.45.030 to allow the use outside of a completely enclosed building. The application form, applicant's project narrative, and a redline/strike out version of the proposed code amendment are included as Attachments 1-3. Consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.80, code amendments are a Type V legislative land use decision, with the Planning Board reviewing the proposed code amendment and making a recommendation to City Council following a public hearing. The City Council would then hold a separate public hearing to consider the Planning Board's recommendation, with any code amendment adopted by city ordinance. Staff Recommendation No action is required. Staff will introduce the code amendment (shown as StFik gh/underline text in Attachment 3) and provide context about the proposal. Based on its initial review, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ECDC 20.80.020. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions. The required public hearing for the project is preliminarily scheduled for May 10, 2023. Narrative Great Kids Academy and their representative, AD Shapiro Architects, are proposing to amend ECDC Chapter 16.45 to: Packet Pg. 135 8.A 1) Change day-care centers from a primary use requiring a CUP to a primary permitted use in the BN zone; and 2) To exempt the outdoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers from the operating restrictions in the BN zone, which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed buildings. The applicant would like to establish a new day-care center at 24310 76th Ave. W to the north of their existing day-care center, which is a permitted primary use in the adjacent Community Business (BC) zone. While the proposed code amendment would benefit the applicant directly, the changes would apply to all BN-zoned properties in Edmonds, which the applicant has listed (page 4) and illustrated (pages 5-11) in Attachment 2. Applicable Codes According to Section ECDC 21.20.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), "day-care center" means' [a] building or portion thereof used for the care of children under the age of 12 located in a facility which accommodates 13 or more children regardless of whether such services are provided for compensation." Per ECDC 16.45.010.C, day-care centers are currently a primary use requiring a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Per ECDC 16.45.030.A, uses in the BN zone must occur within completely enclosed buildings consistent with ECDC 16.45.030.A unless they are specifically identified as excepted, which currently includes uses like off-street parking and loading areas, drive-in businesses, parks and public utilities. Dav-care use in the BN Zone The BN zone is located in neighborhood commercial centers such as Perrinville, Five Corners, and Harmony Corners (212th and 76"). Day-care centers were a prohibited use in the BN zone until they were added as a primary use requiring a CUP via Ordinance 3353 in 2001. According to ECDC 16.45.000, The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Per ECDC 16.40, the general purposes of the business and commercial zones are: A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other; Packet Pg. 136 8.A C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities; E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. ratine Restriction in the BN Zone The outdoor operating restrictions have applied since 1980. The following outdoor uses are currently allowed per ECDC 16.45.030.A: 1. Public utilities and parks, 2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots, 3. Drive-in businesses, 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. Comprehensive Plan Context The BN zone is one of the implementing zones for commercial land use types identified in the Comprehensive Plan such as Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Edmonds Way Corridor, and Westgate Corridor. The subject site where the applicant would like to establish a day-care is designated as 'Neighborhood Commercial'. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies for Neighborhood Commercial areas (p 70-71): Commercial Development Goal C. Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls" with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. C.1 Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. C.2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. Packet Pg. 137 8.A C.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. C.4 Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. C.5 Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street -level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. C.6 Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus are strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve. Current Permitting Process To establish a day-care center in the BN zone, an applicant needs the following permits from the City (additional permitting is required from the State of Washington consistent with RCW 43.216): 1. Land use permit -Type III-B conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner consistent with ECDC 20.05 2. Building and engineering permits - reviewed, conditioned, approved, and inspections by staff 3. Business license - reviewed, conditioned and approved by staff Analysis of Applicant's Proposal Based on its review of the applicant's narrative (Attachment 2) and the Comprehensive Plan, staff is supportive of the proposed code amendment to allow day-care centers as a primary permitted use and to allow outdoor recreational areas associated with the day-care use. Day-care centers provide a vital service to residents of a neighborhood area on a daily basis, which is consistent with ECDC 16.45.000.A. This is evidenced by the applicant's research which shows that there are six existing day-care centers either within or immediately adjacent to the BN zone. The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial Development Goals and Policies, including Policy Al (Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses) and Policy C2 (Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood). If allowed as a primary permitted use, any proposed day-care center would still have to meet all other existing zoning standards for the BN zone as well as the titles identified in Chapter 20.80.020 for topics such as parking, landscaping, traffic, sewer/water/stormwater, critical areas, etc. Compliance with those codes would be verified through a building and engineering permits as they are today. Making day-care centers a primary permitted use would eliminate the extra step of obtaining a conditional use permit where an applicant must submit a land use application, pay the application fee ($3,329.00), and navigate the Hearing Examiner public hearing process which takes approximately four months, and result in more clear and objective use and development standards. Packet Pg. 138 8.A Attachment 4 includes an example of a Hearing Examiner decision and staff report for a CUP for a day- care center. The Hearing Examiner noted that the proposed day-care center use was supported by the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and did not impose any conditions of approval beyond transferability (which is only an issue when a CUP is required) and general consistency with local, state, and federal codes/regulation and permit requirements. Regarding property performance standards like noise, it should be noted that the sound from unamplified human voices is exempt from the standards in the noise chapter (ECC 5.30) from 7AM to 10PM. Sounds from children playing in an outdoor play area are exempt from the noise standards during those hours. Operating hours are verified, and can be restricted, during business license review. Attachments: Attachment 1- Land Use Application AMD2023-0001 Attachment 2 - Applicant Narrative AMD2023-0001 Attachment 3 - Draft BN Code Strikeout AMD2023-0001 Attachment 4 - PLN2010-0025 Hearing Examiner Decision and Staff Report Packet Pg. 139 8.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS nn BuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Tony Shapiro A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 18105 Sunset Way tonys(�D_adshapiro.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98026 (425) 778-5400 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location Number Street 24310 76TH AVE W State Zip License Expiration Date Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension UBI # E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number all City Zip Code County Parcel Number O EDMONDS 98026 00491100001010 c r Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name M N O N Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Q C Work Location G V Q Property Owner Q- Q First Name Last Name or Company Name fn Rayka I & Stefan I Krumova c Number Street Apartment or Suite Number � J 23122 84TH AVE W r r City State Zip ++ C EDMONDS WA 98026-8601 z Certification Statement - The applicant states: U r I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and Q authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. 1 have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. E t ca Date Submitted: 2/13/2023 Submitted By: Tony Shapiro Q Packet Pg. 140 Page 1 of 2 8.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone Project Contact Company Name: A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS Name: Tony Shapiro Email: tonys@adshapiro.com Address: 18105 Sunset Way Phone #: (425) 778-5400 Edmonds WA 98026 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Code or Plan Amendments and Interpretations Zoning Code Text Amendment Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone Description of This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned Work: properties outright without requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN zoned properties). Project Details Development Type Text Amendment Packet Pg. 141 Page 2 of 2 nF r.o. 8.A.a MyBui ld i n gPermit. com Jurisdiction: Edmonds N Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone r- O Application ID: 1268119 N Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje property. I do so certify. r O O O M N O N 0 Packet Pg. 142 8.A.b U A SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS January 24, 2023 Subject: Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning criteria For Great Kids Academy currently located at: 24310 76'" Avenue W, Edmonds, WA 98026 Site: Property address: 24200 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026 Tax Parcel No: 00491100001008 Snohomish County Contents: Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning Criteria Pages 1-3 Verbal reasoning for modification to zoning code Appendix Al-A8 Zoning Maps of BN zones outlining existing Day Care Centers in BN zones Explanation of Application: This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned properties outright without requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN zoned properties). Additionally, we hope to reclassify Outdoor Recreation Space to be permitted outright within the BN zone's Operating Restrictions, (ECDC 16.45.030). As stated below, we believe these modifications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, while upholding public health, safety, and welfare, as well as being in the best interest of the City of Edmonds by helping to streamline the land use review process and thus limiting some of the uncertainties inherent in construction and/or renovated of daycare facilities within the BN zones. Comp plan and zoning classifications: Comp Plan Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: BN Neighborhood Business 16.40 Business and Commercial Zones: Modify Neighborhood Business, BN zoning criteria to reclassify Day Care Centers as a "Permitted Primary Use" instead of the current listing as a "Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit' as currently stated in 16.45.010 Uses, C Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The existing nine zoned areas are scattered throughout Edmonds which are located immediately adjacent to single family neighborhoods, many of which are comprised of young families seeking to utilize day care centers while many already have existing schools in their proximity. 1. Existing BN Zones: Two of the existing nine BN zoned areas currently have daycare centers within their zone, and four other zones have daycare centers adjacent to or across the street from these zones, for a total of six of the nine, for a total of 67% of the BN zones. Please see the attached zoning maps of these areas. Comprehensive Plan: All nine of the BN zones are well suited to benefit from the placement of daycare centers, which meet the Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies outlined in the initial three paragraphs starting on page 69 of the Comprehensive Plan. AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054 tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com Packet Pg. 143 8.A.b Daycare Centers are a natural use for the smaller and more intimate commercial zones that comprise all BN neighborhoods. Existing Edmonds land uses show a broad acceptance and even the expectation for daycare facilities to be located within or adjacent to BN zones. The requirement for Daycare's to follow the existing Conditional Use approval process burdens applicants, while we contend there are no significant community issues to resolve. The removal of this step will save both time and effort for City Planning Staff, Hearing Examiner, and applicants. Additionally, we are seeking to have outdoor recreation space, (playgrounds), permitted within this zone, which currently is restricted by BN zoning criteria. This criterion requires outside activities be contained solely within the building, thus disabling the ability to comply with Washington State daycare requirements for exterior playgrounds. Please note toddler play areas do not create the noise levels and potential neighborhood annoyance which the typical elementary school playground may generate. 16.45.030 Operating Restrictions: Modify the existing operating restriction to permit daycare playgrounds to be placed outside of an enclosed building, vs. existing criteria which states: "All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building". WAC 110-300-0145 Daycare requirements stipulates in Outdoor early learning program space, that an outdoor play area must be available, (see attached copy of this section). This disables the ability to place daycare centers in NB zones unless there is an approved off site, (and outside of the BN zone), outdoor play space with an approved safe route to access this play space from the Center. Comp Plan Assessment: Community Sustainability Element The proposed code revision will enhance and support the sustainable objective of neighborhood commercial centers by providing local and walkable access from their homes to Daycare business services which mirror existing daycare facilities located throughout Edmonds. This reduces car usage, (and potential air pollution), while enhancing opportunities for families to interact with one another while walking between their homes and the daycare, which is more of a feature with elementary schools than middle or high schools which tend to be located further away from families. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: We believe this proposed revision will fully comply with the comprehensive plan based upon the following Comp Plan criteria. The below listed goals are specifically suited to this site, and land use/building type Commercial Development Goal A: Al Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses: the existing nine BN zoned centers have six Day Care Centers utilizing properties within or immediately adjacent their respective BN zones; please refer to the attached maps. A3 Discourage Strip Commercial areas: Development should be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as well as being economically feasible. Daycare centers provide a necessary and desirable service to their respective neighborhoods as evidenced by the many existing daycare centers situated within other BN zones; of the nine existing BN zones, there are six daycare centers situated within or adjacent to these zones. A4 Provide for convenient and safe access for customers employees and suppliers; enabling BN zoned properties to house daycare centers will permit more residents to access these facilities without having to drive to a centralized shopping area. We believe this close proximity is especially desirable for customers as they commute to . 2 Packet Pg. 144 8.A.b A5 Locate commercial developments to minimize adverse impacts of heavy traffic. as noted, earlier daycare in close proximity to existing housing will relieve the need for car traffic traversing additional streets. Commercial Development Goal B: B2 Encourage mixed -use development to include a variety of uses: the need for daycare centers adjacent to existing housing enhances family life by reducing drive time and encouraging walking while connecting neighborhoods. B8 Private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity: again, enabling and encouraging daycare centers to be adjacent to and part of residential neighborhoods will encourage and enhance interaction amongst families while reducing automobile traffic. Commercial Development Goal C: C2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood: daycare centers inherently are geared to families who tend to prefer Daycare Centers in close proximity to their home. C3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access: All BIN zone properties are on transit routes enabling customers to utilized bus service for taking and picking up their children. The east boundary of the subject parcel is bounded by 76th Ave West, which has a bus line traveling north and south. A east west line is one block to the south of the site on SR 104. Packet Pg. 145 8.A.b U A SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS Summary of BN Zoned Properties Location/N&Ighborho od Area of zone Suroundi-19 Zones Zones with daycares in or adjacent (SF) to BN zone BC, RS-12, PRD-1990-2, R-1997-28, 1 Pemrnrllle 272,OW Olympic flew Montessorl RS-8, R1985-3, 2 Olympic View Dr and Puget Drive 119 ODD RS-12 Edmonds Elementary Bloom Ea!rly Education Grow with Us, adjacent to the 3 * Fibre Corners 293,000 RM-2.4, RSA, PRD, southern boundry of BN zone RS-MP BP R --81 Crow with Us, (across Ed_ Way) Gen_ Comm, Rld-2.4, Sprouts Preschool & Childcare, 4 * Edmonds Way, 15th St SW 226th SW)72 OW S * Ed/Woodwway High Schaal, 212th & 76tn 3N,0150EdmondslWoodwway Ave. HS (across st. and north of zone) BC, RS-8 Great Kids Academy, adjacent to 6 , 76th Ave W (242"d St SW) 96POW the southern boundry of BN zone RSA BC-EW RFC-1.6 NA RIB-1.6 BC-EW BC P RS-8 NA RS43 NA 7 Edmonds Way 232"d St SW 36 OOD 8 Edmonds Way 236th St SW 12 OOD 9 100th Ave W & Firdale Ave. f238th St SW) 46,000 * Daycares wvh1ch are adjacent to or across the street from BN zones AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054 tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com m 0 U A2 N U 0 0 O M N O N 0 Al Packet Pg. 146 8.A.b Existing Comp Plan of area: Fp MoNos ` �qY ■111■1�11 � 11�H-� 11 � 1 Plan Designations Single Family Urban1 Single Family -Resource Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Development Single Family - Urban 1 Single Family - Resource Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor 0 U a� A2 c c a� N U 0 0 0 M N O N 0 A2 Packet Pg. 147 Perrinville 8.A.b A3 Olympic View Montesso { 4 ' r ' Al Y i0% 5 F Five Corners 8.A.b Grow with Us Preschool (at south edge of BN zone) A5 Edmonds Way R�1 226� TIPS Edmonds Way, (15th St SW, 226th SW) �dp 8.A.b U 0 Grow with Us Preschool (across street) M .T1' . 76th Ave W & 212th St SW 8,A.b 8 IfHOW w a Q 2 2 r � 'T SW i1 a 4 tr Y �i lllRRe��a ! 9y r` _ I J� m x _ I Y■ } _i I. .1 _ } i yjJ 1 .F 11 A7 prouts Preschool & Childcare 0 U Cu C d 0 ++ U o O O C) N O N 0 S Packet Pg. 152 76th Ave W & 242 St SW 8.A.b Great Kids Academy w F- MMI1M11WNIM110fl'flim 8.A.c Chapter 16.40 BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES - PURPOSES Sections: 16.40.000 Purposes. 16.40.000 Purposes.O SHARE The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are: A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other; C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities; E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. Chapter 16.45 BN - NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS Sections: 16.45.000 Purposes. 16.45.010 Uses. 16.45.020 Site development standards. 16.45.030 Oaeratina restrictions. 16.45.000 Purposes.4- SHARE The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. 16.45.010 Uses.O SHARE Packet Pg. 154 8.A.c A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Neighborhood -oriented retail stores, retail service uses, excluding uses such as commercial garages, used car lots, taverns, theaters, auditoriums, undertaking establishments and those uses requiring a conditional use permit as listed below; 3. Offices and outpatient clinics, excluding commercial kennels; 4. Dry cleaning stores and laundromats; 5. Small animal hospitals; 6. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020-1 7. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Day-care centers; 9.9-. Local public facilities designated and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. -9-. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. One dwelling unit per lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet; 4. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with any local public facility allowed by this section. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Drive-in businesses; 3. Businesses open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; Packet Pg. 155 8.A.c 4. Convenience stores; 5. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050-1 7. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 8. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033-1 9. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 10. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsection (C)(6) through (10) of this section. [Ord. 3353 § 3, 2001; Ord. 3269 § 1, 1999*; Ord. 3120 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2759 § 1, 1990; Ord. 2660 § 1, 1988; Ord. 2283 § 4, 19821. *Code reviser's note: Ord. 3269 expired August 13, 2000. For provisions on the outdoor display of merchandise, see Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 1 16.45.020 Site development standards. SHARE F-11111111111100r4 Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Height BN None None 20' None' None' 25' 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot area Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R-zoned property. B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. Packet Pg. 156 8.A.c C. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BIN lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. D. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050, and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 3846 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2526 § 5, 1985]. 1 16.45.030 Operating restrictions.O SHARE A. 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. Outdoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3320 § 2, 2000]. Packet Pg. 157 8.A.d CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER ItnC. 1B911 In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. CU-2010-25 Olympic View Montessori ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION For a Conditional Use Permit ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a day care center and preschool for up to 40 children in a portion of a converted commercial building at 18530 - 76th Avenue West in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Kathleen Graham, owner of Olympic View Montessori (Applicant), requested a CUP to operate a day care center and preschool for up to 40 children in a portion of a converted commercial building at 18530 - 76th Avenue West in Edmonds. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on June 3, 2010. Testimony: At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Jen Machuga, Planner, City of Edmonds 2, Kathleen Graham, Applicant 3. Alvin Rutledge Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit 1 City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 25, 2010, with the following attachments: 1. - Land Use Application 2. Zoning and Vicinity Map 3. Applicant's Criteria Statement Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Q City of Edmonds Hearing Erantiner Olympic View Montessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page I of 7 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Packet Pg. 158 8.A.d 4. Site Plan — Received 4/16/10 5. Photographs Submitted by Applicant 6. Enrollment Contract 7. Traffic Impact Analysis 8. Updated Site Plan and Building Plan — Received 5/14/10 9. Letter of Completeness and Requesting Additional Information 10. Applicant's Response to Request for Additional Information 11. Notice of Application and Public Hearing 12. Affidavits of Posting, Mailing, and Publication for Notice of Application and Hearing 13. Adjacent Property Owners List 14. U.S. Postal Service Certificates of Mailing 15. Parks and Recreation Department Comments 16, Public Works Department Comments 17, Fire Department Comments 18. Building Division Comments 19. Engineering Division Comments and Memo Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: The Applicant requested a CUP to operate a day care center and preschool for up to 40 children in a portion of a converted commercial building at 18530 - 76th Avenue West in Edmonds.' If approved for CUP use, a portion of the existing commercial building would be converted to satisfy City and State standards for child care facilities, while a portion would be retained in its present use as a janitorial supply storage facility. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment 3. 2. Olympic View Montessori has been a Montessori preschool and kindergarten serving the Perrinville neighborhood for five and half years. Across the street in unincorporated Snohomish County, the existing facility provides daycare and/or early childhood education for 13 or more children from local families, caring for children ages 2.5 to 12 years. The Applicant wishes to relocate to the existing building across the street in Edmonds because it affords the opportunity for an indoor play area and additional classroom space. Exhibit 1, Attachment 3; Graham Testimony. 3. The CUP application was submitted on April 16, 2010 and deemed complete on May 14, 2010. Additional information subsequently requested by the City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Staff (Staff) was timely submitted by the Applicant. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachments & through 10. ' The subject property is known as Tax Parcel Number 00434600010704. Exhibit 1, page 2. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edinonds Dearing Examiner Olympic View Montessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 159 8.A.d 4. The site is located near the intersection of 76th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. It has a Neighborhood Business zoning designation. Surrounding parcels are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8 and RS-12), Multiple Family Residential (RM-3), Neighborhood Business (BN), and Community Business (BC); they are developed with residential and commercial uses. Exhibit 1, pages 3-4; Exhibit 1, Attachment A3; Site Visit. 5. In 1994, a critical areas checklist was submitted during review of the proposal for the existing on -site structure and it was determined that the site contains or is adjacent to a steep slope. The City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was amended in 2005 and the site was required to be reevaluated in association with the instant application. The recent study confirmed that the western portion of the site contains and/or is adjacent to a steep slope that satisfies the City's current definition of a landslide hazard area. Any outdoor changes to the site would require review for compliance with CAO requirements. The eastern portion of the site is relatively flat. The southern and eastern portions of the site contain trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Exhibit 1, page 3. 6. As of the public hearing, the school had 22 students enrolled for the 2010/2011 school year and intended to enroll eight more, for a total of 30 students. Proposed hours of operation for the 2010/2011 school year are Monday through Thursday, 8:45 am through 3:30 pm. The business would not be open on Fridays. Families have the option of half day (morning or afternoon) or full day, three or four days per week. The plan for this school year would be to have no more than 20 children on -site at a time. Morning drop offs would occur from 8:45 to 9:00 am. Mid -day drop offs and pickups would occur from 11:45 am to noon. Afternoon pickups would typically run from 3:15 to 3:30 pm. The two employees working during this school year would typically arrive and leave within half an hour of drop off and pickup times. The school is usually locked for the night by 4:00 pm. Exhibit 1, Attachments 3, 6, and 7; Graham Testimony. 7. Starting in 2011/2012, the Applicant intends to add a second classroom and a third staff member. The maximum number of children on -site at a time would be 30, with a total enrollment of 40 kids. Gf aham Testimony. 8. Planned site improvements include: conversion of the existing structure to meet the requirements for child care facilities; reconfigured on -site parking; additional landscaping; and installation of both indoor and outdoor play equipment. Exhibit 1, page 5; Exhibit 1, Attachment 8; Graham Testimony. All physical changes made to the site, including modifications to the structure, parking, and landscaping, would be reviewed during the building permit and design review processes. The instant matter is limited in scope to the question of conditional use permission. Exhibit 1, page 1; Machuga Testimony. 9. Daycare centers are required to provide parking at a rate of one space per 300 square feet, or one space per employee plus one space per five children, whichever is greater. With 30 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic ViewAllontessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 160 8.A.d children on -site at a time and three staff members, the daycare center would need nine parking spaces.' Exhibit 1, pages 5-6; ECDC 17.50.020.C.8. 10. The Applicant's business would share parking with the janitorial supply storage facility also housed on -site. According to information submitted by the Applicant, the janitorial business has two employees and 1,344 square feet of space. Based on these numbers, it requires two parking spaces. The business is an evening janitorial service and its employees park on -site during the evening. Exhibit 1, page 6; ECDC 17.50.020.B.18. 11. The Applicant's May 14, 2010 site plan (Attachment S) shows a total of nine parking spaces. Because of their respective parking requirements and hours of operation, the daycare center and janitorial service appear to be able to operate under a joint use parking agreement pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.30.030.C. The Applicant would be required to file a covenant with the City for joint -use of parking during review of the building permit application. Exhibit 1, page 6; Machuga Testimony. 12. The City's Technical Committee, comprised of the Engineering Division, the Building Division, and the Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, reviewed the proposal. Parks and Recreation and City Public Works indicated that the proposal would not affect their departments. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachments 15 and 16. The Fire Marshall submitted comments indicating that he is in ongoing dialogue with the Applicant about prescriptive formats and would remain involved during building permit review. Exhibit 1, Attachment 17. The Building Official also acknowledged future review for compliance with buildings codes, during building permit review. Exhibit 1, Attachment 18. The Engineering Division will review the traffic impact analysis concurrently with the building permit review process. Exhibit 1, Attachment 19. 13. The site takes access from 76th Avenue West, which is a main arterial. The daycare center is not expected to change traffic volumes on smaller local access streets, because trips will enter the site fi-om 76th Avenue. In addition, a significant percentage of the anticipated site traffic is already coming to the vicinity to reach the existing daycare center across the street. Exhibit 1, page 5; Machuga Testimony. 14, Planning Division Staff submitted that the proposal would provide a local neighborhood service that would act as a harmonious transition between the adjacent residential and commercial uses. Exhibit 1, page 5; Machuga Testimony. Staff recommended approval; subject to conditions. The Applicant concurred with the City's analysis and agreed to the recommended conditions of approval. Exhibit 1, page 8; Machuga Testimony; Graham Testimony. 15. The Applicant requested that the CUP, if approved, be personal rather than be allowed to run with the land. Exhibit 1, Attachment 10. 2 Site plans show a total area of 2,237 square feet, which would require seven parking spaces based on area. Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 1, Attachment 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Heating Examiner Olympic tVieiv tllontessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 161 8.A.d 16. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site is "Neighborhood Commercial." The 2009 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan's vision for commercial development includes the following goals and policies: D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense cormnercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls" with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. The neighborhood commercial areas share several [pertinent] common goals: D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. No goals or policies are provided within the Comprehensive Plan specific to the Perrinville neighborhood. 2009 Comprehensive Plan, pages 72-73. 17. Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed to neighboring property owners within 300 feet by the Applicant on May 19, 2010. Notice was posted and published in The Herald on May 20, 2010, consistent with the notice provisions of ECDC 20.91. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachments 11, 12, 13, and 14; Machuga Testimony. 18. At hearing, public comment was offered encouraging the Applicant to follow the crime watch reports for the area, for the safety of the proposed operation. Rutledge Testimony Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010. Criteria for Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20,05.010, the Hearing Examiner may not approve a CUP unless the following findings can be made: A. That the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan; Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Ednionds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Alontessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 162 8.A.d B. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance; C. Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity; and D, Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. Conclusions Based on Findings: l . The proposed daycare center would function as a transition between the less intensive residential land uses to the west and the more intensive commercial uses across 76th Avenue to the east. The use would provide a necessary service to residents and people who work in the local area. There would not be significant impacts to neighborhood streets, because the use is accessed fi om the arterial. As conditioned, the use would be consistent with applicable City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Findings 4, 14, and 16. 2. The purposes of the BN zone are to reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; and to ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.45.000. Daycare centers are permitted in the BN zone upon conditional use permit approval. EC➢C 16.53.010.C.7. Compliance bulk/dimensional zoning requirements would be assured through building permit and design review. As conditioned, the use would be consistent with the requirements of the BN zone. Findings 12 and 14, 3. With conditions, the proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and would not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses. Any increase in traffic to the site would be reviewed and mitigated by the payment of traffic impact fees, if any, at time of building permit review. The use would not increase congestion on local residential streets. Existing and proposed landscaping, reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit, would buffer adjacent uses from the minimal impacts of a daycare center open four days a week during business hours. Conditions of approval would ensure that the proposed facility operates in compliance with City and State regulations for the safety of the families it serves. Compliance with parking and landscaping requirements, and building and fire codes, would be assured during building permit review. Findings 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. 4. On the Applicant's request, the CUP would not be transferable to future owners of the subject property. Finding 15. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic Thew Montessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 page 6of 7 Packet Pg. 163 8.A.d DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for CUP to operate a day care center and preschool for up to 30 children in a portion of a converted commercial building at 18530 - 76th Avenue West in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: The permit shall be personal to Olympic View Montessori and shall not be transferable to future operators. 2. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit approvals and inspections prior to commencement of operations. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state, and/or federal permits or approvals applicable to the proposal. 4. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. DECIDED this 17th day of June 2010. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner 01ynrpic Eieiv Montessori CUP, No. CU-2010-25 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 164 8.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS GARYHAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER Ihc. 1S911 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should consult the relevant ordinances and/or contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ECDC 20.06.010 contains the procedures for requesting reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner decision. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with the City Planning Director within 10 calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's decision no later than 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Only parties of record (i.e., the applicant, any person who testified at the open record hearing on the application, any person who individually submitted written comments on the application, or the City of Edmonds) may file a request for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to errors of procedure, errors of law or fact, errors of judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have been discovered. Reconsideration requests must contain the information specified in ECDC 20.06.010(D) and be accompanied by the required filing fee. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.090(A)(3) and ECDC 20.19.050, appeals may be taken from the hearing examiner's decision to the city council under the provisions of Chapter 20.07 ECDC. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body's written decision. The city council's decision on appeal shall be final. A request for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to an appeal. Judicial appeals must be filed within 21 days from the date of the city's final decision in a given matter pursuant to the procedures established in the Land Use Petition Act. EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON APPEAL DEADLINE The timely filing of a request for reconsideration stays the Hearing Examiner's decision until such time that the Hearing Examiner issues a decision on reconsideration, and the appeal period commences on the date of issuance of the decision on reconsideration. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ECDC 20.05.020(C) states: "Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date." NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Packet Pg. 165 8.A.d 1nc.1S9') CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Applicant ) Kathleen Graham, on behalf of ) Case No. CU-2010-25 Olympic View Montessori ) For a Conditional Use Permit } DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; and that I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; and that on June 16, 20 10 1 served a copy of the decision in case CU-2010-25 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail: Kathleen Graham 18220 - 8th Place West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Clerk of the Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Myrth LLC PO Box 1534 Lynnwood, WA98046 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct, this 16th day of June 2010 at Edmonds, Washington. Sharon A. Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Packet Pg. 166 Inc. 1890 8.A.d CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Olympic View Montessori File Number: CU-2010-25 Date of Report: May 25, 2010 Planner: l Jennifer Machuga, Planner Public Hearing: June 3, 2010 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: Kathleen Graham submitted an application on April 16, 2010 for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center / preschool, Olympic View Montessori, to be located at 18530 — 76`h Avenue West. The site is located within the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. The proposal is to open one classroom with an indoor and outdoor playground to provide daycare services to a total of 30 children (no more than 20 children at any given time) for the 2010/2011 school year, and then expand into a second classroom and a total of 40 children (no more than 30 children present at any given time) for the 2011/2012 school year and into the following years. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.45.010(C)(6) requires a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center as a primary use within the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. The applicant has submitted the subject application in order to comply with this zoning code requirement. Although the applicant offers preschool and kindergarten services in addition to daycare services, the proposed use complies with the definition of a daycare center and can be treated as such. The subject application is for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use only, and does not include review of applicable building permit applications. All changes that the applicant plans to make to the site, including but not limited to any new structures, changes to the parking layout, and landscaping will be reviewed under the applicable building permit and design review applications. The following is staff's analysis of the project. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Page I of 8 Packet Pg. 167 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 H. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Owner: Myrth LLC B. Applicant: Kathleen Graham C. Tax Parcel Number: 00434600010704 D. Location: 18530 — 76"' Avenue West E Zoning: Neighborhood Business (BN). Refer to Attachment 2 for a zoning map. F. Square Footage / Acreage: Approximately 0.26 acre (per Snohomish County Assessor's records). G. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing a daycare center / preschool serving a total of 40 children, with no more than 30 children present at any given time (Attachment 3). H. Existing Use: The existing use of the property includes a storage warehouse for a janitorial service and an office. According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing building was constructed in 1995. III. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The subject application was submitted on April 16, 2010. The applicant's land use application form is included as Attachment 1, and the applicant's initial submittal materials are included as Attachments 3 through 7. Additionally, the applicant submitted an updated site plan and building plan on May 14, 2010, which is included as Attachment 8. The application was determined to be "complete" on May 14, 2010. Although the application was considered complete, additional information was needed. Thus, staff sent a letter to the applicant requesting additional information on May 14, 2010 (Attachment 9). The applicant submitted a response to staff's request on May 19, 2010 (Attachment 10). IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: None of the elements of the subject proposal trigger SEPA review. Therefore, the Applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A. V. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: A "Notice of Application and Public Hearing" (Attachment 11) was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by the applicant on May 19, 2010 and was posted on the site and published in the Herald Newspaper by the applicant on May 20, 2010. Affidavits of mailing, posting, and publication are provided as Attachment 12. The adjacent property owners list is included as Attachment 13. Copies of the U.S. Postal Service Certificates of Mailing are provided as Attachment 14. The applicant has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Public Notice). Staff also posted the notice at the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on May 20, 2010. Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 168 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City's Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Building Division, and Engineering Division. The Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments had no comments on the proposal (Attachments 15 and 16). Fire Marshal John Westfall with the Fire Department stated that he is having an ongoing dialogue with the applicant regarding prescriptive formats and that he will provide any applicable comments during the building permit review for the proposal (Attachment 17). Leif Bjorback, Assistant Building Official, with the Building Division stated that he will review the proposal for compliance with the International Building Code requirements during building permit review and will provide any additional comments at that time (Attachment 18). Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, provided a review sheet and memo stating that the Engineering Division is reviewing the Traffic Impact Analysis concurrently with the building permit application for the daycare and that mitigation fees, if any, will be assessed and paid for with the building permit (Attachment 19). Any additional comments from the Engineering Division will also be provided with their review of the building permit application. VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: A. Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted in 1994 under File No. CRA19940008, and the subject site was inspected for critical areas. A determination that the site contains and/or is adjacent to a steep slope was issued. Due to the fact that the critical areas code was updated in 2005, the site was re-evaluated for critical areas during review of the subject proposal. It was confirmed that the western portion of the site contains and/or is adjacent to a slope that is steep enough to qualify as a Landslide Hazard Area as defined by ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. Any exterior changes to the site will be reviewed for compliance with applicable critical areas requirements during review of the building permit application. A critical areas report is not necessary for the subject Conditional Use Permit application. B. Topography, Soils, Wildlife, and Vegetation: The majority of the subject site is relatively level; however, the western portion of the site slopes upwards steeply towards the west. As stated above, the slope on/adjacent to the western portion of the site is considered a Landslide Hazard Area pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. The existing wildlife appears to be that of a typical commercial property, such as birds and small mammals. Existing vegetation is present along the eastern side of the site and a portion of the southern side of the site. This existing vegetation includes a few trees as well as many shrubs and some groundcover. Design review of the changes to the existing landscaping will be reviewed separately. During design review of the proposal, the applicant will need to provide a landscape plan showing how the project complies with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is located at 18530 — 761h Avenue West, a few properties south of the intersection of 76`h Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. Refer to Attachment 2 for a zoning and vicinity map. The subject site is located within the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. The subject site is located in an area of various zoning designations, including Single Family Residential (RS-8 and RS-12), Multiple Family Residential (RM-3), Neighborhood Business Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 169 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 (BN), and Community Business (BC). Unincorporated Snohomish County jurisdiction is located directly across 76"' Avenue West from the subject site, and City of Lynnwood jurisdiction is located further east and south of the section of unincorporated Snohomish County. Surrounding land uses include residential and commercial uses. IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site is "Neighborhood Commercial." Other nearby designations include "Multi Family — Medium Density," "Single Family — Urban l," and "Single Family — Resource." The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for commercial development within the neighborhood commercial areas. The following excerpt from pages 72 through 73 of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan includes the goals applicable to the neighborhood commercial areas: D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls " with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals: D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. D.4. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. D.S. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street -level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are detailed below. (Note: No goals or policies are provided within the Comprehensive Plan specific to the Perrinville neighborhood). (2009 Comprehensive Plan, pages 72-73) Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 170 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 The proposed daycare center / preschool is a compatible land use given the site's Comprehensive Plan designation. The daycare center will provide the surrounding neighborhood with local childcare services. Additionally, the site will serve as a transition between land uses, as there are residential uses to the west of the site and larger commercial developments on the east side of 76`h Avenue West. The site is accessed directly from 70h Avenue West. Therefore, the proposed daycare center should not cause a significant change to traffic volumes along neighborhood streets, as the site is accessed off of a minor arterial. Design review will be conducted at the time of building permit review for compliance with the City's applicable design regulations. X. PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, no public comments have been received on the subject proposal. XI. APPLICABLE CODES: A. ECDC 16.45 (BN— Neighborhood Business) The subject site is located within the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (Attachment 2). Pursuant to ECDC 16.45.010(C)(6), a daycare center is a primary use requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The subject application is for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center as a primary use; therefore, if the subject application is approved, the proposed use will be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the applicant also offers preschool and kindergarten services, the proposed use is consistent with the definition of "daycare center" contained within ECDC 21.20.010: "A building or portion thereof used for the care of children under the age of 12 located in a facility which accommodates 13 or more children regardless of whether such services are provided for compensation. " Pursuant to ECDC 16.45.010(C)(6), compliance with ECDC 20.05 is required in order to allow the establishment of a daycare center as a primary use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Thus, the applicant has submitted the subject Conditional Use Permit application. As stated in ECDC 16.45.000.A, one purpose of the BN zone is, "To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, and retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. " If approved, this land use would be consistent with this purpose of the BN zone, as the proposed daycare center would serve residents of the surrounding neighborhood areas with daily childcare services. The applicant has not indicated any plans to alter the exterior of the existing building in any way; however, the applicant does plan to reconfigure the parking, augment the existing landscaping, and put a playground structure on the property. These proposed changes to the site will be reviewed for compliance with the City's general design review standards of ECDC 20.10 and 20.11 and landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 during review of the applicable building permit application. B. ECDC 17.50 (Off Street Parking Regulations) The updated statement provided by the applicant on May 19, 2010 (Attachment 10) states that the portion of the building utilized as a storage warehouse for the janitorial service is 1,344 square feet and that the janitorial service has two employees. Pursuant to ECDC Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 171 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 17.50.020(B)(18), storage warehouses require one parking space per employee. Thus, two parking spaces are required for the portion of the building utilized by the janitorial service. ECDC 17.50.020(C)(8) requires daycare centers and preschools to provide parking at a rate of one space per 300 square feet, or one per employee plus one per five students, whichever is larger. The building plans (Attachment 8) indicate that the daycare center would be a total of 2,237 square feet in size. At a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet, 7.46 parking stalls, which would be rounded down to 7 parking stalls would be required. The statement provided by the applicant on April 16, 2010 states that the daycare center would serve no more than 30 children at any given time following the expansion after the first year (Attachment 3). The additional information provided by the applicant on May 19, 2010 states that the maximum number of employees at Olympic View Montessori following expansion would be three employees (Attachment 10). At a rate of one parking stall per employee plus one per five students, this would yield a total of 9 parking stalls required. As ECDC 17.50.020.C.8 states that the required parking is the larger of the two numbers, the required number of parking stalls for the daycare portion of the building would be 9 stalls. Thus, two on -site parking spaces are required for the janitorial service, and nine on -site parking spaces are required for the daycare center. Pursuant to ECDC 20.30.030(C), up to 50 percent of the off-street parking required by ECDC 17.50 for primarily daytime uses may be supplied by parking serving primarily nighttime uses. According to the applicant's statement submitted on May 19, 2010, the janitorial service operates during evening hours opposite of those hours for the daycare center (Attachment 10). Since the two parking spaces required for the janitorial service are less than half of the nine spaces required for the daycare center, these two spaces can count towards the parking required for the daycare center under the joint use of parking provisions. As stated in ECDC 20,30.040, a covenant is required to be filed with the City for joint -use of parking if it is on one site. This covenant will be required during review of the building permit application. The updated site plan submitted by the applicant on May 14, 2010 (Attachment 8) indicates a total of 9 parking spaces to be provided. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit, as proposed, appears to comply with the on -site parking requirements of ECDC 17.50.The Engineering Division will review the parking lot layout with their review of the associated building permit for compliance with all applicable engineering standards to ensure that the on -site parking requirements of ECDC 17.50 are met. C. ECDC 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits) ECDC 20.05.010 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. " The findings are as follows: A. That the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, B. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. C. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 172 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 D. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property. The applicant submitted a criteria statement with the application (Attachment 3). Staff generally agrees with the applicant's arguments. As discussed above, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Neighborhood Commercial." The proposed daycare center will serve as a transition between the more and less intensive land uses of the residential uses to the west and the commercial uses on the east side of 76t1' Avenue West. Additionally, the proposed facility will provide childcare services to the local neighborhood and should not cause a major increase in traffic along the neighborhood streets, as it is accessed via a minor arterial. Pursuant to ECDC 16.45.010(C)(6), daycare centers are permitted primary uses with a Conditional Use Permit in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. Therefore, if the proposed Conditional Use Permit is approved, the daycare center will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance (ECDC 16.45). The proposed daycare center should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and to nearby private property or improvements. The proposal includes converting the existing office space and a portion of the existing storage warehouse into a daycare center. At this time, no changes are proposed to the exterior of the building. Any proposed exterior changes and/or changes to the site will be reviewed for compliance with the design review criteria of ECDC 20.10 and 20.11 and landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 during building permit review. The applicant has requested that this permit be personal to Olympic View Montessori and shall not be transferable to other future daycares at the site. Staff does not see any concerns with restricting the permit to be personal to the applicant. XII. CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Refer to Section IX of this report for further discussion. B. If the proposed Conditional Use Permit is approved, then the daycare will be consistent with the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Edmonds. Refer to Section XI of this report for further discussion. C. As proposed, the daycare does not appear to be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare nor to nearby private property or improvements. D. The applicant has requested that this permit be personal to Olympic View Montessori and shall not be transferable to other future daycares at the site. Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 173 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Daycare Center File No. CU-2010-25 XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed daycare with the following conditions: A. The permit shall be personal to Olympic View Montessori and shall not be transferable to other future daycares at the property. B. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit approvals and inspections prior to opening the daycare center. C. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state, and/or federal permits or approvals applicable to the proposal. D. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: Planning Division Myrth LLC P.O. Box 1534 Lynnwood, WA 98046 XV. ATTACHMENTS: Kathleen Graham 18220 — 81h Place West Lynnwood, WA 98037 1. Land Use Application 2. Zoning and Vicinity Map 3. Applicant's Criteria Statement 4. Site Plan — Received 4/16/10 5. Photographs Submitted by Applicant 6. Enrollment Contract 7. Traffic Impact Analysis 8. Updated Site Plan and Building Plan — Received 5/14/10 9. Letter of Completeness and Requesting Additional Information 10. Applicant's Response to Request for Additional Information 11. Notice of Application and Public Hearing 12. Affidavits of Posting, Mailing, and Publication for Notice of Application and Hearing 13. Adjacent Property Owners List 14. U.S. Postal Service Certificates of Mailing 15. Parks and Recreation Department Comments 16. Public Works Department Comments 17. Fire Department Comments 18. Building Division Comments 19. Engineering Division Comments and Memo Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 174 8.A.d city of edmonds land use application PAN'k010007-5 J ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT V$ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # �Yb� 2 S ZONE Np- ^ t ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE 0 +• 1 (D • 1 d REC'D BY ✓' "► G ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE t 3 �5 -RECEIPT It ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: (� PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION ' S 1 � 1 I� _+Mon S L-r c t bZb PROJECT NAmE (IP A�,{PPLICAB1LLL) �L11YY1P 1 C_ \) I-Q.Lu µOYl 'SD VL PROPERTY OWNER r\ U JAC) (_ PHONE # ADDRESS &A . ,6 i M ,,nnT < `IIn E-MAIL �(,�Ct�`(YIL�I. FAX# y` TAX ACCOUNT # 0 U �- 3 /t 0©b 0 11 10+ SEC. IS U TWP. �7 N RNG. qt DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPQSEEDUSE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 5-c-& DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT (�a�Vt�'lyl C�r(�hQr� PHONE# ADDRESS E-MAIL UWb rY1dai1JD�,UC'D,rr j{.nC °r sebe! VVJ-FAX # r (vl� /) �//``ii]] -77 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT K(z�-Vl e_n � Yyr� PHONE #( 42 )b) O-02-6'0 4z4 S, ADDRESS `Z.1220 �� . l0 UunnWCOIJ UJq qqb31 EMAIL Y-ci�t.oratio `'r�Odlu,m/itv� The undersigned undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of theowneras listed below. (' SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT l ,✓U Y Y1 DATE 'IT�� Property Owner's Autho ization I � 9 j�Z_-f//Li 1` Jy 6 certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting at endant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER *s t / DATE Z/ $ r7%Ci This application form was revised on 8/10/09. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. L:\LIBRARY\PLANNING\Foems & Handouts\Public HandoulAI-And Use Applicalion.doc Atta Packet Pg. 175 8.A.d 0� EL)A Zoning and Vicinity Map N File No. PLN-2010-0025 0 100 200 400TT a fn. 1 g90 Feet Atta Packet Pg. 176 8.A.d ®Iympic Viet Montessori April 16, 2010 City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Conditional Use Permit To Whom It May Concern: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER This letter is for the conditional use permit application for Olympic View Montessori and its proposed occupation of the property located at 18530 76th Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. Olympic View Montessori has been a Montessori Preschool and Kindergarten serving the Perrinville Area of Edmonds for the past five and half years. Olympic View Montessori is proposing a move directly across the street from their current location in un-incorporated Snohomish County, to continue to serve the needs of the families of this community. Olympic View Montessori is a preschool/daycare that serves children under the age of 12, furthermore its current and proposed facilities accommodate 13 or more children. Olympic View Montessori serves the preschool/daycare and kindergarten needs of parents with children ranging in age from 2 1/2through 6 years. Olympic View Montessori meets the criteria of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan by serving the local neighborhood and encourages the neighborhood commercial area of Perrinville by reflecting the identity and character of this neighborhood, thus strengthening its importance as a neighborhood Center. Currently, Olympic View Montessori is licensed under the Department of Childcare and Early Learning, which has a code requirement of 20 students maximum in a preschool/daycare classroom. Olympic View Montessori has a total of 30 students, 10 students attend full time preschool and 20 attend half —day class either in the morning or afternoon. Olympic View Montessori maintains the 20 student requirement by having 10 students in each of the half-time morning and afternoon programs. Olympic View Montessori currently has 22 students enrolled for the 2010/2011 school year and plans on enrolling 8 more students by September to meet its goal of 30 students. In the 2011/2012 school year, Olympic View Montessori plans on expanding to two classrooms and 40 students. One classroom will have a maximum occupation of 20 students and operate 3 days a week offering full day and half -day schedules, with the second classroom having a maximum occupation of 10 students, operating 5 days a week and also offering full day and half -day classes. »oe.v-c' w, he 0- VVl6X_-CiCntx.YYA 0-( 3b SluctehFs 0_+ l,�.viy 6)SVtn 1-irne ci.f A'V-te 3ChD0 i 4o\I6wi, Atta Packet Pg. 177 8.A.d For the 2010/2011 school year Olympic View Montessori will share use with the owners of the building and warehouse located at 18530 76t' Avenue West. The owners currently use these spaces for storage. The warehouse space will have a 2 hour fire -wall installed per the city building requirements and continue as a storage space for the owners in the fall of 2011/2012. Perrinville and the property located at 18530 76th Avenue West, is in the Neighborhood Business zone of the City of Edmonds. Olympic View Montessori meets the zoning ordinance of the Neighborhood Business by offering a service needed on an everyday basis by residents of the neighborhood area. Olympic View Montessori provides a quality Montessori preschool and kindergarten education, which educates and molds the whole child. Olympic View Montessori provides classes half- day in the morning or afternoon and full -day; serving the preschool/daycare needs of many families and children. Furthermore, Olympic View Montessori brings families into the Perrinville area, providing business and economic stability to the small businesses located in that region. We hope you will consider and approve the conditional use permit application for Olympic View Montessori and its occupation of the property located at 18530 76`h Avenue West in Edmonds. Sincerely, Kathleen Graham Owner, Olympic View Montessori Packet Pg. 8 0 (D E (D 0 r 1rs 04 7Z 0 t19 tk J�x z (D LU LO CIO 4 04 RECEIVED E APR 16 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Atta Packet Pg. 179 1 Li O1Ympic View Montessori If 11 If -W I W, Prezc-hoot 4. Kindergarten 4 'now. Aft -fvis Nbll l . or 0 (D -0 C M 4P i C 0 u C E M x LU aI Lo CI4 CD 9 CD Q C%j z —j E Sol— M u C E Atta I Packet —Pg. 1 8 07 Olympic View EnrolI en usr;On Contract, Montessori Policies and Fee Schedule for 2010-2011 Olympic View Montessori 2010/2011 School Year RECEIVEI Students Name: Age: Birthdate: APR 16 2010 1= Parent(s) Name(s): a City, Zip: DEVELOPMENT SERVIG a Address: COUNTER o Phone(s): E-Mail: Please enclose/return Annual Registration Fee with completed Registration Form:Thls fee is nonrefundable and holds yourchild's place for the beginning of the school term. You will receive a confirmation via e-mail or mail. Additional forms will be mailed priorto the school year. If you decide to withdraw from Olympic View Montessori after 8115, the tuition for September will still be owed. ❑ $125 New Student Registration Fee ❑ $100 Returning Student Registration Fee Schedule selection (please select one) Tues-Thurs. Mon-Thurs. Mon. -Thu ❑ 3 day % Day Morning ❑ 4 Day % Day Morning ❑ Kindergarten - 4 day % Day Morning ❑ 3 day'/ Day Afternoon ❑ 4 Day'/2 Day Afternoon ❑ Kindergarten - 4 day Y2 Day Afternoon ❑ 3 day Full Day ❑ 4 Day Full Day ❑ Kindergarten - 4 day Full Day Tuition and Monthly payment information 3 day program (Tues-Thurs) 4 day program (Mon-Thurs) day preschool $345 monthly $400 monthly Preschool & Kindergarten Full Day $505 monthly $555 monthly Tuition Payment Options Full -Day Program Half -Da Programs Morning - Only Afternoon - Only 8:45 AM/9:OOAM to 8:45 AM/9:OOAM to 12:15PM/12:30 PM Tuition 3:15PM 3:30 PM 11:45AM 12:00 PM to 3:15 PM 3:30PM 4 Da s 3 Days 4 Davs 3 Days 4 Da s 3 Days Payment Plans Annual Payment Plan 4°lo discount due'8/25 $5,348 $4,848 $3 840 $3,302 $3,840 3 302 Trt-�ntr�alFaymentPfan[2°!a dtseauntj �1cr813 $1 ,6 ,30� 127 �w �- Tri- Annual total amount $5,439 $4,950 $3 921 $3 381 $3,921 $3,381 Monthl Payment Plan Tt)> payments 555 505 400 345 400 345 Monthly Payment total amount $5,550 5,050 $4,000 $3,450 $4 000 $3,450 $25 application fee per student for Preschool/Kindergarten $125 registration fee per student for new students Application and Registration Fees $100 registration fee per student for returning student both are due with re istration form and are non-refundable Materials Fee Kindergarten 1/2 day Kindergarten full da Preschool 100 $145 1/- da 6o full daj $85 due August 25th Tuition Payment Option: (please select one) L3 Monthly d Tr este U Annual Please read back of page and sign. A copy will be provided, for your convenience. Atta Packet Pg. 181 8.A.d 1. Tuition Policy o y For your convenience you may choose payment plans of Annually with a 4% discount, Tri-Annually (three times a year with at 2% discount), or Monthly. The tuition schedule is based on an annual program, and payment amounts m are unrelated to the number of class days in a given month, holidays, absenteeism, vacations, etc. This approach insures a well -run program for your child. y E v OVMS provides flexibility to parents by offering the schedule choices listed above for our younger students. The three Q day program is Tuesday through Thursday; the four -day programs run Monday through Thursday. For Kindergarten, m you may choose four M2 days or three or four full days. p U Although OVMS does provide some flexibility to parents by offering the schedule choices, staffing ratios stipulated by DSHS and occupancy limits set by Snohomish County prevent us from accommodating individual schedules other +� than these choices. OVMS cannot accept any contract changes in the Tuition Agreement after March 1st, of r any given school year. 2. Sibling Discount O When two children from one family are simultaneously enrolled at OVMS, a 10% discount will be applied to the second N child's tuition. This discount will only apply while both children are simultaneously attending OVMS. If the children's tuitions U differ, the 10% discount will be applied to the lower tuition amount. The Registration, Re -enrollment and Curriculum Fees are not subject to the sibling discount. Q 0 3. Materials Fee 0 o The Materials Fee covers the field trip fees, earthquake kit fee and curriculum materials fee. The Materials Fee is a per -child fee N and depends upon the program you have selected. The Curriculum Fee is due on August 25th, and is non-refundable. N 0 4. Reaistration Fee Q To complete enrollment at OVMS the registration form must be submitted with $125 for a new student and $100 for a returning student, (this fee includes the application fee for returning students). These fees are non-refundable. O 5. Waiting List If we do not have space available, we will put your child's name on our waiting list. We will call you as openings become available. '~ 6. How to Make Payments: By August 25th, you must mail in a check for your Monthly Payment, your Tri-Annual Payments or your full Annual Payment, depending on the payment plan you have selected. Attached you will find a Tuition Agreement and payment schedule specific to the academic program and payment plan that you have selected. Please make payments as indicated on this document. _O .y 7. Program Changes 0 If you change your child's program during the school year, there will be a one time charge of $50 and we will issue a new tuition O agreement reflecting those changes. For Tri-annual and Annual Payment Plans, changes in tuition, due to changes in program, will be prorated based on monthly amounts calculated by OVMS. After March ist, no program reductions (e.g., from full to half- (D days) will be allowed. E 8. Withdrawals R lL Withdrawal is defined as the last day your child attends OVMS. Should it be necessary to withdraw your child, at least one month prior written notice is required. If you withdraw your child prior to March I", pay tuition on a monthly basis, and OVMS � c receives a one -month written notice, your withdrawal will be complete. If you should withdrawal your child after March 1�`, L the remaining yearly tuition is due in full. Any tuition due as a result of early withdrawal that is not paid will be referred y to our collection agency. 2 9. Late Pick-up LO 04 o Pick-up time ends at 12:00 for morning departures, 3:30 for afternoon and full day departures. If you pick up your child after o these times, there is a $1 per minute fee for every minute late after pick up time. 10. Additional Charges 0 N 'the only additional charges that you may incur during the school year will be for late pick-up, $25 for late payments and $25 for NSF J checks. Snacks can be provided by the parent or paid through the optional snack fee. Your child will be assigned "in charge" days monthly a on the snack calendar. Furthermore, the classroom teacher will recognize each child's birthday; families may supply a birthday snack on their birthday if desired, no cupcakes or cake please l/We the parents/guardian of hereby state that VWe have read, understand and d E will abide by the fees and regulations of Olympic View Nlontessori as outlined in the Tuition Contract. v R r Name (print) of parent(s)/guardian(s) Date r Q Date Signature of parent(s)/guardian(s) Date t Date a Packet Pg. 182 8.A.d Olympic View Montessori Apptsc-atlon'Form 2olol2o22 5Ch0o1 year Students Name: Age: Birthdate: Sex MIE Parents) Name(s): Address: City, Zip: Phone(s): E-Mail: Schedule Selection (Tease number your schedule choices from 1-3) ❑ 3 day'/2 Day Morning ❑ 4 Day'/2 Day Morning ❑ Kindergarten - 4 day'/2 Day Morning ❑ 3 day'/2 Day Afternoon ❑ 4 Day'/2 Day Afternoon ❑ Kindergarten - 4 day'/2 Day Afternoon ❑ 3 day Full Day ❑ 4 Day Full Day ❑ Kindergarten - 44 day Full Day admissions policy for children who are between the ages of 3and 6 years old and fully potty trained Each prospective pupil is interviewed by the teacher. A class ratio of approximately 10 children to one adult is maintained Application Questions: Age of child on September 1, 2010 Is your child potty trained? Has your child ever attended preschool?If so where? Has your child had a sibling attend Olympic View Montessori? What is your child's favorite toy or activity? Whatis your child's favorite book? What do you feel is special or something unique about your child? Application Process: 1.) Schedule an observation with Olympic View Montassori. This is an opportunity for parents to observe our dassrom and decide if it is the right program for their family and their child. 2.) After observing, if Olympic View Montessori is your ideal choice, complete application form and submit with a $25 non refundable application fee. At this time an interview should be scheduled for your child with the staff. 3.) Olympic View Montessori will contact families after February 151, with registration decisions. If a registration spot is avertable and the family wishes to take the spot, the family will complete and submit the registration form with a $125 nonrefundable registration fee for new students and a $100 nonrefundable fee for returning students. If applying after February 15th , children will be added to the program by availablity or placed on a wait fist. 4.) All registration openings are given and decided within the following guidelines: • Returning students • Siblings • Application submission date • Schedule selections ( morning , full day, afternoon selections) • Boy/girl and age ratios *Ail new students will be required to attend at least one week of a three dny summer camp. Please enclose/retum Application Fee with completed Application Form. This fee is nonrefundable New Students will recelve a registration decision via mail by February 251h. Registration Forms will be due by March 150'. N the family wishes not to accept an opening, they have until March 251h to decide. Upon registration acceptance, additional forms will be mailed prior to the 2010-Ml school year. ❑ $25 Application Fee Packet Pg. 183 8.A.d Firm Name Elm 1 kT UP, k 1 WORK SHEET DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Name of Proposed Project: COUNTER Owner/Applicant: Applicant Contact Person: Name Name -�10 -�- AS `- Street/Mailing Address city)/ - State zip Telephone: r2do 7 155 I13ZZ0 sl-�" P\ Street/Mailing Address Ci State zip Telephone: ZS L- —074 Icy Zs�1�4 0 - & -7 2- Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis: f n -,U S-Lk-"Son Q111lephone 5)22,1-36(0; Contact Name 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Street address (if known):'7 LO b. Location: (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) c. Specify existing land use: 6yYY10\C \� 1 t w ffi �Ly) W d. Specify proposed type and size of development:L� e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? �Ao 0,yllyvae's Z�Y VY1061 t ( tCJY S f. Define proposed access locations: g.. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: (-an a P 6 M �0� �S- Ili Page 1 Atta Packet Pg. 184 8.A.d 2. TRIP GENERATION a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: Page 2 Packet Pg. 185 8.A.d 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service Analysis; • Existing Conditions LOS Delays • Year of Opening LOS Delays • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use LOS I Delays (Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer) c. Describe channelization warrants: (Attach striping plan.) d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50% 95% A • Existing Conditions • Year of Opening • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use If appropriate, state stop sign and signal warrants: f. Summarize local accident history: , Page 3 Packet Pg. 1 6 8.A.d 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and Without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak - hour trips. Other City -planned developments must also be factored into the LOS calculations. Existing LOS:, Existing Condition: Year of Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Page 4 Packet Pg. 1 7 8.A.d Five Years After Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. SAENGR\Darrell\CityProjectsMA Guidelines\TraQmpAnalyWork9-04.doc Page 5 Packet Pg. 1 8771 8.A.d iran SPOGROUP WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 11730 118th Avenue N.E. Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 T 425-821-3665 F 425-825-8434 TG: 10059.00 www.transpogroup. corn Apdl 16,2010 RECEIVEn Bertrand Hauss A�� 16 201� City of Edmonds Transportation Engineer 121 5th Ave. N. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Edmonds Wa. 98020 COUNTER Subject: Olympic View Montessori — Trip Generation/Impact Fee Estimate Dear Mr. Hauss: This, letter provides the trip generation and impact fee estimates associated with the relocation of the Olympic View Montessori from its current location (7526 Olympic View Drive, Suite O) to its new location at 18530 76th Avenue Westin Edmonds, Washington. Olympic View Montessori has been a Montessori Preschool and Kindergarten serving the Perdnville Area of Edmonds for the past five and half years. Olympic View Montessori -is proposing'a move directly across the street from their current location in un-incorporated Snohomish County. ,Currently, Olympic View'Montess6d is licensed under the Department of Childcare and Early Leaming, which ha's �code requirement of 20 students maximum in a preschool/daycare classroom. Olympic View Montessori has a total of-30-st_ dents, 10 students attend full time preschool and 20 attend half -day class either in the morning, or aftemoon:`Olympic View Montessori maintains the 20 student requirement by having 10 students in each of the half-time morning and-aftemoon programs Olympic View Montessori currently -has 22_ students -enrolled for the 2010/2011 school year and plans on enrolling 8 more students -by September to meet its goal`of-30 students:.ln the 2011/2012 school year, lympic_._ View Montessori plans on expanding to two classrooms and 40 students:_ One classroom will have a- maximum -------- ------ ------ -- --- occupation of 20 students and operate 3 days a week offering full day andlialfi rtay-schLdutes;with the -second classroom having a maximum occupation of 10 students,- operating 5 days a week and also offering full day and half -day classes. The drop-off and pick-up schedule for the full and half day programs include drop-offs between 8:45 and 9:00 with half day pick-ups/drop-offs from 11:45-12:00. Full -day and aftemoon pick-ups occur between 3:15-3:30. Penalties are assessed for late pick-ups. These schedules would not change with the increase in student enrollment noted above. Staff is limited to the owner and one to two teachers depending on the time of day. Typically, all staff leaves within 30 minutes of the last child being picked up, thus the school is typically dark by 4:00 in the afternoon. No activity typically occurs during the PM peak hour. If however there was some later trips from the teachers or assistants, these trips would be less than what would be generated by this use during the weekday PM peak hour under a general office use as previously noted. The new location includes up to 1,485 sf of classroom space with an external warehouse building of which the program will use 1,040 for physical activities. The extemal building is currently used as warehouse for other uses in the building. The current use of the 1,485 includes general office space. Based on ITE (8th Edition) trip rates, the weekday PM peak hour trip generation for the existing use is estimated to be 11 trips. Additional trips could be assumed if a more aggressive retail use was assumed for this space. As the warehouse supports the existing uses, and given the size of the portion to be occupied by the school, no credit has been calculated for this use. Packet Pg. 189771 8.A.d Bertrand Hauss April 14, 2010 Page 2 Based on our previous discussions, the City of Edmonds assesses road impact fees based on the standard uses noted in Table 4, page 18, of the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study. This table identifies a number of "typical' uses for which fees have been calculated. The fees are set based on ITE Trip Generation rates for the weekday PM peak hour period of the adjacent streets. Based on Table 4, the current use of the space to be occupied by the Montessori would be assessed a fee of approximately $2,700. Since the Montessori program does not typically generate trips during the weekday PM peak hour (4 — 6 pm), no road impact fees should be assessed for this project. As noted, if there was some level of activity from the teachers on an irregular basis, the level of activity anticipated would fall below what would be expected under a general office use, as is permitted in that space. Sincerely, Transpo Group M-- -"' 4` Michael Swenson, PE, PTOE Associate Principal Packet Pg. 190 8.A.d I I I 1 I I I I I I I _ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PNWNG PNUUNG BS'X iG flS%16 PMXING asxm ------ OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI 18530 76TH AVENUE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 /8" = V LJ CHRISTINA MERKELBACH design 206-920-8502 1459 21st AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98122 CHRISTINA@CHRISTINAMERK.COM RECEEIVED 5/5/2010 Att Al Packet Pg. 191 8.A.d 18530 76TH AVENUE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4" = 1' CHRISTINA MERKELBACH design 206-920-8502 1459 21st AVENUE, SEATTLE, WA 98122 CH RISTI N A@CH RI STI NAME RK.COM ;I 5/5/2010 Packet Pg. 192 1 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IBC. is90 May 14, 2010 Ms. Kathleen Graham 18220 — 81h Place West Lynnwood, WA 98037 8.A.d GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION AND TENTATIVE ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE FOR FILE NO. CU-2010-25 Dear Ms. Graham: Your conditional use permit application for a daycare facility to be located at 18530 — 76`h Avenue West has been determined to be complete; however, additional information is necessary to continue processing your application. Please see below for the additional items that must be addressed before staff can confirm your hearing date. These items must be submitted no later than Wednesday, May 19, 2010 in order to confirm the tentative hearing date assigned below. Otherwise, your hearing will be moved to the next available date and time. Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing at the time and location listed below: Action: Conditional Use Permit Review File Number: CU-2010-25 Date of Meeting: Thursday, June 3, 2010 Time of Meeting: 3:00 PM (or as soon thereafter as possible) Place: Public Safety Complex, Council Chambers 250 — 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Although a tentative date has been assigned for your hearing, the following items must be submitted by Wednesday, May 19, 2010 in order to keep this hearing date: l . One of the findings that must be made for during the review of a conditional use permit application is regarding transferability of the permit. Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010(D), "The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or be personal. If it runs with the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property." Please provide a written statement describing whether you are requesting for the conditional use permit to run with the land and be transferable to a future user, or if you are requesting for the conditional use permit to be personal to you. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Atta Packet Pg. 193 8.A.d 2. In order for staff to verify the number of parking stalls that will be required, please submit a written response providing the following information: a. The size of the "owner -occupied storage area". b. You stated during one of our previous conversations that the "owner -occupied storage area" is utilized as storage for a janitorial service. Please confirm if this is correct and provide the number of employees of this janitorial service. c. The maximum number of employees that you will have once you expand to serving 40 children. 3. I apologize, but the required $185 sign posting fee was not collected when you submitted your application. Please submit the $185 fee to the Development Services Department. Note that we can accept payments Monday through Friday from 8:OOam to 4:OOpm. Please submit the above information at your earliest convenience no later than Wednesday, May 19, 2010 in order to confirm the hearing date of June 3, 2010. Additionally, please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or their representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following meeting's agenda. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jen Machu a g Planner Cc: File No. CU-2010-25 Myrth LLC P.O. Box 1534 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Packet Pg. 194 8.A.d Iymoicew- o ssori Usk 2 .1 May 17, 2010 City of Edmonds 12L 5 h Avenue. North. Edmonds, WA 98020 Conditional Use Permit To Whom It May Concern: This letter is for the conditional -use permit application for Olympic View Montessori and its proposed occupation. of the property located at 18530 764h Avenue West in. Edmonds, Washington, Olympic View Montessori has a Montessori Preschool and Kindergarten serving the Perrinville Area of Edmonds for the past five and half years. Olympic View Montessori is proposing a move directly across the street from their current location in un-incorporated Snohomish County, to continue to serve the needs. of the families. of this. commwiity.. tn. regards to the transferability of the conditional use permit, Olympic View Montessori would request that the permit be-personalto Olympic View Montessori: In regards to the parking. stalls and size of the owner occupied storage area.. The storage area is 1344 square feet. The owner's Janitorial Company, which operates off site and off hours from Olympic View Montessori, has 2 employees; and the maximum employees Olympic View Montessori would have- when expanding, would be 3. We hope you will consider and approve the conditional use permit application for Olympic View Montessori and its occupation of the property located at 18530 76'h Avenue West in Edmonds. Sincerely, Kathleen 0raham. Owner, Olympic View Montessori Attae packet Pg. 195 8.A.d .co N = O U_ CD CV O N Lr) >, N C6 to O O 0O U -0 CN O U) I .CL i O N Z v C }, O O z LL ai y— > O 0 a O 0 N O Z o b ' 0 A o c �� W N CD = N cd .r O O N E 0 o �, c o U U Q o Q ° o U o bb c� m ° CD a`i o i o 0 � o v t� u Q.° 3� O ° O U oo M c -N O � •-" N U U �J 0 bA O o Q a � 0 C O pOp ev U U by > C o to ; o U O O = O +O 'O O �.'r. >'d W Cd C U U N i O C cd" o ~ 2 >' o U Cd �� O cd .-a O °�, +N- UN o +, cd a� 5 > 04 Z U O J O �+ d U f�, � O O '� U U O Ot''., .— C �- 4-4 G1 o It" Cl tp � Q, � Q t cdo r U O 0Oto s +OUp r a' N O C > Q 4 21 ' Q Attac Packet Pg. 196 8.A.d FILE NO.: PLN20100025 APPLICANT: GRAHAM STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, GrOLPOM first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 21s day of May 2010, the attached "Notice of Development Application and Public Hearing" was posted on or near the subject property, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03. • -• r� Subscribed and sworn to before me this c `� day of �;LotiD T AAi Residing at c iq and for the State of Washington 5��1cc Attac packet Pg. 197 8.A.d FILE NO.: PLN20100025 APPLICANT: GRAHAM AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) 1, 'J i1 �6fn Q rCJI", first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 'W"`day of May 2010, the attached "Notice of Development Application and Public Hearing" was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03 Signedr(' CA� Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ry Pyibk-tJ'and for the State of Washington Residing at9��c' Packet Pg. 198 8.A.d FILE NO.: PLN20100025 APPLICANT: GRAHAM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION COOP STATE OF WASHINGTON) VtO �, ,%%% COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, aA-,1o1-eeV1 (;rUJtLCi'Yl, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 20t" day of May 2010, 1 caused to be published in the Everett Herald a legal Notice of Application and Public Hearing, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03, a copy of which is attached. Signed*q'). Subscribed and sworn to before me this q ttA day of WLDiv Nota,WPuOlk in aid for the State of Washington Residing at��r�e Packet Pg. 1 9771 8.A.d Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signa ure of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4/21/2009 Residing at �Tcc- � day of A4' for the State of Washin page 3 APR 6 2010 Attac Packet Pg. 260 .A.d T 8 Range 04 Legend n Parcels saohaodah Coaalymyrofineshmtab lrtyor ® Mailing Radius (300 ft.) yoffitceaoftmadata(armap)fo<mywnm�Pwa Snohomish Count eit5erm�Ho npeasmm5mawmmtyvda mY f SelecbedParcels n=vb8ft oeimptiod. �y,o=V tc=-q-myatam Assessor d 8 epcbd. Aayavaafthia data(mavp)asroaaa all respondFnliH Appllcatim Pmridedby: PLSS Grid fmmo thawt sadf $a mm to hold 3aahomiahCuaoty InfonnWon SwdoeslOS Parcel oflnterest o loo zoo 300 aoo coo coo red haml—fiommdaga stcayd-.Mlmsmh*ldy--g March31,2010 fiom my me of thin data (or mAPI Packet Pg. 201 8.A.d 00434600010604 US POSTAL SERVICE 850 CHERRY AVE SAN BRUNO CA 94099 00434600010505 PERRINVILLE PARTNERS LLC 1840176TH AVE W STE 103 EDMONDS WA 98026 00434600010701 GREGROY PAYNE 18510 76TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002000 CHU YOUNG CHUNG 7811 185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002400 ROBERT C & CAROL EATON 7810185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00517700001500 TRACY L THOMPSON 1860178TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002500 BRUCE F ANDERSON 7818185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026-5832 00434600010404 PERRINVILLE PROPERTIES LLC 3115 DOUGLAS CRT SW ISSAQUAH WA 98027 00434600010201 WIELTSCHNIG HOLDINGS LLC 4012 55TH AVE SW SEATTLE WA 98116 00434600010706 ERNEST FOSTER 1852179TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS WA 98020 00434600010506 PERRINVILLE JOINT VENTURES 7533 OLYMPIC VIEW DR #C EDMONDS WA 98026 00434600010707 ROBERTJ PEREIRA 18596 76TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002100 JOHN L ROY& LINDA D SEVERT 7801185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00517700001300 EDWIN R & DEANNA L WALDAL 18619 78TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 00517700001600 ROBERT L KERSLAKE SR. 18614 78TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 00434600010702 CINDA J SMITH 7805 186TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-5834 00434600010704 MYRTH LLC PO BOX 1534 LYNNWOOD WA 98046 00434600010602 DANA M GILLET 2330106TH ST SW EVERETT WA 98204-3625 004346=10302 JAMES E MARTIN 9514 228TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5932 00434600010601 HAN PARK 7704 OLYMPIC VW DR EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000001900 PAUL MARTINEZ 7817185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002200 RICHARD B HAMILTON 7800185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00517700001400 ANDREW H GATES 18607 78TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026 00471000002300 DOUGLAS & JERELYN RESNICK 7802185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026-5832 00434600010203 PERRINVILLE PROPERTIES LLC 3115 DOUGLAS CRT SW ISSAQUAH WA 98027 .00752700000100 THOMAS J BLAZEY 2633 EASTLAKE AVE E # 307 SEATTLE WA 98102 Sullu]Jd Packet Pg. 202 �, UNITED STATES Certificat POSTAL SERVICES Mal This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPSO for - This form f— 4--fl, —i :., .—ti—I .,,emu M <C From: City of Edmonds Planning Division a-¢ -com ^`;� - _ 121- 5th Ave. N. a ;a}X `� �co = J O - Ed d WA 9 - mon s, 8020 To: _ 00434600010404 PERRINVILLE PROPERTIES LLC t w 3115 DOUGLAS CRT SW e - ISSAQUAH WA 98027 w PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 UNITE®STATES Certificate POSTAL SERVICE Mail This Certificate of Mailina provides evidence that mail has. been presented to USPS® for m; This form mr From: City of Edmonds W ¢ <r _ — Planning Division oonM —121- 5th Ave. N. _ Edmonds, WA 98020 - via°: rn To: 00434600010201 _ WIELTSCHNIG HOLDINGS LLC UNITED STATES Certificate UNITED STATES Certificate I POSTAL SERVICE, Mail POSTAL SERVICE Mai I i r This Certificate Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS®form: This form maybea used for domestic and international mail. W This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for maili This form may be used for domestic and international mail. From: City of Edmonds LD <= � N From: City of Edmonds Planning Division aOCOo�= -CG r,LO Planning Division 1215th Ave N. = j¢ {f}o 1215th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 To: 00434600010701 To. 00434600010505 GREGROY PAYNE t PERRINVILLE PARTNERS LLC o 18510 76TH AVE W 0 1840176TH AVE W STE 103 EDMONDS WA 98026 5 N g EDMONDS WA 98026 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 38 t r , mpnl tuu f rate f oaU-UG-UUU-yuoo -� UNITED STATES Certificate Mail -' UNITED STATES Certifica POSTAL SERVICE: q i POSTAL SERVI�EC' Mai L This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for m: This form may be used for domestic and international mail. W ✓1- This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for i From: ¢ 3 o N LS This form may be used for domestic and international mail. From: N "-)-I - City of Edmonds - Oco -r 1� ao��o�__ N —City of Edmonds - r--+N - Planning Division - a?CO-C •-_-4� Division j N 1215th Ave N. - - `� 7 }¢ _ CD_ —planning _ 121- 5th Ave. N. o - Edmonds, WA 98020 - Edmonds, WA 98020 - 4012 55TH AVE SW t N o - SEATTLE WA 98116 CD - h N 2 O 7 p PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 UNITED STATES Certificate POSTAL SERVICE Mailir This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailii - This form may be used for domestic and international mail. Uj <L N From: City of Edmonds 0 Cow. Z co� Planning Division ° ¢3 oho a'o ~"' 1215th Ave N. E J <= Edmonds, WA 98020 To: — 00471000002100 — 10HN L ROY& LINDA D SEVERT _ 7801185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 nc r,.___ •. _ .. ...m Went icon no nnn anaF To: - 00471000002000 _ CHU YOUNG CHUNG _ 7811185TH PL SW t _ U rn W o EDMONDS WA 98026 — w a PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 UNITED STATES Certifica, POSTAL SERVICE Ma r This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for This form may be used for domestic and international mail. W N From: _ City of Edmonds C� <C o � may.--• Planning Division 000cn z aH��o�=LO r 1215th Ave N. }O7¢ao in — Edmonds, WA 98020 _ �' r- o - To: 00517700001500 t s TRACY L THOMPSON w 1860178TH PL W t w N o EDMONDS WA 98026 w o PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 To: 00471000002400 ROBERT C & CAROL EATON 7810185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 4447 n-,-n nnn, non' icon no nnn Clnac UNITED STATES Certificate C POSTAL SERVICE@ Mailin This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailing This form may be u, -' - From: City of Edmonds Planning Division 121- 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 T 00471000002500 BRUCE F ANDERSON 7818185TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026-5832 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-uu1.1-a1,100 8.A.d Li .� c ii_OOCOj •rl d a:Zrn�j min° � z Cc o � _J f o E a m I� U W U _ t ew �N o d w o o 2 y N � �° _ C ry N L) 0 0 0 M N 0 ¢ 3 NOOOMZ �N G Q a�00000 ¢_roo--o •n 1� . CLza) X: >-<= tr) O L J 7- C Q m Nw � tw o o 4 N N G L d E M x w C w Qw. DOOM t �n = 11--.00eo� ^�L O tna_zo}¢ _J cmC 0 0 N z J a Hw . a N o a+ p CD wa d ;a E s U a E s V M a Attar Packet Pg. 263 v►v► ► r_►J 3 1111 &3 Certificate +ulyi ► &U 31/11 &3 Certificate UM I LLB-51AI ES Certificate O POSTAL SERVICE, Maili POSTAL SERVICE, Maili POST13L SERVICE,, Mailinli This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mai This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for me This u.l This CertificateofMailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS© for mailing This form may be used for domestic and international mail. This form maybe used for dnmestir. and international mail. - O ¢ N y e used for domestic and international mail. W _ From: City of Edmonds ��o. —City of Edmonds ¢ i o pq—. From: From: City of Edmonds u, Q �� o �yN 000M •Z ^�N - Y F- Li / i a- C:)OWO r� Planning Divisionlanning Division ��oo-.o �� Planning Division oo€� °' z coN 1215th Ave N. �' z }¢ 0 1215th Ave N. 1215th Ave N. ° too 0 •CLZC" wales _ _J o ¢ o Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 To: 00517700001400 To: 00434600010203 00434600010604 ANDREW H GATES PERRINVILLE PROPERTIES LLC { a coUS POSTAL SERVICE 18607 78TH PL W { w 3115 DOUGLAS CRT SW 850 CHERRY AVE ti ti EDMONDS WA 98026 q" o ISSAQUAH WA 98027 SAN BRUNO CA 9 (� a(56" ti L � PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 _ I UNITED STATES Certificate 1 -, UNITED SWES Certifica UNlTEDST13TES Certificate OST./!L SERVICE, I�OSTAL SERVICES Maili 92POSURSERVICE,_� Mailit This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® foi This Certificate e Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USacN� r^- ^�a This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mail This form may be used for r - • . • - __ `---' This form may be used for domestic and international m=" This form may be used for domestic and international mail. LLJ From: N From: City of Edmonds `-� o L IN From: CIt11 of Edmonds City of Edmonds - F- 0 o Ils7 0 oco. r co Planning Division N000w. � '"—'N Division Planning Division _ o-`;c3coo ~� a�r,o�= "8)d�= •� Planning CL ^, 1215th Ave N. [E;cn M 1215th Ave N. N }¢ {�}� rn } ¢¢ �0 1215th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 - _ Edmonds, WA 98020 = _J WA 98020 Edmonds, To: To: 00434600010707 To: 0 00471000002200 00434600010506 RICHARD B HAMILTON ROBERTJ PEREIRA PERRINVILLE JOINT VENTURES M 7800185TH PL SW w 18596 76TH AVE W W 7533 OLYMPIC VIEW DR #C wa n EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 9$026 EDMONDS WA 98026 70 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 381 f, April 2007 PSN (bJU-Uz-UUU-yUoo UNITED STATES Certificate i UNITED STATES Certificate POSTAL SERVICE, Mailif POSTAL SERVICE Mail. This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for maili C This form may be used for domestic and international mail- w This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for ma From: ¢ <i o N This form may be used for domestic and international mail. � <L N From: City o Edmonds � ¢ "r o C_01 z �,N City of Edmonds U) Ow. ,- _C0 Planning Division a¢i;=-e .r- 00i�o�� •- (N r..� Planning Division ¢3t"—o •to 121 5th Ave N. Vi° Z >-¢ o CLZCD � �—+tn } ¢ 0 1215th Ave N. `� } >-¢ o Edmonds, WA 98020 = "J Edmonds, WA 98020 J X CD To: 00471000001900 T 00471000002300 PAUL MARTINEZ { Q a o DOUGLAS & JERELYN RESNICK 7817185TH PL SW w 1 a 7802 185TH PL SW g EDMONDS WA 98026 ; 0 EDMONDS WA 98026-5832 o C PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 JUUNITEDSTATES Certificate i POSTAL SERVICE, Mailir This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailii This form may be used for domestic and international mail. From: City of Edmonds Planning Division 1215th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 To: 00752700000100 THOMAS J BLAZEY 2633 EASTLAKE AVE E # 307 SEATTLE WA 98102 PS Form 381-[, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 8.A.d C3 <L N 3 00 r 0O(D• F- OOOM -Z �N a¢CJo0W= n N V)a7�}¢ 0 o c m E a (D W lW L) wW o O^ ti H C = T C Iv V 0 0 0 M O¢ <; o N CD 00 Mljo00� N C CL� oVlmQ} O J � o ' { M j N o wN o �N �a a Ld 1 LO I N o Li--� �.N C a�.2oor"= ¢_soo-.o ( C rho V)CLZ 3-<Z = J Mo i V �w o aN o as � C Packet Pg. 204 UIVI I &IJ 9IZII 1z9 Certificate _, UNITED STATES UNITED STATES P�C)ST�L SERVICE,,, Mailil Certificat Ceriifical 8.A.d POSTAL SERVICE, Mai POSTAL SERVICEe Ma This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mail This Certificate of Mailingprovides evidence that mail has been resented to USPS® This form may be "_^•"^•''^^'^^"^ ^^^' ---' --' W P P for f This Certificate e Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS a for CO cr N This form may used for domestic and international mail. W This form may be used for domestic and international mail. From: ¢ _i o - From: 0 <L N From: W N City of Edmonds I- Li") ; City of Edmonds 3 t� City of Edmonds ¢ -; � L Planning Division CL 0=00= "";r-10 ¢-;co_o Planning Division a- Q�� Planning Division 000m r, 1215th Ave N. �;° z �-� "moo � m—E ° a¢0CD�' .—�, c j _J � 0 1215th Ave N. } ¢¢ 0 1215th Ave N. =a jO1 6 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 ¢ Edmonds, WA 98020 Z3 -J � Edmonds, WA 98020 c m E To: 00517700001600 - To: To: ROBERTL KERSLAKE SR. 00434600010602 00434600010601 m 18614 78TH PL W r a o DANA M GILLET I. h a o HAN PARK w o EDMONDS WA 98026 w Q 2330106TH ST SW q 0 7704 OLYMPIC VW DR in o a 2h� 5 EVERETT WA 98204-3625 EDMONDS WA 98026 W N PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 _ p PS Form 38t r , April 2007 PSN 7530-02 000-9065 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 T C .N _ _ L y�I TEO STIJTES o UNITED STATES Certificate C Certifil _.., U�►ITEI)ST/.iTES Certificate ( c AN POSTI3L SERVIC& Mailini POSTAL SERVICE, n Ps or This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS POSTAL SEI1C ICEH' M ai l i n M This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailing This form maybe used for domestic and international mail. This form may be used for domestic and international mail. N From: LU cC This form be Mailing foredo-f evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailir, From: W W N f ., ,.....- _. -. N LO City of Edmonds 3 o LS'�N Clty of Edmonds N (t- �N From: City of Edmonds - « N o z ¢ a o �--� Planning Division �~a��o�= ``' Planning Division �� Q Planning Division d<=00-0 � ¢300—o r--iton ao��o�� h vi¢aa)r¢ o rL}rn¢� to0 1215th Ave N. ¢_soo-•o m 1215th Ave N. azo� "-'� 1215th Ave N. �, r¢ o Na'�}¢ .-moo c ¢ CD Edmonds WA 98020 J Edmonds, WA 98020 a ¢ o a Edmonds, WA 98020 = -J o J Z: o d T 00434600010704 T°` To: 00434600010302 y 00517700001300 MYRTH LLC1�i JAMES E MARTIN � EDWIN R & DEANNA L WALDAL PO BOX 1534 N � e=v 18619 78TH PL W I o F F 9514 228TH ST SW I Q o = LYNNWOOD WA 98046 Z o EDMONDS WA 98020-5932 n o 0 EDMONDS WA 98026 _ 5 .y PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-00o-aueo PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-906b U PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 N 0 L d E x UNITED STATES w Certificate 6 UNITED STATES Certificate iNPOSTM SERVICE, Mailir PQST11L SERVICE4 Maili L This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailir This form may be used for domestic and international mail. This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for ma! From: City of Edmonds This formma �^ ..^^a ^• ^^�^��;^ and iM—fi—1 mad W W c= N From: ¢ �; o o Ls"� City of Edmonds No��o, Ls")N U) PlanningDivision ��t�'I- CI o oro Z �� 000mf -z~N Planning Division a .00000 N o 1215th Ave N. ��00000 .r\ _ ¢=sco 0 �a m}¢ r--�o — 1215th Ave N. } ¢to 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 Eo — Edmonds, WA 98020 - _ -J N z — — J To: a 00434600010702 -- -- _ To: - — 00434600010706 CINDA J SMITH _ ERNEST FOSTER _ s 7805 186TH ST SW I w o 1852179TH PLACE WEST I o E w, H o � EDMONDS WA 98026-5834 o — EDMONDS WA 98020 - a U zg PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065; Packet Pg. 205 Project Number: PLN20100025 Applicant's Name: OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI Property Location: 18530 76TH AVE. W. Date of Application: 4/16/10 Date Form Routed: 4/23/10 Zoning: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Project Description:CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15'DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.23.10 If you he Respons clarification on this project, please contact: Namef.Jndividual`Submitting Com Title:_ N I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Ext. 1224 ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: `� b Signature: ice- C Phone/E-mail: Attac packet Pg. 206 0 Project Number: PLN20100025 Applicant's Name: OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI Property Location: 18530 76TH AVE. W. Date of Application:4/16/10 Date Form Routed: 4/23/10 Zoning: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE "PER ECDC 20 02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15<' DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.23.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title:/2,&-A b/ice lkimA:�C 1 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): PR 2 6 2010 V-.,Z n-e' +_-�' PUB/ it, 1", _ The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: 6 ' Signature: Phone/E-mail: Attac Packet Pg. 267 8.A.d Project Number: PLN20100025 Applicant's Name: OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI Property Location: 18530 76TH AVE. W. Date of Application: 4/16/10 Date Form Routed: 4/23/10 Zoning: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE "PER ECDC 20 02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.23.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: f�k C-5 L— Title: 5— ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal Ll 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): w ITS j S. C°--` AAA The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attac Packet Pg. 268 Project Number: PLN20100025 Applicant's Name: OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI Property Location: 18530 76TH AVE. W. Date of Application: 4/16/10 Date Form Routed: 4/23/10 Zoning: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.23.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: ( Title: /. t ,'� 016&�, _- ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. 9. I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: 5 / ;� / f Signature: Phone/E-mail: 4 L -7 It t 7-10 ?c C3 Attac packet Pg. 209 Project Number: PLN20100025 Applicant's Name: OLYMPIC VIEW MONTESSORI Property Location: 18530 76TH AVE. W. Date of Application: 4/16/10 Date Form Routed: 4/23/10 Zoning: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE FOR PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE . THIS FORM WAS ROUTED:, . 4.23.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments:_ Title: I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comm,pnts (pleas attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: i 1, /;Mf 10 Sig Phone/E-mail:ly -1% %�.. �� rl .i Attac Packet Pg. 210 8.A.d r 7 7 Date: To: From: Subject: May 13, 2010 Jen Machuga, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20100025, Conditional Use — Montessori Preschool 18530-76t' Ave W Engineering has reviewed and approved the subject application. The traffic impact analysis is being reviewed concurrently with the building permit application. Mitigation fees, if any, will be assessed and paid for with the building permit. No additional traffic studies are required. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 211 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/12/2023 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: David Levitan Background/History The extended agenda as of April 12, 2023 is attached. Board Member Golembiewski developed a chart format of the Extended agenda (preliminary draft attached), and staff is happy to utilize this format if members find it more helpful. Staff is currently revising the Comprehensive Plan work plan and will fill in events/open houses on upcoming agendas. Attachments: Extended Agenda - April 12, 2023 Extended Agenda - Chart Format Packet Pg. 212 pLLQMMM BOARD Extended Agenda — Draft April 12, 2023 rll LULS 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change April 26 1. Tree Code, Potential New Regulations for Private Property (Code Amendment) — Introduction and Discussion LULS May 10 May 24 June 2023 2. Parks Land Acquisition (Presentation/Discussion) 3. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No Presentation; Parks Director available to answer questions) 1. Tree Code Update, Major/Moderate Changes for Development - Related Activities (Code Amendment) - Code Analysis and Discussion 2. BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment) - Public Hearing 3. Recap of 2023 Washington State Legislative Session (No Presentation) 1. Tree Code Final Work Session (Code Amendment) 2. Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) - Introduction and Discussion June 14 1. Public Hearing - Tree Code (Private Property and Moderate/Major) (Likely to take entire meeting) June 27 1. Planning Board update to City Council - Report rather than (City Council) presentation? June 28 1. Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) — Public Hearing 2. Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment) -Introduction 3. Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update (Short Presentation or Written Report) * Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Open Houses currently being revised and will be updated on future Extended Agendas Packet Pg. 213 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change luly ZUZ3 July 12 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Introduction and Discussion 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No Presentation) July 26 1. Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment) —Work Session 2. Comprehensive Plan Update (placeholder; TBD) August 2023 Aug 9 1. Accessory Dwelling Units Code Analysis (Code Amendment) August 23 NO MEETING —SUMMER BREAK 5eptemper cuts Sept 13 Sept 27 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Final Work Session 2. Neighborhood Center Plans 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) — Public Hearing For 1. Tree code update Consideration 2 Comprehensive Plan work in 2023 3. Critical Aquifer Recharge code update 4. Wireless code update 5. CIP/CFP 6. MF Design Standards r Q 2 Packet Pg. 214 items ana t)ates are su 9.A.a ochange Future Consideration 1. Housing Policy Implementation 2. Neighborhood Center Plans (5 Corners) 3. ADA Transition Plan (Parks) 4. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies b. Parking standards 5. UFMP — goal/gap analysis/update Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Quarterly Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Updates 3. Joint meetings with City Council 4. Planning and Development Department Activity Report 5. Annual Retreat (Q1) 6. OPMA Training (required every four years) 7. Breaks — no meetings on 2nd meeting date in August and December a 3 Packet Pg. 215 9.A.b a a a a Ln Ln N c-I l0 I� O r� W N 7 l0 a I m M I M I I- CG Zone Permanent Ordinance PH BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment) I PH Tree Code Updates/Private Tree Code I D/R D/Rj PH Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) I PH Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No Presentation) R R Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment) - (Joint Meeting with Architectural Design Board) Recap of 2023 Washington State Legislative Session (Housing, TOD, Climate Change, Transportation, etc.) Comprehensive Plan Open House — Housing Planning Board update to City Council - Report rather than presentation? Comprehensive Plan Open House —Transportation Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment) Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment) Comprehensive Plan Open House — Environmental Quality and Sustainability Neighborhood Center Plans KEY I- Introduction & Discussion PH- Public Hearing D/R- Discussion/Recommendation B- Briefing R- Report with no briefing/presentation Packet Pg. 216