Loading...
08-20-12 PPW Committee MinutesEdmonds City Council Parks, Planning, Public Works Committee Minutes August 20, 2012 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PARKS, PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2012 The Edmonds City Council Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Chair Fraley-Monillas in the City Hall Fourtner Meeting Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Rob Chave, Interim Dev. Serv. Director Joan Bloom, Councilmember Lora Petso. Councilmember Agenda: 1. 5049 30 Minutes - Discussion regarding retail only zone in BD1 2. 5053 30 Minutes - Discussion reggarding step -backs 3. (10 Minutes) -Public Comments (3-minute limit per person) 2. 5053 (30 Minuted - Discussion regarding stela -backs. At 11:00 a.m., Council member Fraley-Monillas introduced Agenda Items 1 and 2 and asked staff to briefly provide an overview or background on the two agenda items. Because Mr. Chave needed to attend another meeting at 11:30, Agenda Item 2 was discussed first. Mr. Chave mentioned that this item was scheduled on the August 6, 2012 City Council Agenda, however, due to the late hour, the item was forwarded to the Committee, and also to the August 21, 2012 City Council Agenda. Council Chair Fraley-Monillas commented that she was uncomfortable about Council members Bloom and Johnson interacting as it was a Council Committee meeting, but they were welcome to ask questions of staff. City Clerk Chase briefly attended the meeting to clarify that she had advertised the meeting as a special meeting due to the potential of more than three council members attending the meeting. Mr. Chave mentioned that step -backs are no longer required in downtown buildings located within the BD1 zone, while a 15-foot step -back is required above 25 feet in BD2 — BD4 zone. Mr. Chave discussed how the City Council considered the Planning Board's recommendations regarding four sets of amendments to the city's downtown BD zones in July of 2011 and that no vote was taken on the Planning Board's recommendation regarding step -backs in BD zones. Specifically, the Planning Board concluded that the current step - backs built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be -1- feasible to enforce, and that design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards; they recommended removing step -back requirements from all BD zones. No step -back requirement currently exists in the retail core (BD 1). Council members discussed the merits of the 15-foot step -back requirement and how this is applied. It was noted that removing the step -back requirement might necessitate a further clarification in the BD5 zone; staff agreed to research this. Council members expressed concerns about design of future structures. City staff noted that in addition to the City's development code, the City's Comprehensive Plan contains design objectives on pages 51-60 which are applied during the permitting process. Mr. Chave also discussed how traditional downtown buildings were developed with facades that do not include step -backs for shorter buildings. Examples include the Chantrelle Building with its faux facade, Beeson building, Edmonds Theater, etc. What makes a building interesting are strong cornices, facade relief such as recessed windows, or pronounced windows, entrances and door trims, at grade entrances, and use of varying materials that differentiate the first from upper floors, etc. Many historic downtown Edmonds buildings could not be built today under the current step -back rules. Council members expressed concerns about not getting anything in return, e.g., LEED buildings, public spaces, erosion of building heights in other parts of the City, etc. as well as the potential to create box -like or 3 story buildings, etc. It was noted by staff that prior to the code amendment requiring a 15-foot step -back, many buildings were already being developed to 3 stories. Committee members asked Mr. Chave if he could look into whether the entire section referencing step -backs and pitched roofs could be deleted. Mr. Chave stated he would review the code. 1. 5049 (30 Minuted - Discussion retarding retail only zone in BD1 Mr. Clifton also discussed how the City Council considered the Planning Board's recommendations regarding four sets of amendments to the city's downtown BD zones in July of 2011 and that no vote was taken on the Planning Board's recommendation regarding retail only within the BD 1 zone. He mentioned that this issue is being raised in part from past conversations with some leasing agents, other cities as well as implementing Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan which states: "Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a "retail core" area in the downtown. " Council members asked about use of the term "Retail Only" and whether this is the actual term that should be used since some of the uses that would be allowed within a BD 1 zone, may not be true retail uses, e.g., banks and real estate. Staff noted that the term is broad is scope and refers to many types of uses, e.g., restaurants, clothing, nails and hair salons, What would be more appropriate perhaps is discussing what the zone would not allow, i.e., pure office uses, e.g., architectural/engineering, insurance, banking offices, accounting, and such uses as exercise facilities, medical/dental, etc. Council asked whether property owners were contacted about this issue. Although this issued has been raised with the Chamber and DEMA, and discussed with some of the property -2- owners who own several properties within the BD 1 boundary, not all property owners or landlords have been contacted. Council member Johnson mentioned that the Planning Board's discussion focused on what is meant by "retail only", e.g., the selling of goods, products, entertainment, food (restaurants, coffee shops), etc. City staff noted that the purpose is to exclude pure office only uses, e.g., accounting, architectural/engineering/insurance, etc., within the first 45 feet of ground floor spaces measured back from the sidewalk or public right of way. This would help maintain Edmonds' unique downtown character within the core, generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment, maintain a critical mass of similar uses, and increase the drawing power of the central area. Council member Johnson noted that she and Valarie Steward conducted a survey of the BD 1 Zone in 2011 to identify what uses exist within the BD 1 zone. Council members discussed allowing office uses within a DB 1 zone if a business owner has art in the window. The following lists four primary concerns raised by council members. • What are the proposed boundaries of a retail only commercial core? The initial intent was to include the entire BD 1 zone. A question was raised that if this proposal were to move forward, could or should this area be reduced to extend only 1 block either side of the central fountain at 51h Avenue and Main Street? • More clearly define what would be allowed and not allowed in a retail only/commercial core. Perhaps what might be helpful is to put together a more specific list of what would and would not be allowed under this proposal. This would help with the administration of the code, but also provide more clear guidance for landlords or business owners. • Grandfathering or how long is the proposed period before a landlord has to conform to amended language? The City would follow current non -confirming provision of the ECDC, i.e., Chapter 17.40.010.... If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance. • What happens to buildings that are set back from, or don't abut, the sidewalk, e.g., the Longstaff house, Rose House or other structures? -3- City staff stated this issue should be discussed further because of the challenge of applying the code to these types of structures. 3. Public Comments Roger Hertrich: o Step -backs should apply to entire upper floor, and should be just 5 feet. o Need to decide if you want a two-story town, or a three-story town. o Design features: concerned about streetscape issues, i.e., massing, the elimination of air and light. If the Council wants to go higher than 30 feet, step backs should be required. o Balconies built over the side walk - this was a giveaway by the City with no trade off. If we want to allow the use of our public right of way (airspace), we should get something back in exchange for this. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting concluded at 12:40 p.m. -4-