2021-03-24 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, March 24, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBNO9OaWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Password: 155135
Call into the meeting by dialing: 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.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5365)
Director Report
Background/History
The Director's Report is typically reviewed at each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Director. Re port.03.19.2021(PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 311912021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda March 24, 2021
6. Public Hearings
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5386)
Public Hearing on Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process
Background/History
This is a code amendment request from a private applicant (File AMD2020-0003). The Board
heard a presentation from staff and discussed the proposal at their February 10 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony about the proposed code change and forward a recommendation to City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - Citizen Design Code Amendment Narrative (PDF)
• Attachment 2 - draft 20.75.045.E Applicability - Unit lot subdivisions broadly (PDF)
• Attachment 3 - February 10, 2021 Planning Board excerpt minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 4 - Map of Unit Lot Subdivisions and Applicability in Edmonds (PDF)
B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5387)
Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a related
section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning
ordinance. The Planning Board reviewed this issue at its February 10, 2021, meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to Council for approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Outdoor dining interim zoning ordinance (PDF)
• Attachment 2: Planning Board minutes(PDF)
• Attachment 3: 2020-12-15 City Council Minutes (PDF)
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5388)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 311912021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda March 24, 2021
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 311912021
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/24/2021
Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Director's Report is typically reviewed at each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Director's Report 03.19.2021 attached.
Attachments:
Director. Re po rt.03.19.2021
Packet Pg. 4
5.A.a
Date
To:
From:
MEMORANDUM
March 19t", 2021
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
0
a
"If you don't know the past, you can't understand the present and plan properly for the
future." Lo
a�
L
Chaim Potok, Author o
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board's March 24 meeting will include the following two items:
1. Public hearing on a zoning code text amendment to expand the zones where the unit lot
subdivision process could be used. A unit lot subdivision allows fee -simple ownership of
townhomes and detached single family houses, so they can be purchased individually
without going through a more complex condominium process. Currently, this type of
ownership option is allowed only in specified zones, namely, multifamily zones, the
general commercial zone and the Westgate mixed use zone. The proposed amendment,
per an application submitted to the City, expands the option for this ownership option to
include the downtown commercial zones where multifamily development is already
allowed. The proposed code change does NOT alter the uses or density already allowed
in the applicable zone(s). After the Planning Board's public hearing and consideration,
the Planning Board will provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council
will then take the matter under consideration and may decide to approve, deny, or
modify the code amendment as proposed.
2. Public hearing on the interim ordinance adopted by the City Council in late 2020 to
simplify the permitting process for on -site outdoor dining. (This process applies to
individual properties, not to the public right-of-way.) Soon after, the Planning Board will
recommend that the City Council retain the simpler process through a more permanent
code amendment.
Ll Note: More detailed information for the two items is in the Planning Board's meeting
packet, available at: http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx.
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 5
5.A.a
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Legislature
The Washington State Legislature is in full swing. With pandemic restrictions in place, all
meetings to consider legislation are conducted online. March 9 was the last day to consider
passage of bills from the house of origin. Current bills address many topics, including climate,
emergency housing, and transportation. The last day of regular session this year is April 11.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ SCT's Planning Advisory Committee met March 11 to consider or discuss regional topics
including:
o Countywide Buildable Lands Project
o Next steps for updating Countywide Planning Policies
0 2044 Growth Targets Process
0 2024 GMA Update and Compliance Review
o PSRC activities.
❑ At its February 11 meeting, the Planning Advisory Committee voted for Shane Hope,
Edmonds, to continue as the "Other Cities" representative (meaning for all cities in
Snohomish County, excluding Everett, which has its own representative) for another term
on PSRC's Regional Staff Committee. Shane Hope was also selected to continue serving
as a co-chair of the SCT Planning Advisory Committee.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ PSRC's Transportation Board met on March 11 regarding the regional transportation plan.
This included a special session on a key policy focus: access to transit. The board also
considered information on: the road usage charge assessment from the state's
Transportation Commission; transportation demand management; and bicycle and
pedestrian planning.
❑ PSRC's economic development staff is working under the guidance of a regional economic
development board (the Central Puget Sound Economic Development District) to update
the Regional Economic Strategy, with expected adoption in late 2021.
❑ A new Equity Advisory Committee is being formed. It will assist with development and
implementation of a Regional Equity Strategy. The Strategy will include tools, resources,
and best practices.
❑ Implementation of the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan, in alignment with Growth
Management goals, is being considered. Possible tools include:
o Conservation futures programs
o Ecosystem service markets
o Transfer of development rights.
2 1 P a g e
1•
a
Packet Pg. 6
5.A.a
Sound Transit
❑ Sound Transit is seeking a volunteer for its Citizen Oversight Panel, a 15-member body
appointed by the Sound Transit Board to monitor and report on Sound Transit
performance on delivering on its commitments. For more information, see:
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/panels-committees/citizen-oversight-
>f anel•
CITY NEWS
❑ City Council
o The City Council's March 16 meeting included: an annual report from the City's
Hearings Examiner; continuation of considering amendments to tree regulations;
F
and an introductory overview of the policy recommendations from the Citizens'
Housing Commission. (More detailed review of each of the housing policy
L
recommendations will be conducted over the next year or so.)
2
o The next Council meeting is Tuesday, March 23 @ 7:00 pm. The Council's agenda
includes a joint meeting with South County Fire & Rescue, a presentation from the
o
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), and continuation of considering
amendments to the newly adopted Tree Regulations. (NOTE: Addressing trees is
c
g
.N
being considered in two main stages: (1) development of regulations related to
protecting and retaining trees as development occurs: and (2) development of
tree regulations that could apply to all properties, including those that are already
o
have been developed, as well as programs for Heritage Trees, incentives, a Street
Ci
Tree Plan, and more.) More information about the March 23 meeting will be
a�
M
available from the City's website at:
httD://edmondswa.iam2.com/Citizens/default.aSDX.
°
Climate Action
31
❑ A special workshop, seeking community engagement on strategies for anew Climate
Action Plan, will be held online March 25 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. To join via Zoom, sign in
under the meeting ID 856 5719 7159. The call -in number is 1(253) 215-8782 with a
passcode of 100007. Everyone is welcome.
❑ The new Climate Action Plan, which is expected to be ready before the end of this year,
will help the City achieve its climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. The City's
Development Services Department leads the project; other city departments are
encouraged to provide input; and the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee assists with
increasing climate awareness and engaging the community. Broad public involvement is
being sought.
❑ Anew Climate Action Plan webpage has been created by the City. See:
https://www.edmondsclimate.com/. It includes a link for joining the March 25 workshop.
❑ A Climate Action newsletter will be sent periodically from the City. To get project updates
directly to your inbox, sign up on the webpage above.
Packet Pg. 7
5.A.a
Tree Regulations
The City Council recently adopted new tree -related regulations to address tree protection and
retention on properties that were being developed. While the regulations were being
developed, the Council adopted a moratorium on applications for subdivisions, thus preventing
new development projects from vesting until after the "Stage 1" regulations (related to trees on
developing properties) could be decided. Meanwhile, as possible tree regulations for those
properties not being developed are planned for consideration, the City Council adopted a
temporary ban on the removal of trees over 24 DBH for the properties likely to be affected by
this next stage of tree regulations. This set of tree regulations, along with the establishment of a
Heritage Tree Program and other options, are being considered as "Stage 2" in addressing key
tree issues in Edmonds. A postcard was sent to all household addresses in the City cautioning
that trees of 24 inches DBH or greater cannot be removed (with certain exceptions).
r
Questions and comments to the City's Planning Division have ramped up considerably. This
L
0
Q
elevated level is not expected to decrease anytime soon.
o
a�
L
Planning Board Retreat
o
The Planning Board held its March 10 meeting as its annual retreat. Retreat topics included:
background information on regional housing issues; a short preview of the Housing Commission
o
recommendations related to planning and zoning policies; update on recruitment to fill Planning
.N
Board vacancies; training session by the City Attorney on legal matters; and the Board's 2021
work program, including planning for a joint meeting with the City Council.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
The Community Calendar has some updates.
4 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 8
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/24/2021
Public Hearing on Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
This is a code amendment request from a private applicant (File AMD2020-0003). The Board heard a
presentation from staff and discussed the proposal at their February 10 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony about the proposed code change and forward a recommendation to City Council.
Narrative
This public hearing is for a proposed amendment to Section 20.75.045 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) relating to the applicability of the unit lot subdivision procedure in the
Downtown Business (BD), Office -Residential (OR), and Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zones.
The unit lot subdivision (ULS) process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities for dividing fee
simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an
alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. A ULS
does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the
subdivision is proposed. Each project where a unit lot subdivision is applied is first reviewed and
approved to verify compliance with all applicable building, fire, public works, and zoning codes. The ULS
then follows and inserts property lines between the dwelling units, typically along shared walls and
enclosing a small private yard.
Unit lot subdivisions are currently allowed in the General Commercial, Multiple Residential, and
Westgate Mixed Use zones. Citizen Design Collaborative, the developer of the proposed 14-unit
townhome project at 614/616 5th Ave. S (which is currently under review by the Architectural Design
Board), proposed a code amendment to allow use of the unit lot process in the Downtown Business (BD)
zones where their project is located (Attachment 1). While the Citizen Design proposal would allow the
unit lot process to be used in one additional zone, staff proposed an alternative to further broaden the
Applicability language to include any zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor
(Attachment 2). The Planning Board discussed both options at their February 10 meeting and moved
the broader language to a public hearing (Attachment 3).
Attachment 4 is a map showing the existing zones where the ULS process is allowed, the proposed zones
where ULS would be allowed if the code amendment is adopted, and the location of the five (5) unit lot
projects that have received approval or are currently under review.
Packet Pg. 9
6.A
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Citizen Design Code Amendment Narrative
Attachment 2 - draft 20.75.045.B Applicability - Unit lot subdivisions broadly
Attachment 3 - February 10, 2021 Planning Board excerpt minutes
Attachment 4 - Map of Unit Lot Subdivisions and Applicability in Edmonds
Packet Pg. 10
6.A.a
CITIZEN
DESIGN
COLLABORATIVECO.COM DATE October 15, 2020
206.535.7908 TO City of Edmonds
Development Services
121 5th Avenue N
WE ARE FAMILY Edmonds, WA 98020
DESIGNING INSPIRED SPACE
PROJECT Unit Lot Subdivisions in BD Zones Code Amendment
TO CREATE COMMUNITY
SUMMARY
Citizen Design appreciates the opportunity to propose this code text amendment to
the Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDCL We believe that the proposal
is consistent with the applicable portions of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and will
be in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Specifically, the proposal would amend ECDC Section 20.75.045.B to add the
Downtown Business [BDl zones in the list of zones in which unit lot subdivisions
[ULS1 are allowed. Thiswould a[low zero- lot -line development, such as townhouses,
to be subdivided for sale. Under present code, such developments must be held in
common, condomiumized or permitted as Planned Residential Developments.
If adopted, it is anticipated that the proposed amendment would encourage
townhouse development due to the relative ease of selling unit lots versus
condominium units. Such development could only take place in zones where it is
currently allowed as the proposed amendment is limited to ULS applicability.
We trust that this narrative and the attached supporting documents provide
sufficient information to review the proposed amendment. If any questions arise,
please feel free to contact our office.
Humbly Submitted,
Citizen Design
CRITERION 1: CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed amendment affects properties with several Comprehensive Plan
designations. These include Retail Core, Arts Center Corridor, Downtown Mixed
Commercial, Downtown Convenience and Downtown Mixed Residential. All of
them are located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center overlay per the
2017 Comprehensive Plan Map.
The 2017 Comprehensive Plan lists several framework goals for Activity Centers.
These include pedestrian orientation, mixed uses, community character, and
providing balanced redevelopment. [2017 Comprehensive Plan, pp. 43-441 More
specifically, the Plan's Goa lA.6 states that the City's objective is to Ipjrovide greater
ULS Code Amendment 12020
Packet Pg. 11
6.A.a
CITIZEN
DESIGN
residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to
accommodate the needs of a changing population." [Ibid., p. 461 Similarly, Goal EA
specifically calls for "...a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing,
commercial and cultural activities." [Ibid., p. 481 In addition to the Activity Centers
goals discussed above, the Land Use Element includes several goals specific to
residential development. Residential Goal B states, "A broad range of housing
types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will
be available to all Edmonds residents..." [Ibid., p 671 The proposal supports this
call for a variety of housing types by allowing townhouse -style construction to be
subdivided for sale, thus encouraging townhouse development. When combined
with the apartment and single-family residential typologies already present, this
contributes to the variety of options available to residents.
It is to be noted that the proposed amendment affects only the use of the ULS
process. All proposed developments will also need to comply with applicable
zoning code in effect. Thus, adoption of the proposed amendment will not permit
townhouse construction in areas where it is not currently allowed. Since this is
the case, the proposed amendment is expected to have a neutral effect on the
compatibility of existing and proposed development. This is in accordance with the
2017 Comprehensive Plan's Housing Goal F, "Provide for a variety of housing types
that respects the established character of the community." [Ibid., p. 941 It is also
in accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Goal
B, which calls for "...balancing the needs for housing, commerce and employment
development with neighborhood character, amenitites and scale.- [Ibid., p. 1121.
CRITERION 2: RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
The proposed amendment is expected to encourage the development of
townhouses and their sale to individual owners. This may result in an increase
in owner -occupied housing. Such housing is typically well -maintained as the
occupants have a clear incentive to do so. The presence of housing more generally
in mixed -use districts can also increase public safety via the "eyes on the street"
effect. Although the proposed amendment will not allow housing to be constructed
in areas where it is not already allowed, it may encourage such development.
CRITERION 3: PUBLIC BENEFIT
The primary public benefit to the City as a result of adopting the proposed
amendment is its encouragement of owner -occupied, townhouse -style housing.
This has the potential to further diversify the City's existing housing stock, which
is in alignment with several of the City's goals in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan.
Under present code, a project which seeks to establish the equivalent of unit
Lots is required to follow the Planned Residential Development [PRD1 process.
This process is more labor intensive for both the City's Development Services
Department and the project proponent, and it is designed to allow the potential
for alternative development standards. Not all projects require this flexibility,
and allowing the use of the ULS process instead may reduce the burden on the
Development Services Department.
ULS Code Amendment 12020
Packet Pg. 12
6.A.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 1/2
20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision.
A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple
ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an
alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision.
Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC
Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly
created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional
standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise
allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for
single-family dwelling units, townhouses, and rowhouses in any zone where ground -floor
multiple dwelling units are allowed. and may be applied aRly OR the fella " ii b � „ ipie
re�eet+al, geRe�EemmeFeial, @Rd Westgate Mixed use. A single lot within a unit lot
subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling
units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when
a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located.
C. Association with Site Development — Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a
redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction
with or preceding a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC,
or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or preceding a
building permit. For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may
be submitted at any time. If the subdivision involves creating unit lot lines within common
walls, a building permit application is required in order to verify that the walls meet the
separation requirements in effect at the time of the subdivision application.
D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is
vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a
complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot
subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect
to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16.
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to
fire lanes, drive aisles, turnarounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be
evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not based on
whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications
to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes
requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for
compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for
compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable
development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4201, passed November 2, 2020.
Packet Pg. 13
6.A.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 2/2
all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned
tracts are proposed.
F. Homeowners' Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or
facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or
parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used
stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained
by a homeowners' association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as
necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding
the rights of the homeowners' association must be submitted for recording with the final plat.
G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed
and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all
building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance
agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be
recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single-family
dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes.
H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling
unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the
right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat.
I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot
and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the
application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat.
J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including
common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land
surveyor of record.
K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short
subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC
and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4173 § 1 (Att. A), 2020; Ord. 4154 § 4 (Att. C), 2019;
Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4201, passed November 2, 2020.
Packet Pg. 14
6.A.c
REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN
ECDC 17.70
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The
main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a
hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff.
Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and
provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently.
Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and
"Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new
type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses
survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the
Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically
occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or
outdoor open decks.
Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into
parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within
the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking
spaces are not part of a business's required parking.
Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor
dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements,
including making sure that access was ADA compliant.
Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in
December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information.
Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He
also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code
that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use.
Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020
(Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the
case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections.
However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010.
He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply.
Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two
separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance
combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than
predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5),
which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out
that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner.
Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24r''.
CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS
Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application,
the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 15
6.A.c
Citizen Design Collaborative is proposing to add the Downtown Business (BD) zones to the areas in Edmonds where the
Unit Lot Subdivision Provision is applicable. He reviewed that United Lot Subdivisions are currently only allowed in the
General Commercial (CG), Multiple Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed use (WMU) zones. He said the applicant has
submitted a parallel application for design review for a 14-unit complex at the old Baskin Robbins and Curve site. The
proposal is to construct residential and live/work units on the site and then apply the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision on top of
the buildings once constructed. However, this isn't currently allowed because the property is located in the BC zone.
Mr. Clugston said there have been a number of Unit Lot Subdivision Projects over the last several years in the RM, WMU
and CG zones that have worked out very well. Staff believes the proposed amendment makes sense in those areas in the BD
zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor. The amendment might also be applicable to other areas of
Edmonds, and staff is suggesting the Board consider the option of making the amendment more general to cast a broader net
to include all zones where ground -floor multifamily dwelling units are allowed. This would include Office Residential,
Firdale Village Mixed Use and Downtown Business zones, as well as any future subarea plans that allows ground -floor
residential units.
Board Member Pence noted that Unit Lot Subdivisions were only written into the code in 2017. He asked why the provision
was written so narrowly to apply only to a limited set of zones. Mr. Clugston said he doesn't recall exactly why. But,
generally, the RM, CG and MU zones were areas where they anticipated that Unit Lot Subdivisions would occur first. Five
of the six projects were in RM zones. Based on these projects' success, staff believes it makes sense to allow them in the
other zones, too. Mr. Chave said, sometimes, there are unusual configurations of property, and you don't always see how a
multifamily use that fits this kind of development could occur. That may be why they missed applying the use more broadly.
Board Member Pence agreed that application of the provision should be broadened as recommended by staff.
Chair Rosen asked the worse concern staff can imagine someone might raise at the public hearing. Mr. Clugston said he
can't think of one at this point. The look of the development on the ground would not change, as Unit Lot Subdivision would
simply drops property lines on walls. It is an alternative to the condominium process, and he felt it makes sense to allow it
wherever ground -floor multifamily units are allowed.
Vice Chair Crank said the only concern she foresees is about the look and feel of the downtown core. She noted a recent
story that was posted on MY EDMONDS NEWS about the design of the proposed project has already caused a stir. Mr.
Clugston said the proposed amendment is a separate issue from the design. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, the
applicant could build the units as long as Design Review and Building Permit approval are obtained. The question is how
ownership will be divided up. The applicant could construct the units and then go through the condominium process, and the
City would have no say whatsoever. If the amendment is adopted, the applicant would go through a separate process (Unit
Lot Subdivision). In either case, the look of the buildings would not change. He agreed that this is something that would
need to be clearly explained at the public hearing.
Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed amendment could result in parking impacts. Mr. Clugston answered no, and
advised that parking would be addressed as part of the Design Review and Building Permit processes.
Board Member Monroe asked for reasons why developers might want to use the Unit Lot Subdivision option as opposed to
the already established provisions in the code. Mr. Clugston answered that, currently, there is no provision in the code that
would allow the applicant to do a subdivision. Right now, Unit Lot Subdivisions are only allowed in RM, CG and WMU
zones. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow the use in the BD zone to specifically take advantage of the fee
simple option as opposed to the condominium process or rentals. Board Member Monroe asked why Unit Lot Subdivisions
are an advantage over the condominium process. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the condominium process is
more difficult, is not a public process, and it is hard to get insurance for the units. The zero -lot -line process used in other
cities is the process that a lot of developers use to create fee -simple lots.
Board Member Monroe reviewed that the adoption of the proposed amendment would not change the density allowed, the
look and feel of development or the parking requirements. He noted that condominiums haven't been built in Washington for
a number of years because of insurance issues, and the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision would make it easier for developers.
He said anticipates that the greatest concern that might be raised at the public hearing is that the amendment would density
Edmonds and particularly the downtown core. Vice Chair Crank agreed with that concern.
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 16
6.A.c
Board Member Pence suggested one reason developers do not like to do condominiums has to do with builder's liability.
Under Washington's Condominium Law, builders have a very long period of time when they are liable for defects in the
buildings, and they have been hit with some major lawsuits by homeowner associations. With Unit Lot Subdivisions, all of
these issues go away.
Board Member Robles noted that builder's liability lasts for eight years. In addition, there are building envelop laws
associated with condominiums. You can't simply flip a building from an apartment to a condominium. You have to make
sure that the building is structurally sound and that the building envelope, itself, meets a new standard. The windows have to
retain certain energy requirements and other requirements would apply, as well. He voiced concern that the proposed
amendment would be a quick way for developers to get around a significant amount of regulation associated with the
condominium process.
Board Member Cloutier observed that once a property is subdivided, each new division would have to meet all of the
standards for construction. Mr. Chave said Unit Lot Subdivisions should be thought of as a different form of ownership:
condominium versus subdivision. The standards and requirements would be the same for either.
Chair Rosen asked if the potential concerns that the amendment would change the character or increase density could be
considered fatal flaws that lead the Board to recommend denial. Mr. Clugston emphasized that the amendment would not
result in changes in the character of an area or increased density. He referred to the "Purpose" section, which clearly states
that "Unit Lot Subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which
they are proposed. "
Board Member Monroe said he appreciates that the proposed amendment would not change density. However, it should be
noted that the current condominium law is holding back densification. By removing that dam, they could see a tidal wave of
redevelopment in the downtown. He said he isn't a huge fan of the proposed amendment, as it will not do anything to
address housing for the "missing middle." It seems it will simply make rich people richer. He suggested it is disingenuous to
imply that the City isn't making it easier to develop this type of unit in downtown Edmonds.
Board Member Pence agreed that the code change related to ownership options would make the construction of town homes
a more attractive option for developers. However, it is important to consider that town homes are, by definition, a low to
moderate density development for a downtown area. If they receive push back from the public, he doesn't believe it will be
well-grounded.
Vice Chair Crank asked if a Unit Lot Subdivision would include the ground floor. If so, could commercial be part of that
ground -floor level? Mr. Clugston explained that the subdivision could apply to a live/work unit where the ground floor is a
commercial use, with residential uses above. But primarily, the developments would be entirely residential.
Board Member Pence asked if ground -floor commercial is required in the BD zone along 5' Avenue, or is it just an option
the developer is choosing. Mr. Clugston answered that commercial is required on the ground floor along certain street fronts,
including 5' Avenue. The applicant's solution is to develop live/work units, where there is a commercial use on the ground
floor with residential above where the operator or owner of the business would live. Board Member Pence noted that some
cities require the occupant of the ground -floor space to have a business license to establish the voracity of the business use so
it doesn't become just another town home. He asked if the City would require a license. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be
something to consider, as it makes sense to have the uses separated in some way.
Board Member Monroe commented that the intent of the first -floor commercial requirement is to activate the space. Spaces
that are occupied by businesses that do not invite the public in goes against the intent of the zoning. Mr. Clugston advised
that any commercial use can be located on the ground floor in theory, and there is currently a broad range of businesses in the
downtown area (office, service, retail, etc.). Mr. Chave added that, historically, live/work units are found back east. When
the country was young, that was fairly typical. The use is not quite as common in the western United States because
developers tended to build out because there was so much space. However, with the new urbanism that has occurred over the
last two decades, live/work situations are becoming more common. They are seeing more demand or interest from people
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 17
6.A.c
who want to live close to where they work. Board Member Monroe commented that if the live/work units must be owner -
occupied, people would have to move if their businesses close down.
Vice Chair Crank said she plans to seek feedback from a friend who owns live/work space in Seattle. His optician business is
on the ground floor, and he lives above.
Vice Chair Crank asked if the proposed amendment would override the ground floor commercial requirement in the BD1
zone. Mr. Clugston answered no.
Chair Rosen asked if the Board would have an opportunity to weigh in on how the regulations associated with Unit Lot
Subdivisions are enforced. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment is related solely to the Unit Lot Subdivision provision,
and is unrelated to the ground -floor commercial use or other zoning requirements.
Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of a live/work unit could use the ground floor space for a business, but rent out the
upper floor to someone else. Mr. Clugston noted that the City hasn't permitted any live/work unit development to date. The
use and owner -occupancy requirement will need further thought. However, that is a separate question from the proposed
amendment.
Chair Rosen suggested the Board Members keep the questions raised in their minds as they become further informed at the
public hearing on March 24r''. In preparation for the hearing, he suggested that the Board provide feedback to staff about
whether the amendment should be geographically specific to the BD zone or opened up to a broader area.
Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the amendment might be more difficult to adopt if it is applied broadly. Mr.
Clugston didn't believe that would be the case because Unit Lot Subdivisions are already allowed in many other parts of the
City. The amendment would simply allow a developer to drop property lines down on a use that is already allowed in the
zone.
Vice Chair Crank said she is open to consider a broader application of the amendment to other zones in the City, but she isn't
ready to recommend its application in the BD zone at this time.
Chair Rosen asked if the applicant could develop the same project under the current zoning if the amendment is denied, and
Board Member Monroe answered that the project would not likely pencil out.
Board Member Cloutier requested that staff provide the Board with a before and after map to illustrate the areas that would
be impacted by the proposed amendment based on the two options.
Chair Rosen asked if the Board could recommend denial of the amendment now. Mr. Chave answered no and explained that
the Planning Board must conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council.
The Board indicated general consensus that the amendment should be presented in the broader context at the public hearing.
The description for the hearing should make it clear how the amendment evolved, and that it is being sparked by a very
specific request for a very specific property.
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE BROADER APPLICATION. BOARD
MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPOINTMENT OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
Chair Rosen asked about the process for appointing a new Student Representative to the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would
advertise the position next week. He recalled that, in the past, the Board set up a subcommittee to interview the candidates
and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board agreed to follow that process, with Board Member Robles taking the
lead.
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 18
6.A.d
QP
a
Q
o
0
WOODWAY
Snohomish
County Park
c
fD
o
L
m
168TH ST!
0
y r
.r
C
E
J__LJ I
m
176TH ST SW
Q
d
4
0
180TH ST SW
U
O
Uj
U
Q
2
C
i
Q
d
188TH ST SW
v
LYNNWOOD
3
�A
a
�P
to
ST SW 3� �� r-
w r 0
Q
2 �
F- W
� 200TH ST S\ C
204TH ST SW .0
R
v
a
208TH ST SW
> °w 4MI H STJSW i f
Q °O� 71298 80th Ave. W 7236 212th St.
I
, , , 'vo
8615 244th St.
s
20T LU
Q d
MOUNTLAKE .�
TERRACE u �►
ss
228TH STS� a f
7 > = S
w
Q 2 s
0 S
`^ f
236TH ST'_ 1
f
� 3
S
Y f
244TH ST S 244TH S- s
Proposed Subdivision Zoning (BD, OR, FVMU)
Existing Subdivision Zoning (CG, RM, WMU)
O Subdivided Unit Lot Site
fc
March 20 Q
Packet Pg. 19
6.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/24/2021
Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a related
section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning ordinance. The
Planning Board reviewed this issue at its February 10, 2021, meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to Council for approval.
Narrative
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning ordinance. The
ordinance clarified conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process for approving
this type of use on a commercial property.
The adopted Ordinance 4210 is included in Attachment 1. The Planning Board's previous discussion is
contained in Attachment 2. The City Council's minutes from the December 15, 2020, meeting are
included in Attachment 3.
Note that the ordinance dealing with Streateries amended Title 18, dealing with uses in the City's right-
of-way; this is not subject to Planning Board review.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Outdoor dining interim zoning ordinance
Attachment 2: Planning Board minutes
Attachment 3: 2020-12-15 City Council Minutes
Packet Pg. 20
6.B.a
ORDINANCE NO. 4210
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE.
WHREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being,
which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and
WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address
coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close
businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and
WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been
especially impacted by full and partial closures; and
WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited
or prohibited indoor dining during much of the year; and
WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would
prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors, to be a safer environment from a
COVID-19 standpoint; and
WHEREAS, some dining and beverage establishments already have permitted bistro
dining for certain sidewalk areas per Chapter 17.70 ECDC or permitted outdoor dining on
commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC; and
WHEREAS, outdoor dining on commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC requires a
conditional use permit through a hearing examiner process that is more costly and time-consuming
to obtain than an ordinary administrative permit; and
WHEREAS, City staff have been working on potential code amendments to allow outdoor
dining on commercial properties without a conditional use permit; and
1
Packet Pg. 21
6.B.a
WEHEREAS, concepts for amending the code to allow outdoor dining without a
conditional use permit were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's
Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24,
2020 meeting of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the permit process for on -site outdoor dining have
been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an
emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Outdoor Dining," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown
in strike through).
Section 2. Section 17.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Other temporary buildings," is hereby amended to read as set forth below (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in s4tl£e thfough):
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030 and 17.75.010, a conditional
use permit shall be required to construct a temporary building in any
zone. The permit shall be administratively reviewed by staff and
shall be valid for a period of one year; provided, however, that said
permit may be extended by the development services director for a
single one-year extension upon submittal of a written application
prior to the expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of
the zoning district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision
granting or denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by
2
Packet Pg. 22
6.B.a
the hearing examiner in accordance with the requirements for any
other conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 3. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the
effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after
which point it shall have no further effect.
Section 4. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency
exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote
plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not
subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance,
restaurants would have to go through a much longer permit process before being able to offer
outdoor dining. Any delay in the ability of the city's restaurants to offer additional outdoor dining
could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should
be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving
off restaurant failures and creating regulations so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to
dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 4, 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 not adopted
by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an
emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
3
Packet Pg. 23
6.B.a
Section 7. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support
of the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CI CLERK, SCOTT PASAY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED:
MOOR MIKE NELSON
December 11, 2020
December 15, 2020
December 18, 2020
December 23, 2020
4210
L,
Packet Pg. 24
6.B.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4210
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 15th day of December, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 4210. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2020.
T-
Cit-Y-eLERK, SCOTT PA Y
Packet Pg. 25
6.B.a
CHAPTER 17.75
Exhibit A
OUTDOOR DINING
Sections:
17.75.010 Outdoor dining —Permitted secondary use.
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a eanditien ,' use permit.
17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
17.75.010 Outdoor dining — Permitted secondary use.
A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN —
neighborhood business zone, BC — community business zone, BP — planned business zone, BD —
downtown business zone, CW — commercial waterfront zone, CG — general commercial zone, WMU—
Westgate Mixed Use, MU — medical use zone, and FVMU — Firdale Village mixed use zone. When
established as a permitted secondary use, the outdoor dining area shall currently comply or be proposed to
comply with at least one of the following criteria:
1. The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially zoned property(ies).
2. The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC along the
property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially zoned property(ies).
3. The dining area is screened from adjoining residentially zoned property(ies) by a building and/or a
four -foot wall, hedge, or solid fence.
4. Seating is limited to an additional 4&50 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment
or 4-2-30 seats, whichever is greater.
5. Anv dining area adiacent to vehicle narking shall be senarated by landscaping, curb stop, wall or
other suitable barrier
B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be closed
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site.
Temporary buildings or structures used for the outdoor dining use do not require a separate conditional use
permit.
D. Seating shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. Seating within public rights -of -way is reviewed
as bistro dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030 or as a streatery pursuant to ECDC
18.70.030.:
E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. For any outdoor diningspace
pace
that would utilize existing on -site parking spaces, at least one ADA-accessible space must remain or be
located on the site,
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requi eme 4s of Errs , 7 7c 0 non property outside of the public ri hg t of
way shall be a secondary use requiring. a conditional „so permit only if the use includes a component
subject to a buildingor r fire permit. Components requiring a buildingor r fire permit include, but are not
limited to, detached (free-standing) structures and structures attached to a building, such as awnings,
canopies, roofs, and per og las •_����� �. This use shall be established
and maintained e*ly-in accordance with the terms of a eenditional use permit approved 1.y thethis chapter.
0
Packet Pg. 26
6.B.a
17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter utilized in
serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of the State Building Code an
community development code inel ,. ing but not limited to design revieT Title 19 building and fire codes.
7
Packet Pg. 27
6.B.a
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly swom, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH915965 ORDS 4206-4211 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 12/18/2020 and
ending on 12/18/2020 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount of the fee far such publicatign is
$68.60. rr+
Subscribed 9nd swo
�
rn o me on this
�day of
Lw
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416
SCOTT PASSEV
7State
70812MO21
My A
Packet Pg. 28
Classified Proof
6.B.a
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
Of IrI$ Clay of ftlmonris, W$BNnflWn
On Inn 15th day of December, 2M2 the Cily COun6l Of the City of
Edmonds, pass$d the following Ordinances, a+e 4uln$lones of said
ordinances Danis" of Mies are wldad as 101IDW3
ORDINANC�NQ. 4208
AN OfipiNANG OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON. CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING
TIMES OF 0 Ty COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE MEETINGS. REINSTATING THE SECOND
TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ESTABLISHING
REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES PRIOR TO THE
SECOND TUESDAY RE45ULAR COUNCIL MEETING
OR01NAiI ENO. 4207
AN ORDINANCE OF OF EDMONDS.
WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 410 AS A
RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
OR0jNANO F NC.4208
AN ORDfNANC OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGtON. ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
ORDi YA NCE ND- 4209
AN ORDINANC���F THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
WASHINGTON. AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECOC,
ENTITLED 'STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS; TO ALLOW 'STREATEAWS' FOR DINING IN
THE PUOLIC R[GHT-OF-WAY, DEM-ARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AN D EFFECTIV ENESS OF THIS OR DINANC E
ORDINANCE HO. A210
AN ORDINANCE P THE C1TY OF EDMONDS,
YVASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED 'OUTDOOR DINING,' AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17,70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.4211
AN ORDINANCE A T FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2021.
The full lex1 of thee$ Old,nan[es yell he mailed upon teguoul,
DATED INS 15tn Day of Deco Meer, 2020.
CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY
PuoUehod; December 18, 20Z0- EOH916965
Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 12/18/2020 08:47:48 am Page: 2
Packet Pg. 29
6.B.b
REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN
ECDC 17.70
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The
main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a
hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff.
Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and
provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently.
Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and
"Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new
type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses
survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the
Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically
occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or
outdoor open decks.
Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into
parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within
the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking
spaces are not part of a business's required parking.
Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor
dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements,
including making sure that access was ADA compliant.
Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in
December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information.
Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He
also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code
that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use.
Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020
(Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the
case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections.
However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010.
He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply.
Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two
separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance
combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than
predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5),
which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out
that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner.
Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24'.
CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS
Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application,
the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 30
s.s.�
Councilmember K. Johnson said she served on the Planning and Public Works Committee with former
Councilmember Tibbott. The committee talked about how to get sidewalks built and the truth was without
grants, they would not get built because there was no money. Staff indicated the problem was the need for
a consultant to design the project, go out to bid, etc. Staff suggested hiring a sidewalk crew, two people in
Public Works.
Council President Fraley-Monillas interrupted, stating this was out of order. The Council is supposed to
be debating the CFP/CIP, but this commentary is going nowhere. She asked City Clerk Scott Passey to
rule on this. Mr. Passey said if the discussion was not driving toward a yes or no vote on the CFP/CIP
ordinance, which may include amendments, debate and votes, it was probably out of order. Mayor Nelson
agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not want to shut down Councilmember K. Johnson and
suggested issues related to the CIP/CFP would be a good topic for a retreat in 2021. Tonight is not the
time to present an 8-9 page document regarding issues with the CFP/CIP. Mayor Nelson agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed and offered to work on that retreat item.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2021-2026 CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLAN, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY 2021 BUDGET
LATER TONIGHT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO APPROVE THE 2021-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS DESCRIBED IN
OUR PACKET. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING NO.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked to change her vote on the motion to approve the CFP. Mr. Taraday said
if Councilmember K. Johnson voted in the affirmative, she can move for reconsideration.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR RECONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to change her vote from yes to no. Mr. Taraday said that
could be done via a roll call vote.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON,
PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
4. EMERGENCY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW STREATERIES IN ROW & OUTDOOR
DINING WITHOUT CU PERMIT
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• COVID 19 has changed the way we live
• Restaurants & similar businesses hit hard
• Special Event Permit —Temporary Mitigation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 18
Packet Pg. 31
s.s.�
o Special event permit was authorized in August to allow dining in designated vehicle parking
spaces
■ Originally thru Oct. 11
■ Extended thru Nov 8
■ Extended thru Dec 31 or Council adoption of streateries ordinance, whichever sooner
o Liked by many people
■ Helps keep small businesses alive
■ Brings festive atmosphere to community
■ Allows users to dine in public place, but still have fresh air and spacing
Two concepts for code updates to help address economic crisis
1. Streateries (parklets allowing dining/beverage service in designated vehicle parking space,
within ROW)
2. On -Site Outdoor Dining (allowing more opportunities —without CUP —for outdoor dining on
private property, not in ROW)
o Both concepts presented at:
■ City Council's Nov. 12 PSPP Committee meeting
■ City Council's Nov. 24 meeting
"Streateries" aka "Parklets" that are specifically for dining
o Streateries Concept —Highlights
■ Applicable citywide, adjacent to commercial uses where street parking spaces are
available
■ Subject to individual permits for up to one year with 6-month extensions possible
■ Dining on raised platforms, flush with sidewalk, to provide ADA accessibility
■ Maximum 2 parking spaces per use
■ Safety standards (e.g., fire & structural safety) to apply
■ Insurance and "hold harmless" agreements by applicants required
■ Some aesthetic guidelines included
■ Limitation on total number of streateries: 20
■ Must meet state & health district standards (incl for COVID protections)
■ Must have reflective lights for night-time
■ Applicants to pay cost of platforms, safety barriers, liability insurance, etc.
Note: City staff has also explored what other cities are doing for streateries
o Draft Ordinance for Streateries
■ Amends Chapter 18.70 (Street Use and Encroachment Permits)
■ Proposed as emergency ordinance
■ Timing fits with Council's intent to respond quickly to COVID impacts
■ If adopted as emergency, public hearing proposed for Feb. 2
■ Proposed to sunset on May 1, 2022 unless Council takes other action sooner
■ Sets specific standards, permit process, and inspections for streateries
■ Assures compliance with Governor orders, ADA, fire safety, & other requirements
On -Site Outdoor Dining
o On -Site Outdoor Dining Concept —Highlights
■ Allow under simple permit process, without going thru conditional use permit process
■ Allow on business property, such as on deck or patio or in parking lot
■ No requirement for additional parking spaces
■ May include canopy or awning
■ Ensure safety standards (e.g., for heaters) are met
■ Must have ADA access
■ Must meet building setback standards
o Draft Ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining
■ Amends Chapter 17.75 (Outdoor Dining)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 19
Packet Pg. 32
s.s.�
■ Proposed as emergency interim ordinance
■ If adopted as emergency, would require public hearing, possibly February 2
■ Would be in effect for up to six months
■ While interim ordinance is in effect, Planning Board would review & propose to City
Council any longer -term ordinance
Recommended Next Steps
o Council to:
■ Adopt emergency ordinance for Streateries (with sunset date)
■ Adopt emergency interim ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining (with longer term
recommendation by Planning Board in early 2021)
■ Hold future public hearings as needed (circa Feb. 2)
o City staff to:
■ Finalize handouts and web information
■ Get word out to affected businesses
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers
asking one question at a time.
With regard to enforcement, Councilmember Distelhorst assumed the City would do an inspection when a
restaurant applied for a permit and asked if someone who observed an inconsistency should contact the
City's code enforcement. Ms. Hope answered yes.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question she had been asked whether a restaurant had to go to the
expense of constructing a platform if they had ADA compliant seating available on the sidewalks. Ms.
Hope said there was an exception in the ordinance for those situations.
Councilmember Paine asked if a restaurant with a sidewalk cafe on the sidewalk would also be allowed to
have a streatery in the right-of-way. Ms. Hope said based on past experience, there are a few businesses
that have both sidewalk dining and a streatery, but most do not. This ordinance would allow the first 20
applicants who meet the requirements to obtain a permit, regardless of whether they have sidewalk
dining. They would need to meet all the standards, but would not be penalized for having sidewalk
dining. Councilmember Paine observed a restaurant could have both, a sidewalk cafe and a streatery. Ms.
Hope agreed they could but would have to meet the 5 foot minimum span between so ADA access could
be accomplished.
With regard to enforcement, Councilmember L. Johnson asked what resources were available to assist
businesses with enforcing health district standards such as the COVID protections. People who see things
happening can report them to code enforcement, but what is the City doing to assist businesses who may
be put in uncomfortable situations if customers do not abide by the requirements. The streateries are a
new thing and there are disagreements about what should/should not be done to protect the public's
health. If the streateries were intended to help restaurants stay in business and weather the pandemic, she
asked whether it up to them to enforce the code or were there resources to assist with people who were
not compliant. Ms. Hope answered the City does not enforce capacity limits in stores or enforce the use of
masks, etc.; businesses are expected to deal with it. If there is a serious problem, the establishment can
call the police or someone else for help. Providing information to the public regarding the rules is helpful.
Mr. Doherty said during the late summer and fall when streateries were allowed via a special event
permit, he talked to restaurants with a streatery every week; a couple restaurant owners reported having
rowdy people or people trying to join tables, or other things that weren't allowed. The restaurant owners
viewed the ability to use the street as a privilege and were very conscientious and had asked people to
leave, etc. He assured they would be encouraged to observe the governor's statewide restrictions in this
space because ultimately it was a privilege.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 20
Packet Pg. 33
s.s.�
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled many years ago noted planner named Brooks spoke regarding
community development in downtown Edmonds. He said if the City achieved a certain density, people
would think of Edmonds as a place to eat. That has basically happened, Edmonds has become a
destination and some of the City's codes were changed, including sidewalk seating. She did not want to
dismantle that because it had been very successful. The Council is now considering other things to help
restaurants and preserve the environment for the business community. However, if two parking spaces are
dedicated for pickup and two for a streatery, she felt that was too much and did not support other uses in
downtown Edmonds. She agreed with allowing sidewalk seating and off-street seating, but preferred to be
more conservative with regard to allowing dining in parking spaces. She suggested allowing either two
parking spaces for pickup or two parking spaces for a streatery, but not both. Ms. Hope said the parking
spaces for pickup are handled by the Public Works Department who likely would not allow parking
limitations too close to other things.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson gave kudos to business owners, commenting so much has been thrown at them
with constant change and they have been resilient, flexible and adaptable. They are a special breed and
she was proud of them and encouraged them to keep up good work. Her biggest concern with what she
has seen with the streateries is ensuring the spirit of the law is upheld. It is not just about creating an
outdoor room with no ventilation, the point is for it to be healthier than eating inside. She hoped that was
implicit in the ordinance and that it was enforced because the purpose of allowing outdoor dining was
because it was safe. With regard to streateries being a privilege and the City bending over backward to
support restaurants, she pointed out with privilege come responsibility. She urged the business
community to find ways to help retailers next door, whether via a flyer attached to a takeout bag, tent
cards on tables, or word of mouth such as popcorn for sale at the movie theater, or having Glazed and
Amazed projects at a streatery during the day when it is not as busy. She thanked staff for their work on
this project.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern about impacts on businesses, for example Glazed and
Amazed that has one parking space and streateries on either each side. She asked if Glazed and Amazed
could do the same thing, allow patrons to do art projects outside. Ms. Hope it is just for restaurant -type
businesses who are closed to indoor customers. If the governor's orders change, staff will come back to
Council to discuss options for other businesses.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the decision was made to have one parking space between
streateries and why two spaces were not required if a nearby business used the parking. Ms. Hope said
people seldom get to park directly in front of the business they are frequenting; they may need to park 1-2
blocks away. The idea was to ensure restaurants could serve customers adjacent to their space,
recognizing that people may have to walk a bit to reach other businesses. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the way the ordinance is written, no more than two streateries can abut each other. Ms. Hope said another
issue that came up is whether the parking spaces between streateries are too narrow so the ordinance
requires a one foot setback on each side of the available parking space to provide some additional space.
During the special event streateries, staff worked with restaurants to provide that and it worked well.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented the ordinance allows two abutting streateries and one parking
space between. In an area with nine parking spaces, there could technically be four streateries and only
one parking space. She was concerned with how that could impact other businesses. Ms. Hope agreed it
was a challenge, but there could only be a total of 20 streateries. Where it makes the most sense to have
streateries is in areas where restaurants are concentrated. It is a balancing act, restaurants tend to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 21
Packet Pg. 34
s.s.�
clustered together. To make it work, the streateries need to be close to the restaurants. Councilmember L.
Johnson wanted to ensure other businesses were kept in mind and it was not too difficult for them.
Councilmember K. Johnson said one issue that was discussed previously but was not addressed tonight
was the use of gas heaters and their impact on the environment. She asked what staff had learned. Ms.
Hope answered in general gas heaters will not be used due to fire protection concerns with the flames and
because few propane heaters are available. The preferred option will be electric heaters.
Councilmember Paine observed restaurants providing onsite dining did not need to restore parking spaces.
If on -street parking is constrained by streateries, she envisioned in 6-8 months there would be a lot of
congestion and not a lot of parking and the City would be in the same place it was in the summer of 2019.
She requested parking be monitored particularly when the weather gets warmer and people feel safer to
come outside. Ms. Hope assured there will be monitoring and adjustments made as needed. With regard
to the use of parking lots, it pertains mostly to businesses outside of the downtown area because few
downtown restaurants have onsite parking. There are restaurants in Five Corners or Highway 99 that have
more than enough parking and can allocate space for outdoor dining.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THAT THE FIRST ISSUANCE BE THROUGH OCTOBER 31ST WHICH BRINGS US
TO HALLOWEEN AND THE START OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON FOR OUR EDMONDS
MERCHANTS
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City needed to be mindful of protecting businesses and there could
be a six month extension.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested if the Council really wanted to protect businesses, they
would not have streateries in the summer because that is when downtown businesses experience the
majority of the crowds. They have crowds around the holidays but only for a few days.
Councilmember K. Johnson said Council President Fraley-Monillas was not speaking to the motion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion because the issue was more than just
around the holidays. By supporting the motion, a Councilmember was agreeing that that was when
businesses did the majority of their business which she did not think was accurate.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the interim ordinance was the second one, not
this one. Ms. Hope said the motion related to the ordinance for streateries is an emergency ordinance that
is effective for one year. A one year period would allow businesses some assurance that they could recoup
some of the costs associated with installing the necessary equipment.
Councilmember Olson said the question posted by Councilmember K. Johnson was very thoughtful and
she appreciated the reminder about the entire economic community. She trusted business owners would
look out for their neighbors and businesses would consider how to capitalize on the restaurants who were
granted the privilege of a streatery.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 22
Packet Pg. 35
s.B.c
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING" AND A RELATED SECTION,
CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING AN IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. ADOPTION OF 2021 CITY BUDGET (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.12)
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2021 CITY BUDGET.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she pulled this to reserve the opportunity if any changes were made to
the CFP/CIP.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2021
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED SUSAN PAINE AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND ANOTHER 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday said once all the nominations are made, the Council will vote in the order nominations were
made and the first to have a majority will be selected.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED LAURA JOHNSON AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED VIVIAN OLSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM.
SUSAN PAINE WAS SELECTED 2021 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BY ACCLAMATION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON VOTED IN FAVOR OF LAURA JOHNSON AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
2. 2020 BOARD & COMMISSION RETIREMENTS (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.8)
Councilmember Olson thanked citizens who have served on boards and commissions and are retiring.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
December 15, 2020
Page 23
Packet Pg. 36
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/24/2021
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Extended agenda attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 37
oV
1014, Items and Dates are subject to change
PLANNNS BOARD
Extended Agenda
March 24, 2021
Meeting Item
February, 2021
February 1. Potential code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions in the
10 Downtown Business (BD) zones (File No. AMD2020-0003)
2. An interim Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
amending Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a
related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
February 1. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging
24
March, 2021
March Planning Board Retreat
10
March 1. Public Hearing on a code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions
24 in the Downtown Business (BD) zones (File No. AMD2020-0003)
2. Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled
"Outdoor Dining," and a related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
April, 2021
April Joint meeting with the City Council (potential)
13
April (No meeting due to Joint Meeting with City Council on April 13)
13
April 1. Tree programs and regulations: status and upcoming issues
28 (including developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark
Trees)
2.
Packet Pg. 38
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
May, ZUZ1
May 1. Parks and PROS Plan updates
12 2
May 1. Development Activity Report
26 2. Tree programs and regulations: issues and code review (including
developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees)
rune, LVL1
June 1. EV Charging standards options for residential development
9 2. Bicycle Storage standards for multifamily development
June 1. State legislative update
23 2. Tree programs and regulations: issues and code review (including
developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees)
July, 2021
July 1. Housing issues and code development overview / update
14 2
July 1. Tree programs and regulations: hearing preparation on issues and
28 code review (including developed properties, Heritage Trees and
Landmark Trees)
2.
Q
Packet Pg. 39
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
2021 2. Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
3. Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs)
4. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
5. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
6. Subdivision code updates
7. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
8. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
9. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
10. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Reports & Updates
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April?
4. Development Activity Report
5.
Q
Packet Pg. 40