The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-09-28 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, September 28, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting 1. 2. A. Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09 Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 Phyiscal Location The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived Approval of Minutes Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6838) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from the September 14th meeting. Planning Board Page 1 Printed 912312022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 28, 2022 ATTACHMENTS: • PB220914d (PDF) 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Audience Comments 5. Administrative Reports 6. Public Hearings A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6834) Public Hearing on BD Designated Street Front Background/History The BD2 zone is identified as the Downtown Mixed Commercial zone in ECDC 16.43. Most of the BD2 zone currently requires 12-foot ceiling heights and commercial uses within the first 45 feet of the designated street front while any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. Where properties do not front on a designated street - as shown in Map 16.43- 1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones - no minimum floor height is required and any permitted use is allowed all floors, leading to the possibility of residential -only buildings. During the discussion about providing additional design standards for these residential -only buildings in the BD2 zone in March 2022, some council members and public expressed concerns about having residential -only buildings within a Mixed Commercial zone and wished to pursue extending the designated street front "blue line" in some locations. This led to Council's adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, including the revised Designated Street Front map for the BD2 zone and the clarified BD use table. The interim ordinance expires on December 1, 2022 unless permanent standards are adopted by that date. The Planning Board discussed the creation of a permanent revised designated street front map on June 8, 2022 and the Economic Development Commission did the same on July 20, 2022. Both groups held a joint meeting on the topic on August 10, 2022. At that meeting, the consensus was to extend the "blue line" to all BD2 parcels to be consistent with the Downtown Mixed Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan but to revisit the Downtown Business development standards after the Comprehensive Plan update is completed in 2024. The Comprehensive Plan currently states: Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located Planning Board Page 2 Printed 912312022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 28, 2022 behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Staff Recommendation Take public testimony on the proposed draft BD designated street front map and use table shown in Attachment 14. Make a recommendation to City Council for their consideration for a permanent ordinance. With expansion of the designated street front, zoning changes to facilitate two floors of residential above commercial space should be pursued prior to completion of the comprehensive plan update. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- Interim BD Designated Street Front Map Ord. 4262 (PDF) • Attachment 2 - BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent (PDF) • Attachment 3 - 2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF) • Attachment 4 - 2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes (PDF) • Attachment 5 - 2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF) • Attachment 6 - Submarket Demand Analysis Final (PDF) • Attachment 7 - OTAK Edmonds BD2 Zoning Recommendations (PDF) • Attachment 8 - Color Renderings of Development Examples (PDF) • Attachment 9 - Additional Research on Comparable Cities (PDF) • Attachment 10 - BD2 Zoning Memo (PDF) • Attachment 11- Excerpt minutes 6.8 PB and 7.20 EDC (PDF) • Attachment 12 - 8.10.22 excerpt PB-EDC minutes (PDF) • Attachment 13 - Hearing Notice (PDF) • Attachment 14 - Proposed designated street front map and use table (2) (PDF) 7. Unfinished Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6851) 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update Background/History The Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") is a document that guides the City of Edmonds decisions on a wide range of topics and services over a 20-year time period. As the Plan acts as the blueprints for development in the city, it will impact neighborhoods, businesses, traffic, the environment and you. The Plan is also meant to reflect the vision and priorities of the city and residents, while meeting the requirements of state and federal law. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities and counties update their Comprehensive Plans on a periodic schedule. This is an opportunity to revise population and employment growth forecasts with the most up to date data, review existing policies to ensure they make sense for the community, write new policies that reflect the priorities of Edmonds, and confirm that all federal state and local requirements are met. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities and counties update their Comprehensive Plans on a periodic schedule. This is an opportunity to revise population and employment growth forecasts with the most up to date data, review existing policies to Planning Board Page 3 Printed 912312022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 28, 2022 ensure they make sense for the community, write new policies that reflect the priorities of Edmonds, and confirm that all federal state and local requirements are met. The purpose of the 2024 Update is to comply with the requirements of the GMA in RCW 36.70A.130 for the City of Edmonds to: • Plan for the next 20 years of population and employment growth • Review and revise the Plan and development regulations to ensure they comply with the requirements of the GMA. The deadline for adoption of this update is December 31, 2024. Staff Recommendation N/A 8. New Business 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6846) Extended Agenda Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review Extended Agenda ATTACHMENTS: • 09.22.2022 Extended Agenda (PDF) 10. Election of Officers 11. Planning Board Chair Comments 12. Planning Board Member Comments 13. Adjournment Planning Board Page 4 Printed 912312022 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2022 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from the September 14th meeting. Narrative Draft meeting minutes attached. Attachments: PB220914d Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting September 14, 2022 Vice Chair Pence called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced Chair Crank would be joining later. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement. Board Members Present Alicia Crank, Chair' Roger Pence, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Matt Cheung (excused) Staff Present 'Z; Kemen Lien, Planning Division Manager Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner o READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2022 AS PRESENTED. Vice Chair Pence noted a correction to the name of Michelle Dotsch under Audience Comments on page 1. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None t Chair Crank joined the meeting late. Vice Chair Pence chaired the entire meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets Director McLaughlin made an informational presentation regarding Reimagining Neighborhoods Streets + Creating Community Spaces Together. The project objectives are to develop new street and public space typologies that will guide how streets are built in the future and allow for more spontaneous use of public space. The scope of work will include developing new street typologies (sidewalk code update, street map update, update of pedestrian prioritization investment network); developing new public space typologies (how streets can be reallocated to expand public space, design standards to shape public space in the right of way); and creating a public space activation strategies toolkit (empowering communities to utilize streets for people needs beyond mobility, permitting structure to enable each strategy). The new street typologies will consider vehicle movement and ensure that street design serves social, environmental, and economic needs and functions. She reviewed an example of a draft street typology cross-section and map. Public Space Activation refers to making the best use of streets we already have. This could be for certain parts a of the street and/or certain times, days, and special events. Six in -person neighborhood meetings were held to c raise awareness about this topic. Participants voted on activation strategies that would be best suited to their M 4- neighborhoods. Staff tallied those responses and mailed postcards to the broader neighborhood to confirm those 0 activation ideas. Director McLaughlin explained that the City is committed to funding and supporting one pilot 'o project in each neighborhood district (Downtown, Five Corners, Firdale, Westgate, Highway 99Ballinger, and a Perrinville). a A Public Space Activation Toolkit provides critical information for each activation strategy to reduce barriers for community -led design and implementation. It also offers ideas to neighborhoods to promote social gathering/community building. Director McLaughlin reviewed a tentative timeline for this project with anticipated Council adoption in Q 1 of 2023. Commissioner Cloutier said he loved the layout and the systematic approach. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Cloutier. She was disappointed with the poor response in the Highway 99Ballinger area. She asked if there are plans to do additional outreach to get more people involved. Director McLaughlin noted that the purpose is to raise awareness so even if there is a smaller core group it can still be effective. The City will be doing more outreach before the package gets adopted, but for the public space activation portion, the city does not have the resources to do more outreach. Commissioner Rosen agreed that the presentation was very helpful and informative. He asked if there is a Council directive to advance streateries. Director McLaughlin commented that there is controversy around streateries. She noted that the public space typologies just provide a menu of tools for where they could expand public space in the right of way for people needs and not just mobility. Streateries is just one example of what could happen. Commissioner Rosen expressed appreciation for the context and encouraged staff to share it that way. Director McLaughlin agreed and noted the need to have these conversations for all neighborhood districts and not just the downtown area. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Commissioner Kuehn agreed with Commissioner Rosen. He encouraged staff to have clear context and language so it is not steering one way or another on any topic. This will help to keep minds open and get better public engagement. Vice Chair Pence commented that the project timeline on the website needs to be updated with current information. There also needs to be more substance. He asked whatever happened to equitable engagement framework. In the public meetings he has attended he hasn't seen much of a difference. Director McLaughlin explained that it takes time to build trust and relationships. Staff believes that the framework will work and over time this will yield results. Vice Chair Pence asked for an update on the tasks and strategies that they expect will yield results over time. Chair Crank2 agreed that just because they extend an invitation to a group that has been routinely left out doesn't mean that they will just show up. It will take time and advocacy from the non -minority members of the community to encourage others to participate. PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Phase II Tree Code Amendments. She stated the focus was on if the general direction of the low-level policy code amendments is appropriate. The purpose for the update so soon after the initial adoption is to respond to the Urban Forest Management Plan Goal IA: Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Both the Planning Board and the Council directed staff to do the Phase II Tree Code Amendments in 2022. The project scope for the Phase II Tree Code Amendments is to limit property owner tree removal (major) and consider minor amendments to the current code that would simplify, match industry standards/BMPs, streamline the review process, and address code interpretation issues. She started by reviewing preliminary code amendments that would have no policy level impact. She invited board members to give feedback on their attempts to work through development scenarios she had provided. Vice Chair Pence brought up a project at 240tn and 87th and noted that developers routinely clearcut the entire lot of trees and replant trees. He asked if this would no longer be possible. Ms. Powers explained that the current code strives to retain as many viable trees as possible while letting the development move ahead in a timely manner. The code requires a certain threshold for tree retention depending on what type of development it is. From there the code acts to prioritize how and what they are retaining. Developers are not able to just pay the fees right off the bat; they are required to show infeasibility if they are unable to retain the required trees. Vice Chair Pence commented that the project site had a cluster of very significant trees that were removed. He wondered if the project could have been worked out in a way to preserve the trees. 2 Chair Crank arrived prior to 7:30 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Commissioner Gladstone asked about the development scenarios provided by staff. Ms. Powers explained these are examples of what the Planning Division reviews. They help to illustrate issues with the current Tree Code. Vice Chair Pence asked about flexibility to allow developers to have sub -minimum setbacks if that will allow the saving of trees. Ms. Powers explained that setbacks are a requirement separate from the Tree Code. The Tree Code does not focus on saving trees in setbacks, but this could be one way to simplify the code. She explained that the Conservation Subdivision Design has incentives to give leeway in development standards if they commit to greater tree retention right from the beginning. Commissioner Campbell stated she is also concerned about developers that are able to clearcut. Because of negative examples of this she is opposed to allowing fees in -lieu -of. She is also somewhat against replanting and prefers focusing on saving as many trees as possible upfront with code amendments because replanting often results in poorly maintained plantings. She noted that if developers are paying fees -in -lieu of they will just pass it on to the property owner/renter thereby increasing housing costs in addition to destroying the environment. She would like to see every possible barrier to using fees in -lieu -of. She asked why they want to focus on no impact policy amendments. She thinks the big clearcutting examples would be more important. Ms. Powers explained that ultimately the Tree Code is trying to establish a healthy urban forest 20 years from a now. It is a balance between growth/development and tree retention. Not every tree should be retained on a development site if it can't sustain development impacts and is not the kind of tree in 20 years that will be part of a healthy urban forest. She agrees with the prioritization of retention, replanting, and then fees -in -lieu as part 0 of a healthy tree code. Finally, she referred to the no -impact policy amendments are just a start to create a basic 'o framework before they move up to the other code amendments. Commissioner Campbell expressed concern a about the time it will take to address these small things while damage is allowed to continue. She is looking a forward to addressing the prioritization aspect. a Ms. Powers explained that there are I I preliminary amendments which fall into the categories of: • Definitions — hazard tree, Limits of Disturbance (LOD), nuisance, qualified professional • Property owner tree removal — clarify emergency tree removal process • Tree retention with development — show development types that require tree retention, add "viable", allow silt fence, strike "must", replace "developer" with "applicant". Commissioner Rosen commented that the City needs to reconcile the tension between the desire to have additional housing and the desire to save habitat and trees. They also have to be aware of unintended impacts such as increasing housing costs which conflicts with other goals. He asked if they are looking at legal liability risks related to tree codes. He heard that Kirkland was being sued over their tree code, and a Michigan township went to federal court that said having people who remove trees pay into a tree fund was unconstitutional. He asked for clarification about what constitutes risk (for "tree at risk"). He asked if the City is certifying arborists so they maintain a level of excellence. He wondered about using the phrase, "The director may ..." since it seems subjective. Ms. Powers acknowledged the tension between cost of housing, development, and growth and the loss of canopy cover and habitat. Reconciling this is the purpose of the Tree Code. She commented that Kirkland is not being sued, but the Master Builders of King and Snohomish County have filed a petition with the Growth Management Act Hearings Board on the constitutionality of Kirkland's tree code. Mr. Lien commented that staff has been in consultation with the City Attorney as part of the code development process. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Ms. Powers stated that there is a methodology described by the International Society of Arboriculture to come up with a score for the risk of a given tree. The code would refer to this methodology to determine risk. Regarding having certified arborists, she noted that the City requires one of two of five different credentials. She referred to the "director may" verbiage and acknowledged that this is subjective, but it also provides flexibility. This is another point of balance — between predictability and flexibility. Commissioner Gladstone commented that in the scenarios the trees had to be planned around the buildings. She recommended looking at this more holistically. For, example, she suggested that maybe the building requirements need to be reconsidered so that the buildings have a smaller footprint to preserve more trees. Perhaps this would result in a smaller, lower -priced building with more trees. Ms. Powers explained that would be a major code amendment, but it could be looked at. Director McLaughlin agreed with looking at the symbiotic relationship between these things. Commissioner Gladstone recommending thinking about how they balance the tree code requirements with existing homeowners so they don't end up with disparate impacts. Commissioner Campbell said that after listening to the various concerns raised in the discussion tonight she understood the justification of addressing the "low hanging fruit" first and is supportive of trying to get these minor amendments resolved. a B. Climate Action Plan Update 0 Mr. Lien presented an update on the Climate Action Plan Update process. He gave some background on the 'o Climate Action Plan development process. Highlights of the plan include a Call to Action, a new section on a equity, a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory, how the plan is presented in different target sectors, and metrics 0. a and tracking. a The Call to Action: The Edmonds community has not kept pace with its goals to reduce GHG emissions. Mr. Lien reviewed action the City can take to reduce GHG emissions: • Adopt regulations to require new multifamily and commercial buildings to be 100% electric by 2023. • Require charging infrastructure with new development. • Support mixed -use and transit -oriented development in neighborhood commercial centers. • Coordinate with transit agencies to increase service and improve access to new light rail connections. • Develop an action plan to adapt to sea level rise in Edmonds. The most effective actions that individuals and businesses in Edmonds can take are to: • Replace fossil -fuel burning heating systems, hot water heaters, and cooking equipment powers with electric appliances. • Replace fossil fuel -burning vehicles with electric vehicles. • Reduce vehicle trips by using transit, telecommuting, biking, or walking. • Conserve energy wherever possible, especially energy from fossil fuels. Mr. Lien explained that the since the CAP adoption, the City has upgraded the energy efficiency of city facilities; upgraded the wastewater treatment plant; installed public electric vehicle charging stations; upgraded the city's vehicle fleet; and completed a tree canopy assessment to track coverage and identify gaps. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Equity is a new section in the CAP. Climate change impacts frontline communities the most. They often live in denser settings, use transit, conserve energy, and consume less. National studies show that affluent households (above $120,000) produce GHG emissions that are double those of households with income between $40,000 and $80,000. He pointed out on a map that areas with less trees have higher heat impacts than other areas. A key takeaway of the GHG inventory is that Edmonds has not kept to its goals since the 2011 CAP. Two of the biggest causes of GHG emissions remain buildings (50%) and transportation (40%). Most of the strategies in the CAP address these two sectors. There are four main target sectors with strategies, actions, and metrics associated with them. The target sectors are Buildings and Energy; Transportation and Land Use; Environment; and Lifestyles and Consumption. Tracking progress will be an important part of the CAP. Next steps include refining CAP feedback from July and August workshops. The draft CAP will be available for review by the end of September. This will be followed by review by the Planning Board and adoption by the City Council. After this, staff will implement actions and likely incorporate elements into the Comprehensive Plan update. Mike Clugston is working on the schedule for different code amendments coming up. He will be giving a presentation to Council on this next week. Vice Chair Pence asked about plans to expedite retrofitting existing multifamily buildings with charging stations. Mr. Lien explained there are some provisions in the electric vehicle standards that were adopted. Vice Chair Pence recommended finding a way to give a little incentive to do this. Commissioner Rosen asked for confirmation that they are looking at a goal of a 40% reduction in GHG. Mr. Lien concurred and added that they have a goal of being carbon neutral with local emissions by 2050. Director McLaughlin agreed that it is a colossal goal considering they have made no progress yet, but she is encouraged by advances in technology. Commissioner Rosen suggested they can get a massive reduction in a year by simply outlawing gas leaf blowers. There was some discussion about his calculations and the feasibility of this. Commissioner Gladstone encouraged the City to have coordination with the PUD to make sure they are able to provide alternative sources for the increased demand for electricity. Mr. Lien agreed and noted they would need to do this anyway because of state regulations. There was discussion about needed code amendments to support homeowners and businesses in making desired changes. Commissioner Campbell referred to the requirements for new commercial and residential buildings to be fully electric by 2023 and recommended education and outreach for homeowners and businesses who are remodeling or upgrading. Mr. Lien agreed and stated there are action items specifically related to this. Director McLaughlin agreed. Commissioner Gladstone noted that education only goes so far, but financial incentives have been very effective with water issues. Director McLaughlin concurred that incentives are effective; development of a green building incentive program is expected to be part of the 2023 work plan. Mr. Lien added that there is an action item related to providing financial assistance, grants, or low -interest loans for installation of solar projects or energy efficient projects, particularly with affordable housing. Commissioner Campbell commended staff on the amount of work and detail on this draft and presentation. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Staff reviewed the extended agenda and noted tonight was Chair Crank's last meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Crank made farewell comments and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to serve and make positive impacts. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board members thanked Chair Crank for her services, noted she would be missed, and wished her well. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 14, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 12 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2022 Public Hearing on BD Designated Street Front Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History The BD2 zone is identified as the Downtown Mixed Commercial zone in ECDC 16.43. Most of the BD2 zone currently requires 12-foot ceiling heights and commercial uses within the first 45 feet of the designated street front while any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. Where properties do not front on a designated street - as shown in Map 16.43- 1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones - no minimum floor height is required and any permitted use is allowed all floors, leading to the possibility of residential -only buildings. During the discussion about providing additional design standards for these residential -only buildings in the BD2 zone in March 2022, some council members and public expressed concerns about having residential -only buildings within a Mixed Commercial zone and wished to pursue extending the designated street front "blue line" in some locations. This led to Council's adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, including the revised Designated Street Front map for the BD2 zone and the clarified BD use table. The interim ordinance expires on December 1, 2022 unless permanent standards are adopted by that date. The Planning Board discussed the creation of a permanent revised designated street front map on June 8, 2022 and the Economic Development Commission did the same on July 20, 2022. Both groups held a joint meeting on the topic on August 10, 2022. At that meeting, the consensus was to extend the "blue line" to all BD2 parcels to be consistent with the Downtown Mixed Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan but to revisit the Downtown Business development standards after the Comprehensive Plan update is completed in 2024. The Comprehensive Plan currently states: Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When Packet Pg. 13 6.A the rear of a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Staff Recommendation Take public testimony on the proposed draft BD designated street front map and use table shown in Attachment 14. Make a recommendation to City Council for their consideration for a permanent ordinance. With expansion of the designated street front, zoning changes to facilitate two floors of residential above commercial space should be pursued prior to completion of the comprehensive plan update. Narrative The map in Attachment 14 includes the adopted, interim, and proposed permanent extent of the designated street front line for the BD2 zone (solid blue, blue dots, and blue hatch, respectively). No change is proposed to the interim BD use table. To understand the potential impacts of extending the designated street front, staff secured a consultant to conduct a market demand analysis to evaluate 1) if the restrictions would inhibit the market demand for residential development, 2) if there is existing market demand for a mixed commercial building and 3) if there is market demand for a solely commercial building in the BD2 zone. The market demand analysis (Attachment 6) found that historically and currently the retail and office market has been stable with the retail market the stronger of the two commercial uses based on the Days on Market (DOM) indicator. The analysis found the rental market is in short supply (looking at a downtown study area) and high demand. The consultant work also looked at potential development examples (Attachment 8). With ground floor height requirements in the designated street front, it is likely that mixed use developments with commercial on the ground floor would lose a floor of rental units, impacting the financial feasibility of potential developments. The key finding from the study noted the risk associated with the long absorption time for the retail spaces (average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make the mixed -use project not feasible for the average boutique developer. Given the challenge of constructing a three-story building with a 12-foot ground floor height and two floors of residential above and still meeting the 30-foot height limit for the BD2 zone. Extending the designated street front to all BD2 properties may significantly impact the development potential of these properties. The Planning Board and Economic Development Commission discussed the possibility of pursuing zoning changes to facilitate two floors of residential above the commercial space. If the recommendation remains to expand the designated street front, looking at zoning changes to facilitate two floors above the commercial space should be pursued before completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Interim BD Designated Street Front Map Ord. 4262 Attachment 2 - BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent Attachment 3 - 2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 14 6.A Attachment 4 - 2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes Attachment 5 - 2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt Attachment 6 - Submarket Demand Analysis Final Attachment 7 - OTAK Edmonds BD2 Zoning Recommendations Attachment 8 - Color Renderings of Development Examples Attachment 9 - Additional Research on Comparable Cities Attachment 10 - BD2 Zoning Memo Attachment 11- Excerpt minutes 6.8 PB and 7.20 EDC Attachment 12 - 8.10.22 excerpt PB-EDC minutes Attachment 13 - Hearing Notice Attachment 14 - Proposed designated street front map and use table (2) Packet Pg. 15 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.4262 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255. WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots that do not front on a designated street front; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on April 15, 2022; and N WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and N WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended two more times by virtue of Ordinances 4254 and 4255; and WHEREAS, the moratorium extensions were intended to allow planning staff and the city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD zones and to carefully evaluate the intent behind the designated street front regulations and the ramifications of possible changes to those regulations, particularly in the BD2 zone; and WHEREAS, that research led to a heightened understanding of the intent behind the BD designated street front map and the BD permitted use table; and WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed street front map; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to encourage the continued vibrancy of the downtown commercial core by expanding the limits of the designated street front map to require at least some commercial use of new structures within the expansion area; and WHEREAS, the city council would also like to remove an ambiguity in the permitted use table; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Pg. 16 6.A.a Section 1. Designated Street Front Map Revision. Map 16.43-1, contained within ECDC 16.43.030, and entitled "Designated Street Front for BD Zones," is hereby amended to extend the designated street front as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (extended street fronts are shown in crosshatch). Section 2. BD Permitted Use Table Revision. Table 16.43-1, contained in ECDC 16.43.020, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in kedffetigh)• N Section 3. Repeal of Moratorium. Ordinance 4247, which had established a N moratorium on certain development in the BD2 zone, and Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255 which collectively extended that moratorium through June 2, 2022, are collectively hereby repealed. Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 5 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on July 19, 2022 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. 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. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: C CLE , SCOVP SSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 20, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 24, 2022 PUBLISHED: May 27, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2022 N W N It Packet Pg. 18 6.A.a ORDINANCE NO. 4262 _W W �L :i Q. N tD N L O Q Cm C Y 0 L U- r w w L U) d R 2M 0 N m E �L d Q Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4262 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 241h day of May, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4262. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 24th day of May, 2022. W N 0 CLERK, SC-1-PASSEY a Packet Pg. 20 Designated Street Front Ap ///f\��,(��,.�4�, N w Q 0 z N 1 fn w Q G 4 w Q = � M WALNUT co)EIP, ST F >a -3m �BD3 L WAY I Packet Pg. 21 d Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/3 6.A.a 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 GBDI BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A A Offices A X A A A A Legal/law firms A X A A A A Financial A X \ A A A Advising A X A A A A Mortgage A X A A A A Banks (without tellers) A X A A A A Accounting A X A A A A Counseling A X A A A A Architecture A X A A A A Engineering A X A A A A Advertising A X \ \ A \ Insurance A X \ \ A A Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club) A X \ A A A Service uses A A«1 A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A A Automobile sales and service X X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C X A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C X A A A C Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC' A A A A A A Residential Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must he-, Inented onsecend floor or behind first ^ [ feet fromside-walk or rights e f waysee ECDC 16.43.030.13 for further location standards A X A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A A N to N The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 22 Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 2/3 6.A.a Permitted Uses BD1 BDI GFSF0) BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A X A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B X B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B X B B B X Commercial parking lots C X C C C X Wholesale uses X X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) X X C A C X Laboratories X X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X X C X X Day-care centers C X C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X X C C A X Medical uses, e.g., A X A A A A Physicians A X A A A A Dental A X a A A A Optometrist (without retail) A X A A A A Physical therapy (without retail) A X A A A A Counseling A X \ 1 1 1 Other similar medical services A X \ 1 1 \ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C X C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use N W N The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 23 Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 3/3 6.A.a C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted NOTES: (1) BD Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD Zone GFSF requirements. (2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business are not allowed within BD 1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed. For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to a the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be -- permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and m when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the 04 following: .� a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. B. Exception to the BD GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD zone may apply for an exception from the restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The space is less than 500 square feet; 2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk; 3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and 4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, 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 EDH955511 ORD NO 4262 4263 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 05/27/2022 and ending on 05/27/2022 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers Linda Phillips during all of said period. I�ivrary Public Stair: of 1lcaf• US hinritvn ray Appclrllnprti �,;liirkS E��&�2G25 The amount the fee for s h publication is `ORIMl6LJUFi Nun itill $34.40. ` Subscribed and sworn day of before, me on this Nofary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 NICHOLASAALK Packet Pg. 25 Classified Proof 6.A.a ORDINANCE SUMMARY of" City of Edmonds, Washiroon On me 241h day of Mayy, 2 ,'Q the Clly Cduft" of the Ciy o} EdRtnncu, p'dB9ad If}a follkI Crdlnaf11. 1fr6 atmmades Of Bail Ordinances tonslsiing QI int are Provided "foftwe: OR iNAN NO.42B AN CROINANCE CIF I DS, WASHINGTON. ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCES 425a. 4254. AND 4255, AN ORDINANCE OF�NRNE 4 OS, WASH INGTON, AMENDING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 1830 FCDC, ENTITLED '$TO RMWATE R MANAGEMENT,' IN ITS ENT1RE7Y. The full Vaxl of these ordnance will be sent upon requrat DATED this 241h Day of May.2022. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Published: May 27, 2022- EDH956511 N W N It Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 05/27/2022 01:23:13 pm Page: 2 Packet Pg. 26 6.A.b Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM April 13, 2022 City Council Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent Multifamily Only Development in the BD2 Zone The City Council has questioned whether the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) allows multifamily residential only buildings within the BD2 zone. Based on a complete reading of Chapter 16.43 ECDC, staff and the city attorney have concluded that the current BD2 zoning regulations allow multifamily residential only buildings in the areas of the BD2 zone that do not front on the streets mapped as the designated street front. According to ECDC 16.43.020 multifamily dwelling units are a permitted primary use within the BD2 zone. While the use table is ambiguous by containing language that multiple dwelling units "must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45 feet from the sidewalk or rights -of - way" a complete reading of Chapter 16.43 ECDC and an analysis of its history (see below) make it clear that the locational restriction in the use table should only apply to properties within the BD1 zone. We do acknowledge, however, that this ambiguity should be eliminated with a clarifying amendment in the near future. 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1 Permitted Uses BDl GFD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BDS Residential Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet A X A A A A from sidewalk or rights -of -way A = Permitted primary use X = Not permitted Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 27 6.A.b (1) BD Zone GFSF— Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings setback 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements. Within the use table there is a column for the BD1 GFSF which specifically prohibits the multifamily dwelling units within the BD1 GFSF. Footnote one under the table defines the BD1 GFSF as the Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights- of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Footnote 3 under the development standards table ECDC 16.43.030.A Table 16.43-2 specifically acknowledges that there may be an entirely residential building in the BD zones and when those are located in the BD4 zone, the must apply the RM-1.5 setbacks. If the "must be located ..." language in the table were intended to apply to all BD zones, instead of just BD1, this footnote could not be reconciled with the table, because it would not be possible to have an entirely residential building in the BD4 zone. All the ground floor discussions in Chapter 16.43 ECDC are related to the area that is within the designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.1 provides: For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of "ground floor" contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. ECDC 16.43.030.13.2 further elaborates on the designated street front: Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD zones. The designated street front is defined as the 45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. (Map 16.43-1 provided on next page). Subsections of ECDC 16.43.030.133 through 13.6 include restrictions that pertain to development within the designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.7 specifically address development within the designated street front of the BD2 and BD3 zones noting: Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. While the "must be located ..." language in the table has allowed some to argue that multi- family residential is only a permitted use "on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 28 6.A.b or rights -of -way," the source of that language (Ordinance 3955) and the other changes that were made to the permitted use table at that time, strongly suggest that that limitation was not intended to apply outside the BD1 zone. Therefore, where there is no designated street front, the entire ground floor may allow any permitted use. Since multifamily development is a permitted primary use according to ECDC 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1, properties within the BD2, BD4 and BD5 zones that are outside of a designated street front may be entirely residential (Note: There are no BD3 zone properties that do not contain at least some designated street front). Below is a review of the legislative history which provides support for this code interpretation Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.b Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 30 6.A.b Ordinance No. 3624 (2007) The first ordinance to establish the BD zones was Ordinance No. 3624. There was no reference to a designated street front in the first version of the BD zones, but there are some hints as to what was intended for use on the ground floor. ECDC 16.43.030.B.1 (all code refences in this portion of the memo are to the version of the code adopted in Ord. No. 3624) provided: B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location. The use of "when" suggests something other than commercial use could be used on the ground floor. And, in fact, that appears to have been the case at least in BD5, and arguably in BD4. ECDC 16.43.030.B.3 further elaborated on ground floor commercial use noting: 3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from the street front of the building. In Ordinance 3624, BD1 is required to be all commercial uses on the ground floor, but in the BD2 and BD3 zones, only the first 60 feet were required to be commercial. Regarding the BD4 zone, ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 provided additional flexibility. And footnote 3 of ECDC 16.43.030.A expressly contemplates an "entirely residential building." Similarly, the code relating to the BD5 zone and commercial space provides the option to provide commercial as noted for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.2, but provides more detail when that cannot be met (orientation to the street and encouraging live/work type development). Interim Ordinance No. 3691 (20 In 2008 there was a request for an official interpretation regarding ground floor commercial use in the BD1 zone. The interpretation (2008-1 BD1 ground floor) was challenged, which lead to further discussion on the ground floor use at city council. Upon review of the interpretation, City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3691 and referred the matter to the Planning Board for further review. Ordinance No. 3691 added new section ECDC 16.43.035 which provided: Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 31 6.A.b 16.43.035 Application of requirements to the 1313-1 zone. The application and interpretation of Chapter 16.43 BD Downtown Business to any development permit or application within the BD-1 zone shall conform to the requirements of this section. These requirements are enacted in order to clarify the intent of the City Council and the application of existing language of the Code. In the event of conflict or ambiguity with any provision of this chapter, or the definition sections of the Community Development Code, these provisions shall control. The ground floor of the development in the BD-1 zone shall be devoted entirely to commercial uses as provided by the first sentence of ECDC 16.43.030(B)(3). The ground floor shall be no less than fifteen feet in height measured in accordance with ECDC 16.43.030. Except to the minimum extent necessary to exercise the rights granted pursuant to ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b),1 the ground floor shall be in one plane, extending the entire width and breadth of the building. Discussions leading up to the adoption of this interim ordinance (07.15.2008, 07.22.2008) focused on the ceiling height of the ground floor what could happen behind the commercial space. Ordinance No. 3700 (2008) The Planning Boards review of the ground floor commercial requirements forwarded to them by the Council with Interim Ordinance No. 3691 resulted in Ordinance No. 3700 and the first map of the designated street front. While the map of the designated street front only required properties within the BD1 zone to have a 30 foot deep designated street front, the language in the text of the ordinance described a designated street front throughout all of the BD zones. Ordinance No. 3700 also added clarification that for the purpose of the "ground floor" requirements of the BD zones, this was related to the finish grade along a designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13 adopted by Ordinance No. 3700 provided: Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front far Properties in the BDl Zane r " 30' II■■■ MEN ■ ■o n� 1■■l ®' Designated Street Front (depth of 30 leetme-d perpendicular tc property line) B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure i ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b) stated, at that time, as follows: "The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry /ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk." Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.b that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building ( this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground " floor" is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this Chapter, the definition of "ground floor" contained in ECDC 21. 35. 017 does not apply. 2. Designated street front. Map .16. 43 - 1 shows the designated street front (emphasis in the original) for all properties lying within the BD1 zone, which is 30 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right -of -way, excluding alleys. The final sentence of B.2, above is particularly important to understanding today's code because it shows that, starting in 2008 (with Ordinance 3700), every BD zoned property had some form of designated street front. (This would change in 2011.) Ordinance No. 3700 also added clarifying language on what uses could occur outside of the designated street front. In ECDC 16.43.030.B.6 and B.7: 6. Within the BD 1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. Properties within the BD1 are required to only be commercial use on the ground floor (with the exception of parking behind the designated street front), while the BD2 and BD3 zones could have any permitted use outside of the designated street front. Note that the permitted use table in Ordinance 3700 identified "multiple dwelling units" as a "permitted primary use" in the BD2 zone. Hence, because every BD2 zoned property had a 60-foot-deep designated street front, multiple dwelling units could not be located within that front 60-foot area of the ground floor. That area had to be commercial. Residential uses outside of the designated street front were explicitly discussed at the Planning Board. Below is an excerpt from the August 13, 2008 Planning Board meeting: Board Member Lovell summarized that the existing code requires that the entire ground floor of a project in the BD1 zone be dedicated to commercial space. However, the BD2 and BD3 zones only require commercial space to a depth of 60 feet, measured from the front of a building. Mr. Chave agreed that in the BD2 and BD3 zones, residential uses could be constructed behind the 60 foot deep commercial area. The area could also be used for parking space. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on this proposed amendment. Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.b • Clarify the uses allowed on the ground floor located behind the first 60 feet. Parking should be allowed behind the first 60 feet. In addition, the BD2 and BD3 zones should continue to allow residential uses behind the first 60 feet. Ordinance No. 3700 also clarified that the designated street front and the ground floor requirements did not apply to corner lots at the edge of the BD1 district (Council minutes 10.21.2008). A discussion on this issue is captured in the Planning Board's September 10, 2008 meeting minutes: 5. Clarify that for corner lots, the 45-foot requirement noted above would not apply to street fronts of buildings when they are located on side streets at the edge of the BD1 zone district. However, all street fronts along Main and 4th will always have the 45-foot requirements applied, corner or not. This can be accomplished by means of a specific map showing where the designated street front of each lot in the BD1 zone is located. Mr. Chave clarified that the 45-foot minimum depth requirement would not apply to street fronts of buildings that are located on side streets of properties on the periphery of the BD1 zone. He displayed a map that was prepared by staff to identify where the 45-foot minimum depth requirement would not be applied. Board Member Dewhirst said he is unclear as to the intent behind this proposed amendment. If the properties at the corner of 6th Avenue and Main Street and 5th Avenue and Walnut Street are not required to provide commercial space on both street fronts, the City would be giving up the potential to provide good commercial space in the downtown area. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it would not be necessary to require commercial space to loop around the corner at 6th Avenue and Main Street, because 6th Avenue is not a well traveled commercial corridor. Board Member Dewhirst disagreed. Mr. Chave noted that at 6th Avenue, once you get off of Main Street the uses become more residential and office in nature. Board Member Dewhirst agreed that office and residential uses exist today, but the Board must also keep in mind their desires for the future. He noted that the residential developments would generate a lot of pedestrian traffic past the corner of 6th Avenue and Main Street. Chair Guenther reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan indicates the City's goal is to encourage retail and commercial growth from the heart of the downtown to the waterfront. Mr. Chave agreed and said the Comprehensive Plan also talks about connecting the commercial uses to the arts center on 4th Avenue. Board Member Reed suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the proposed amendment should be changed to make it clear that the provision would not apply to properties on the western periphery of the BD1 zone since the goal is to encourage connectively to the waterfront. Note that the map ultimately adopted as part of Ordinance 3700 does not show a designated street front on 6t" Avenue. So, the planning board and council appear to have agreed with Mr. Chave on that point. But the map does show the designated street front wrapping around from Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.b Main Street onto V Avenue. This Planning Board discussion is important as we consider the changes made subsequently under Ordinance No. 3865, because it was clearly understood at the time that development requirements, even on the same parcel and within the same zone, would depend on the mapped designated street front. Upon return the City Council, the discussion focused on the appropriate depth of the designated street front (10.21.2008 Council minutes). Ordinance No. 3865 (2011) On August 11, 2010, several topics related to the BD zones were discussed with the CS/DS Council Committee. It was noted that that there were several items staff wished to initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial uses, the zoning requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone (CS/DS minutes 08.11.2010). These matters were referred to the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission for review. Many of the discussions focused on the allowed uses within the BD1 zone, particularly what uses should be allowed as retail. The analysis below focuses on discussions related to the designated street front. When the issue was introduced to the Planning Board, it was noted: ...the designated street fronts are mapped for the BD1 zones, but not for the other BD zones. At this time, the BD1 zone has a 30 foot commercial depth requirement, while elsewhere the requirement is 60 feet. Staff is recommending the provisions have a more consistent framework. For example, the mapping should expand to cover other BD zones, and the commercial depth requirement should not be greater in the BD zones outside of BD1. (PB 03.09.2011 minutes) On introduction, the commercial depths requirements were identified for the different zones, and the designated street front mapping change was described as an expansion. At the joint meeting with the Planning and Economic Development Commission it was clarified that the designated street front map identifies area where the commercial depth requirement would be applicable: Mr. Chave advised that the proposed amendments also include an update of the Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1), which identifies all designated street fronts within the BD zones for which the commercial depth requirement would be applicable. He noted that the map was originally adopted for the BD1 zone, but staff is recommending to include all BD zones. (Joint PB/EDC 04.13.2011 minutes) So, like the original mapping of the designated street front in Ord. 3700, it is recognized that the commercial requirements only are required in the mapped designated street front. At the June 8, 2011 Planning Board public hearing it was noted that: Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.b Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones (Map 16.43-1), which has been expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth requirements. And... He reminded the Board that multi -family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in the BD Zones. (06.08.2011 PB minutes) On questioning a specific area on the map, it was noted if it were not mapped as designated street front, the area is made available for other types of uses: Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and recalled the Board previously discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and is not really an ideal location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as commercial street front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at a joint meeting. He said staff recommends that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the BD3 zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not compatible with retail and/or commercial uses. (06.08.2011 PB Minutes). This discussion of "other types of uses" being "made available" in the BD3 zone by virtue of a possible map change demonstrates that the Planning Board was aware that other than commercial uses would be permitted on properties outside of the designated street front and that they considered what the appropriate extent of the designated street front map should be given those possible "other types of uses." More discussion on the designated street front occurred at the July 26, 2011 City Council meeting, the minutes of which provide insight into the Council's understanding of the designated street map. The following are excerpts from those minutes (pages 5 and 6 have the most helpful passages): Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.b long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side. Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted. On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel, Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are tied to street sections rather than property lines. (07.26.2011 Council Minutes) Further on there is discussion on reasoning for the extent of the designated street front and that ultimately it is a matter of legislative discretion: Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if commercial is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides. He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter. And... Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut off a block short of James and mid -block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts. (07.26.2011 Council minutes) Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 37 6.A.b Testimony offered during the public hearing also sheds light on the council's understanding of the proposal before them. Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has had a vacancy for four years. The minutes of the July 26, 2011 public hearing on Ordinance 3865 strongly suggest that the City Council understood that non-commercial uses would be allowed, even in the front 45-feet of the ground floor, outside of the designated street front. It was also made clear that this mapping was a subjective exercise and that the Council had the legislative discretion to alter the designated street front maps if it saw fit to do so. The legislative intent of the adoption of the designated street front maps is clear. The ground floor commercial requirements only apply within the designated street front. Outside of the designated street, any permitted use may be allowed. And, prior to Ordinance 3955, multiple dwelling units were unambiguously allowed in the BD2 zone. Ordinance No. 3955 (2014) The primary confusion on the residential -only interpretation results from the addition of this phrase to the permitted use table in ECDC 16.43.020.A: "must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights -of -way". That language was inserted with the adoption of Ordinance No. 3955. Discussions on the code revisions associated with Ord. 3955 were a continuation of the BD1 retail use discussions initiated in 2011, which resulted in Ord. 3865. The discussions around this ordinance were solely related to clarifying the allowed retail uses in the BD1 zone which is apparent from a reading of the title of Ord. No. 3955: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.020 RELATING TO LIMITING CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 1 (BD1 — DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE) ZONE. From review of the Planning Board minutes, it is apparent that the locational restrictions inserted into Table 16.43-1 were intended to be added as a clarifying footnote. Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 38 6.A.b Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property owner's ability to provide multi -family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as BD1 GFSF. However, residential uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr. Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable chapter in the code to provide more clarity. (09.11.2013 PB Minutes) While this clarifying footnote ultimately proved to cause the confusion present today, it was probably an indication of the caution with which the Planning Board was approaching this proposed new allowance of residential in any portion of the BD1 ground floor. Keep in mind that prior to Ordinance 3955, no residential would have been allowed on any portion of the BD1 ground floor. So, this was a significant change that would likely have caused some concern. But in this effort to be extra cautious with BD1, the ambiguity that the "must be located" phrase created for other zones was overlooked. The fact that Ordinance 3955 was solely focused on BD1 is also underscored by other rows of the permitted use table. On page 5 of Ordinance 3955, there are several rows added to the table to describe the various types of office uses that are not allowed in the BD1 GFSF. But note that those rows aren't even completed for the other BD zones. This corroborates the conclusion that Ordinance 3955 was not intended to make any changes outside of the BD1 zone. Several of the whereas clauses also mention only the BD1 zone as opposed to all of the BD zones. When these code amendments were presented to the City Council (November 4, 2013 and January 7, 2014) there was no discussion on limiting residential use in all BD zones. Rather, all the discussion was focused on retail uses within the BD1 zone. rnnrlucinn Given the legislative history around designated street front, it is clear that the City Council was aware that all permitted uses may be allowed outside the BD2 designated street front. Furthermore, the insertion of locational restrictions for multifamily dwelling units into Table 16.43-1 was intended only to apply to the BD1 zone. Therefore the legislative history supports the interpretation that a multifamily -only development may be located in the BD2 zone if the property does not abut one of the mapped designated street fronts. Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 39 6.A.c with the auditor the City's hired to review those numbers. It is not as simple as looking at the incoming number of cases, it is also the things being juggled and the ones in the system appearing for probation. If that trend continues, SCPDA will reduce staffing in Edmonds and reduce public defender costs. Councilmember L. Johnson said two things stood out to her including Ms. Kyle's comment about the most vulnerable may have the worst outcome and not using the criminal justice system for systemic issues. When talking about poverty and specifically those who are unhoused and everything that comes with that, she asked what is the best way to address that. Some people are very uncomfortable with seeing people who are unhoused and want it addressed in a certain way. Ms. Kyle said housing is the key; if the intent is housing the unhoused, they need a home to go to, but that requires being creative as it is not a one size fits all. For example, someone who is unhoused because they are autistic and no longer have family support, need a different housing option than a shelter with ambient noise that may dysregulate an autistic person but would be good for a person who just needs recovery as being in a community can be a positive for people in recovery. It is important to see people as individuals and recognize their strengths. Generalizations are used as a way to wrap our head around things, but these are human beings who are complex and have the possibility of success. Ms. Kyle continued, one of the hardest parts of working with unhoused populations is many of them have lost hope. As one thinks of a chronically unhoused person or someone who doesn't want help, it is because they have been harmed previously and are taking survival protective action and maybe the behaviors that people don't like to see is just that trauma showing up and they need to be asked about their path. There are 41 navigation teams in Snohomish County; there needs to be housing to navigate them to. Creating opportunities through education is important; Edmonds College has some great low barrier programs to help with basics such as how to sign up for medical insurance, how to get into college, etc. Every year of education is likely a protective action and the less likely a person will be her client and more likely they will be out in the community earning a living and supporting themselves. The City is trying to be creative such as establishing the community court and a court calendar for people to get relicensed and consider their ability to pay. The highest crime they see referred is Theft III; getting creative around diversion programs for simple thefts is important. The stereotypical way of thinking is that if people are punished, they will stop the behavior. However, as public defenders they see that punishment does not change behavior, relationships change behavior and their needs to be investment in those relationships. Mayor Nelson thanked Ms. Kyle for sharing their social worker with the City's homelessness taskforce earlier this year. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION AS ITEM 8.1 AND TO RENUMBER THE REMAINING COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in -person audience comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.c Christi Flynn, Edmonds, representing her husband and her neighbors the McLaughlin, spoke about Perrinville Creek, fish, City structures and their properties. Their properties, west of Talbot Road at the end of Perrinville Creek before it goes beneath the railroad tracks, have been significantly impacted by the creek in the last two years. Exhibit A in her handout is an overview map from a report the City did in 2010 studying similar issues. Increased heavy rain events and resulting stormwater runoff create damaging high water flows in the creek when coupled with the undersized and/or improperly maintained City structures, culverts and crossings. Tons of sediment, large rocks and wood debris are flushed downstream choking out potential salmon habitat and damaging properties. For the last 18 months, they have been working with the Edmonds public works department to find a long term solution to the flooding, fish habitat and property destruction. They seek a collaborative and cooperative process with all the stakeholders involved. Ms. Flynn continued, they strongly believe any plan for the creek must include the following, 1) they basically agreed to a concept shown or known as option/alignment C in the handout in 2021. However, details such as making it more natural looking, more sinuous, possibly backup bypass issues and maintenance issues may need to be worked out. 2) a mitigation plan or diversion plan for the huge volume of water and sediment that flows through the creek during heavy rainfall events. Former Public Works Director Phil Williams informed them that 73% of the water in the creek originates in Lynnwood. During heavy rain events, rushing waters erode the banks in South County Park sending tons of sand and rock through the creek which end up damming and blocking the City's structures in the creek and ruining any hope of salmon habitat. 3) a substantially improved culvert or crossing under the railroad tracks. 4) replace and lower the culvert under Talbot Road. The current configuration is a barrier to high flows downstream and any fish migration upstream. As property owners, they want to work with the City and all stakeholders in a common-sense approach. It is does not make sense to carve out a new, temporary creek bed through their properties. She submitted written materials Chris Walton, Edmonds, referenced the project at Main Street & 6t'', and said consideration needs to be given to where the town wants to be in 10-20 years and have a vision for that. He was concerned because developers and real estate development organizations throughout the region are changing the town fast and not necessarily in a great way. They have a lot of money and can influence people who make decisions; the only thing that can be done to slow the negative effects of developers is to have very good codes, a vision, and a good architectural review board that keeps them from using the maximization of profits as the only goal. He was not anti -business, but the reality is maximizing profits results in pushing the limits of codes as far as possible. He felt Main Street was a good example of where the City is not headed in the next 10-20 years, where there will be an immensely dense downtown with a lot of people in condos, very limited businesses with only high end restaurants and wine bars, and pushing out the type of businesses that are needed in Edmonds. He urged the council to create a solid vision and communicate that vision to the engineering groups creating the codes to preserve the quality of Edmonds going forward. Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, commented Edmonds is a small town with historic roots. It is a suburb and not Seattle which is why people are drawn to live and visit. The business core is very small and now BD2 is not required to have a commercial first floor. She cited a comment from the developer that the high density of the proposed project is seen as a guide for further development allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan. She asked if there was a secret plan to change the zoning and increase density for RM 1.5 on this square blook and for the rest of Edmonds. After reading through all the ordinances and council meetings, there is never enough time set aside to have a clear and transparent City plan to align the wishes of the residents with the need to increase the density for revenue. Everything is pushed through without attention to detail or consideration of the ramifications on surrounding properties. She questioned why these three lots downtown were mixed commercial if the intent was always to allow multifamily building. Ordinance 3955 clearly states permitted residential uses for downtown mixed commercial are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.c single family dwelling and multiple dwelling units but they have to be located on the second floor behind the first 45 feet from the sidewalks. Staff has said that was not the intent of the ordinance, it was different than what was written further on, apparently an interpretation. As she understood it from a legal perspective, intent is not the law. Clarifying it now after the fact when this is a current development issue cannot be legal, there is too much doublespeak. Citizens deserve clarity and to know the true intent of the mayor's intention and his direction to staff. Ms. Fireman asked that the emergency ordinance be extended so that design standards can be properly addressed. She was not asking for the ordinance to be extended for a maximum of six months and not to have the developer and his architect involved as it is a conflict of interest. If it takes a year or more, so be it; the city council has the power to have it done right once and for all. Interim and future design features should require the scale be addressed; scale is the relationship of a building in terms of size, height, bulk, density and aesthetics to its surroundings. A building scale is contextual in nature and is a key factor in determining how well it blends in with the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan says stereotype, boxy, multiple unit residential buildings are to be avoided and it's essential that commercial developments continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character that the citizens of Edmonds so strongly desire to retain. She questioned what else was waiting in the pipeline that would use these interim design standards before the design standards and comprehensive plan is looked at again and how long will that take and whether it would be after all the 25 identified parcels had been developed. She gestured toward a wall in council chambers, stating it likely was not even 25 feet high; looking across from her condo, the wall will be 40 feet high and she will not be any further away from it than the chairs. Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said an important decision is about to be made concerning permittable uses in BD2 mixed commercial zone. If 100% residential is allowed to be built there, the ability to protect and grow diversity and equity in that important zone is at stake. Losing ground floor commercial will have devastating effects on the ability of businesses to grown and thrive in a zone set aside for them by the predecessors. Ground floor commercial must be protected. The City is changing rapidly as more restaurants and services fill the downtown core extending up Main Street to the BD2 zone. With the new construction of the Commons on the corner and Civic Park nearby, the intersection at 6t' & Main will soon have an even greater prominence for the downtown. It is indeed the eastern gateway to the downtown business district. As he read through the memorandum that City planners and city attorney put together to justify 100% residential, he saw more evidence toward keeping ground floor commercial in the BD2 zone. Both sides of Main Street east of 6t' currently have businesses with 9 on the north side and at least 2 on the south side, an extension of the business corridor. Eliminating commercial on the north side will permanently destroy this corridor. Mr. Brewer referred to page 11, paragraph 1 of the memorandum which states, in the core area the intent was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses. There are few residential uses near this intersection. Conversely, designated street fronts should be reserved for areas where there are businesses on both sides of the street. It makes perfect sense to extend the line east on Main and include this part of the BD2 zone. There are a couple areas of town where this extension could help clarify the code and eliminate the need to rewrite spot zoning for BD2 areas left behind. Regarding the blue line identifying the designated street front, on page 12 it states council has the legislative discretion to alter the designated street front map if it sees fit to do so. Recognizing it as a no brainer; he asked the council to extend the line and save the eastern gateway to the downtown core for business on the ground floor. Businesses are already across the street and it is by far the easiest way to clean up the confusion. Jenna Jotika Nand, Edmonds, spoke regarding a troubling trend of underage prostitution along the Highway 99 corridor, specifically being facilitated by bikini barista shops. She interviewed multiple young women who claim they are of age but look to be between 12 and 14 years old. These young Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 10 Packet Pg. 42 6.A.c women are heavily tattooed and are often functionally illiterate. This is a scrouge in the community where she grew up and was a girl scout, not a place where girls are supposed to be selling sex in barista shops claiming they are 18 years old when they have clearly not even gone through puberty. This is a very sensitive topic that has to be approached in a way that the young girls do feel they are being criminalized but to target the pimps. She would like the City to make an effort to review business licenses and L&I compliance with all of these underage prostitution joints that are springing up on Highway 99, specifically in the Edmonds section of Highway 99, but it is a problem from Everett to Seattle. She was shocked to see one of these prostitution joints spring up in Edmonds. Robert Stivers, Edmonds, said he loves living in Edmonds has been here for nearly a half century. Downtown is like one of Rick Steves' precious backdoors to Europe but in the USA and its history goes back to the 19t' century. A visitor once compared it to Main Street in Disneyland, only more real. It is his go -to place for shopping and services; he loves stopping at Teri's Toybox to see the latest models of exotic animals, seeing what David Varnau and Andy Eccleshall have created, the wonders of geology in the Wishing Stone, buying a gift card for his wife at Sound Styles, and getting train tickets at the Amtrak station, all essentially public spaces, one of the reasons why cities exist. Edmonds has a pedestrian scale vibrant downtown and public spaces like parks and playing fields. The City needs more public spaces as the population increases especially downtown; it does not make sense to increase one without increasing the other. The proposed development flies in the face of this; it is the beginning of the alteration of downtown Edmonds culture. He urged the council not to erode space dedicated to public uses or erode downtown Edmonds with increased population without also providing this type of space. He also did not want to walk under private balconies having lived in New York City too long for that, or go by streetside private reserves even down an alley. He supported utilizing for private use the most underutilized of all developable spaces in the modern city, the rooftops. Acknowledging it would cost more for a developer, the future of downtown Edmonds is at stake and the result will be a healthier and cleaner downtown with public spaces to accommodate all who want to visit and the preservation of the unique Edmonds downtown culture. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, spoke regarding the BD2 moratorium and BD2 design standards. The minutes of the April 2, 2013 city council meeting are clear, only BD4 was presented to the council with having two options, either commercial on the ground floor or multifamily only. She quoted from page 7 where Rob Chave stated clearly for the councilmembers to understand, "in the BD4 there are two options, a commercial building that requires the 15 foot step -back or a multifamily building up to 30 feet with a front yard setback." She pointed out he never mentions nor is there any reference during the entire city council meeting before the ordinance is passed that BD2 also has these two options, only BD4 has the second use of multifamily clearly defined and referenced in writing in the code and there are different standards if either commercial or multifamily only. BD2 is not included in that exception. If the intent was that BD2 could also have both interpretations, why did Mr. Chave not say that? Because it never could. Only BD4 is clarified in the code that there are different parameters, setbacks, design standards and density with the multifamily only option versus commercial. She questioned why BD2 was not done at the same time. There is nothing in writing to clearly define that there are two options in the BD2 just like BD4. The staff -created multifamily only areas in the BD2 zone will now have the most intense density of any multifamily building in any downtown zoning. The reason is they are attempting to use the commercial zoning to go right up to the sidewalk with entirely residential. Dr. Dotsch urged the council to think about these newly zoned 28 multifamily lots within the BD2 subarea now having the highest density anywhere downtown. To say this is somehow a transition area is incorrect as it goes from the less intense density of BD1 to this new BD2 designation that is much denser to then the adjacent surrounding RM-1.5 zoning which is less dense. She imagined this ring of 28 lots being out of sorts with downtown density, use and bulk from Sunset Avenue, down 2" d South, down 3' Avenue North, on 6t' Avenue and up Main Street and Dayton Street with the solution for the setback idea Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.c to actually shrink the current 15 foot setback to only 5 feet from the RM-1.5 middle housing zone adjacent to these lots. The neighbors might want to know that their homes next to this newly defined zoning is putting these giant housing projects only 5 feet from their property line with decks and roof top decks hanging over their homes. This is not a small change, but newly created zone with new zoning requirements. Consideration also needs to be given to the increased density and massing on these 28 downtown lots and whether it even complies with the GMA or is compatible with current infrastructure including public facilities and services needed to serve these developments. She urged the council to make a fully informed decision tonight; if councilmembers were unable to say they were fully informed, she urged them not to allow this public process to be stopped by removing a full and fair discission of what this will truly look like. Just like the connector discussion sped up before the public really knew the impact and many councilmembers helped stop that from happening. Once these decisions are allowed to go ahead without clarity, it is hard to pull back, but it can be done. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said on April 5t' after the public hearing was closed, the city council took unplanned and unannounced action which upset citizens and resulted in citizens speaking out from the audience. New information including staff opinions about historical legislative intent were discussed after the citizens' time to comment ended. During the public hearing, he asked city council how citizens were supposed to know how to prepare public comments for the public hearing as neither the public notice nor the agenda packet identified the findings the council was to consider adopting. Council did not answer his question but added an additional unannounced element to the public hearing process that citizens were also unaware of before the public hearing. He asked the council to address this conduct and take steps to ensure it never happens again during the middle of a public hearing. Next, Mr. Reidy said state law states a moratorium may be renewed for one or more six month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. He referred to the use of the word "renewal," which is different than extension. Renewal allows for a new moratorium as opposed to the mere extension of extra time to the pervious moratorium. A moratorium adopted without a work plan may be effective for not longer than six months. A moratorium can be for one month, two months, four months, any length of time not longer than six months. This fact was known to the Edmonds city council prior to council's vote to pass Ordinance 4247 on February 15t''. Mr. Reidy continued, as this fact was known upfront, it was critical that city council established a proper time period for the original moratorium. Edmonds city council chose two months; this was allowed by the not longer than six months authority provided by the statute. Once Edmonds city council made its legal choice of two months, that time period could not be extended. Who would imagine Edmonds city council thinking a moratorium could be extended rather than replacing the original moratorium with a new moratorium. Making it worse, council failed to adopt findings of fact justifying the original moratorium before it expired. Council also failed to justify continuing the original moratorium after the April 5t' public hearing up to April 15t''. He urged the council to read the emergency declaration in Ordinance 4218 and questioned whether there was really an emergency if the council had the legal right to merely extend the four months effective period of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 and do so without holding a subsequent public hearing and making findings of fact. He questioned whether the council is being advised that they can have their cake and eat it too. He urged the council to stop abusing the moratorium and interim zoning process, citing Ordinance 4210 as another great example. Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, stating trees are legally the property of those whose land they grown on and can only be given voluntarily to the City by owners for protection. Edmonds has placed the public burden of tree canopy coverage on a small group of property owners by seizing and then charging them for the rights to their trees and the land they shadow. She provided an analogy; the City decides your neighbors would benefit from more vehicles. Although neighbors have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 44 6.A.c 13. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SCJ FOR HWY 99 GATEWAY -REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT 14. PARK PLANNER AND CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION APPROVAL 15. LEAD BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTION 16. RESOLUTION EXTENDING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SICK LEAVE POLICY 17. PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 18. WWTP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(D At 8:38 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex as well as virtually. Elected officials present at the executive session were Mayor Nelson, and Councilmembers K. Johnson, Tibbott, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Chen. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday. At 8:59 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes to 9:14 p.m. At 9:14 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be extended for 10 minutes to 9:24 p.m. At 9:24 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be extended for 10 minutes to 9:34 p.m. The executive session concluded at 9:34 p.m. Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m. Mayor Nelson announced in conferring with Council President Olson, it was agreed to move the ARPA Funding Status and Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Title 4 Licenses to a future meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE ITEMS 3 AND 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE BD2 MORATORIUM (Previously Azenda Item 8.1) City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained any time a city council adopts a moratorium, the statute requires findings be adopted to justify the moratorium. It is not a question of whether to adopt findings, but whether the findings reflect the council's belief in terms of why the moratorium was adopted and whether they clearly and fully articulate the bases for the moratorium. Item 8.1 in the packet contains a draft resolution with several whereas clauses that represent his best effort to capture what he believes to be many of the council's concerns, but he may not have captured all of them. Therefore, the council is free to amend, add, or remove whereas clauses, but ultimately the resolution in some form should be adopted tonight with possible amendments by the city council. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, WHEREAS SOME COUNCILMEMBERS FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RECONSIDER WHETHER THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP SHOULD BE EXTENDED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.c Councilmember Tibbott recalled during council deliberations and looking at the map, councilmembers realized the development of downtown has filled out and his question was what would it take to extend the blue line to other areas of the City thereby extending the street front. Council President Olson expressed her full support for this change, commenting a lot has changed in the downtown over the years. One specific recent change is the Commons and that is one direction in which the line should be extended because it has become almost a hub of the commercial district. Councilmember Paine asked whether the timing mattered as part of the findings, whether it was during the first part of the moratorium or mid -moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the council has six months of moratorium authority. Justifications on day 1 of the moratorium for initially enacting it may be different than on day 60 or day 90 if the council decides to continue the moratorium. The justifications do not have to be the ones that were anticipated on day 1; anything from day 1 to present would be acceptable to include in the resolution. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She noted some councilmembers were around during the BD discussions. The gist of the 2013 ordinances and the latest Ordinances 3955 and 3918 dealt with something that fulfilled the economic development plan and strategic goals, to create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, implementing a retail core. Adding this will help; there is already a very dense downtown and multifamily housing is needed throughout the City. She referred to the Edmonds City Council approved minutes of November 4, 2013 where Stephen Clifton talked about public safety with the office space and the central gathering place coming into the Commons. The vision was for a retail core in the downtown area. Councilmember Chen expressed support for extending the blue line, however, he wanted to see a vibrant downtown with mixed use. The BD2 zone was intended to be mixed use so he would like to see that type of development where commercial and residential are mixed for that purpose. Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. This is a new concern that never came up with the other two projects in a similar area of the BD2 zone. By extending it, commercial only would be allowed, but there would be no requirement for mixed use or multifamily. The City limits where multifamily is allowed and this is one more attempt to further limit it. These concerns were not expressed before and are an example of the way the community has repeatedly reacted to multifamily development. Councilmember Paine said she was troubled by this last minute addition. It is trying to create a solution that is very short sighted before there is additional information from an economic and residential needs assessment of the community. It is clearly no longer 2013 and she does not support this addition to the whereas clauses as the council is not operating with good information. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. City Clerk Scott Passey advised that was Resolution 1490. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.c 3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2) Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed. Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the public at the April 5' meeting. Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the 50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2. Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck, even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to allow roof top decks as an amenity. Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.c Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on multifamily buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet. She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and further amendments can be made. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process. A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS. Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards. Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required modulation on the slope. Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists, it would not be a mandate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.c Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones. Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr. Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that; that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that lifts the moratorium. Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium, or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of the ordinance he sent council this afternoon. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.c COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point without reading what was emailed. Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested addressing the main motion. Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr. Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately. He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both; the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency. The motion was clarified as follows: Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read it quickly. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 50 6.A.c UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH. Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said the council tabled this item. Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda. Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head nods. Council President Olson restated her motion: TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the transparency hat on. Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the afternoon. He did not support the motion. Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday. Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.c Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said. There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting packet materials done and extending the moratorium. Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to review. Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like within a month as that is a much bigger study. Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable supporting that. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days, Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to take immediate effect. Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary. 4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES (Previously Item 8.4) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.d EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE APPROVED MINUTES April 21, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "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." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmember L. Johnson. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.d Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, referred to the email she sent to council that asked they use their minds eye to visualize not only what each development will look like as part of a whole in the landscape, but also how it will impact the neighborhood, not just at the front and side but the back of the building as well. Earlier today as she was driving down Main Street, the spectacular view always takes her breath away. The current businesses on either side at 600, 605 and 611 Main do not interfere with the ambiance, allow enjoyment of the wonderful view and don't distract from it which is why residents live here and tourist come to experience it. She suggested imagining how it would look with the proposed apartments dwarfing the heritage cottage at 601 Main and obliterating the 1895 cottage at 605 Main, two of the last vestiges of Edmonds' heritage and a blight on the landscape forever, particularly if the same was built at 600 Main. The square block between 6' and 7' and Main & Bell is already very high density. Residents pay a premium to live there and spend their money in Edmonds. Some, definitely not all developers, are only in it to maximize their profits and their money goes into the bank; they don't care about the impact on the residents or on the City. Ms. Fireman applauded the council for their wish to add addendums to expand the limits of the designated street front map because businesses are needed, to extend the moratorium for two months for further study, and to eliminate roof top decks, add a provision to follow the slope of the lot against the alley and lot line to help reduce the scale of the building and alleviate the pervasiveness of the 40-foot tall straight flat wall against the alley lot line and allow the adjacent residents to reclaim a little of the lost visual of their surroundings and the light that will be taken away. She urged the council not to allow roof top decks, commenting the development was already oversized and residents want to avoid being kept awake at night. In addition, there is a wind tunnel that comes up the alley and she could envision things flying off the deck. She would like to see the development reduced in height and scale to fit in with the historic downtown and to somehow save the 1895 cottage; it has been a viable business for years and possibly can be moved. She asked the council to give consideration to those who live in the area and are impacted by the development as well as those who will be affected by other imminent development in BD2 spot zones. She recognized there was a lot of divisiveness around these issues, but hoped the council could come together to resolve them. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented this has been quite a charade. He recognized councilmembers had a lot of work to do and had to review a lot of materials in the agenda packet. He wondered if any councilmembers looked at Ordinance 3955 regarding BD1 ground floor street front and compared it to the code. He questioned why the code was not updated when Ordinance 3955 was passed. He questioned who was in charge at the City, who was checking this stuff, whether it was the attorney, the council president, the city clerk or the mayor. Anyone with a 6' grade education looking at the building standards for the BD1 zone knows it is business and mixed use commercial. Nowhere has Kernen Lien shown the council where City staff was told that outside the designated street front there could be an entirely multifamily project. The dimensional requirements in the zoning code clearly state 45 feet in the designated street front is required to be commercial. The exception in 7 under BD 1 ground floor street front does not apply to these buildings. There could be doctors or dentists in that 45 feet but there can't be in the BD or the designated street front. Every house in Edmonds has a designated street front. He questioned whether it was defined in the code and said the lie is related to ceiling height and allowed uses in those zones. What the council is trying to do is absolutely illegal and is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said the foundation to tonight's discussion hinges on whether to keep a small portion of the required development in the BD2 downtown mixed commercial zone as commercial. It needs to be accurately stated that multifamily is an allowed use in this zone, even encouraged as mixed use in the comprehensive plan along with a minimum square footage on the ground floor for businesses and jobs that support and compliment the BD 1 commercial only zone. The 2020 validation study of the buildable lands study comparing development predictions with actual development, shows Edmonds exceeded the total predicted housing units by 74%. It also shows the average buildable density in Edmond exceeded predicted Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 54 6.A.d targets by 64%. That is only through 2019, there is time to get this right. She asked how do the community wanted the future vision of Edmonds to play out, whether it was a greater emphasis on Edmonds just expanding housing only which the study clearly shows exceeded county targets, losing small businesses and commercial balance along with local job opportunity growth to coordinate with housing expansion. This will only push residents to travel farther for goods and services including driving further to their jobs because local business options have been removed for even more housing only buildings. A 15-minute City discussion was presented by the development services director as a possible goal for Edmonds, but if the vital supporting role that BD2 service businesses provide to the town is removed, it will become a 45-90 minute town in the end. Dr. Dotsch continued, support service businesses are vital to a thriving community and are excluded from the BD 1 ground floor designated street front zone. Chapter 16.43 which defines all the BD zones contains a footnote that states services, by appointment uses not providing open door retail, dining, entertainment functions as a primary component of the business, are not allowed within BD 1 ground floor street front first 45 feet. Open door businesses, e.g. real estate offices, banks with tellers and no drive throughs, nail and hair salons are allowed. Now the council is prioritizing eliminating the 13132 language that allows for these other uses, these smaller service business to thrive and compliment the mix of jobs and uses in the entire downtown district. Less options for small, appointment -only business will force residents to travel further for these vital services and the staff and clients they bring that frequent the retail shops, restaurants, banks in the core daily. This 13132 use zoning designed on the shoulders of the small downtown district should be preserved for its core economic health, livability and job creation. She requested the council require that businesses and jobs remain in this small BD2 zone. There is already more multifamily square footage allowed in this zone than business, once it is 100% gone, there is no room in the small downtown core to bring it back. She requested the council renew the moratorium and design standards for six months to get this right as there is no rush. 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE BD2 ZONE City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained two days ago the council adopted an ordinance to extend the moratorium through May 19'. However, because that ordinance passed on a 4-3 vote, it will not take effect until sometime next week. The moratorium ends today, so theoretically starting tomorrow building permit applications could be submitted that would vest to the existing design standards, zoning, etc. To the extend the council wants to prevent that from happening, the council has an opportunity at this meeting to adopt the ordinance in the packet that would, with at least five votes, take immediate effect and would also extend the moratorium until June 2nd. That date was chosen after consulting with the development services director to determine the amount of time that likely would be needed for the designated street front issue to be returned to the council for further consideration. Mr. Taraday continued, the idea is the council could extend the moratorium tonight through June 2nd and then take up the designated street front issue on May 17th and perhaps the following meeting, and still have time to adopt an ordinance before the moratorium expires on June 2n1. Of course, as long as the moratorium is within the six month authority, the council has some discretion to extend it further, but staff does not believe that it will take longer than June 2' to complete work on the designated street front. If it appears on May 17' that more time is necessary, the council could extend the moratorium again, but his understanding after consulting with the development services director is that it should come to council on May 17d`. Mr. Taraday identified minor amendments that he suggested be made to the packet version. He referenced the draft extension moratorium ordinance on page 4, pointing out the title references both Ordinance 4253 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 55 6.A.d and 4254 (Ordinance 4254 was adopted on Tuesday). As Section 1 does not reference Ordinance 4254, he suggested a minor edit to Section 1 that would read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." The second edit would add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium throwh May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and. He apologized for the edits, but said with the moratorium expiring, they are necessary. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254. Council President Olson said she was excited for the opportunity to pass this ordinance with a super majority and have it take effective immediately so there will be better design standards in place. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ATTORNEY, ADDING ORDINANCE 4254 IN SECTION 1 AND THE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS CLAUSE. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to send councilmembers the language he read for the additional whereas. Mr. Taraday shared his screen so councilmembers were able to read it and repeated the amendments, revise Section 1 to read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." and add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium through May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has either an amendment or a clarification. She referred to the 15t' whereas clause (WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed street front map; and) and questioned why 2011 was used when the original Ordinance 3628 regarding BD zones was adopted in 2007. Mr. Taraday said it was most recently amended in 2011. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien said 2011 is the ordinance that adopted the current extent of the designated street front. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding it was updating Ordinance 3628. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said in reading this, it is kind of judgmental and she preferred using logical limits, fit the circumstances, etc. She questioned if that whereas clause was even needed. Mr. Taraday pointed out a typo in that whereas clause; it should be "designated," instead of "designed." In his opinion the whereas clause is helpful because it explains why the extension of the moratorium to June 2nd is necessary; it is necessary because the council wants to reevaluate the designated street front map. That is essentially the primary reason for the proposed extension. He felt it was a helpful whereas clause, but recognized the council was free to amend. Councilmember Buckshnis said now that Mr. Taraday had explained it, she was fine with it. She suggested a whereas clause saying the definition of the 13132 is mixed residential. She has yet to see where council has deliberated on the two options which were given to the council at the time of the B134 zones and wanted to have language that states, "Whereas B132 always been recognized by council as mixed residential." Mr. Taraday answered the whereas clauses explain in essence the reasons for what the council is doing today, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 56 but do not prevent the council from taking action in future. He realized that some people may still disagree with the analysis provided regarding the BD zone. That whereas clause does not prevent the council from stating in the future that there is not going to be residential only structures anywhere in the BD2 zone. There are several ways to accomplish that such as drastically increasing the designated street front map, a map amendment, text amendment, etc. That whereas clause does not prevent the council in the future from doing what the council wants to do with residential structures. Councilmember Buckshnis said it was Ordinance 3918 that describes the subdistricts and BD2 is downtown mixed commercial. She would like to have a whereas in Ordinance in 3918 stating the BD2 zone is defined as downtown mixed commercial. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS/COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT ORDINANCE 3918 DEFINES BD2 AS DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL. Councilmember Buckshnis commented some councilmembers lived through this; she recalled former Councilmember Petso saying land use is permanent, you better be very careful with what you do. She has read a lot of materials, she appreciated the work done by staff and Mr. Taraday, but in her opinion Ordinance 3918 was left out of the agenda memo and she felt it was a very important ordinance. The new moratorium addresses street fronts and defines building types. Ordinance 3918 defines BD2 as downtown mixed commercial. She had not seen any materials related to transition zones, etc. This further acknowledges that there are a number of important ordinance related to the BD topic. Councilmember Paine said the whereas that refers to 2011 is the reason for extending the moratorium from May 19th to June 2"d. She did not believe this new whereas clause adds additional clarity or a compelling story which is the reason for having clear whereas clauses. Council President Olson said the comment by Councilmember Paine was a fair point. She was the one that noticed Ordinance 4254 was not referenced in the whereas clause and even though it didn't change anything, it did document the history and she felt the same about adding language regarding Ordinance 3918. It does not have an impact because the council can choose what they think is appropriate for the BD2 zone, but it documents the history and therefor it adds value. Councilmember Chen valued the history and the additional understanding via adding Ordinance 3918 to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taraday commented it is true that Ordinance 3918 was one of the ordinance that amended the BD zoning code, but the language about downtown mixed commercial has been in code since 2008; it was not amended by Ordinance 3918. It was not staff s goal in drafting the memo regarding the history to identify every ordinance that has amended any aspect of the BD zone. Staff s focus was on the ordinances they felt had some relevance to the designated street front and the BD2 uses which is why Ordinance 3918 is not referenced. He did not think there was any harm in referencing it, but it does not add much to explain why the council was doing this. Ordinance 3918 was primary about building height and things like that, not about uses or the designated street front. The red lines in the ordinance show where it was amended. Councilmember Buckshnis read from Ordinance 3918, Whereas the following work sessions with the members of the ADB and Planning Board took place July 9, 2013, February 13 and February 27, 2013. She recalled it very clearly and she was sure Councilmember K. Johnson did as well and likely Councilmember Tibbott. It defines the subdistricts, whereas the memo goes into the reasoning behind the street fronts; in her opinion reference to Ordinance 3918 added a valuable piece of history. Ordinance 3918 was a pivotal year when the council was looking at the BD zones; some may not feel it adds value but she thought it did. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 5 Packet Pg. 57 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet. Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr. Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the ordinance in tonight's packet. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253. Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance. Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June 2nd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 58 6.A.d Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and step-down is one of the option. Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr. Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation. That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION." Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott asking about that relative to the post office building. Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant. Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SECOND FLOOR ONLY." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.d Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach into the setback were limited to the second floor and up. Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building; decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third floors can project a maximum of 5 feet. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 60 several issues, some it can control and others likely not, including the environment, increased transportation requirements and emergency management. This process will take time and several stakeholders are effected including governments like the City and Port, the Washington State Department of Transportation, Ferries as well as private entities and each have various requirements and objectives including determining the waterfront of the future. The waterfront is one of the City's gems, visited by thousands each year. How a person enjoys the waterfront is very personal; the Edmonds waterfront he enjoyed as a kid is very different from today's waterfront and collectively the stakeholders need to determine what they want it to be in the future. Each of the waterfront stakeholders plays a significant role and realistic solutions need to be identified for some of the challenges. The Port of Edmonds contributes greatly to the waterfront, as an environmental steward, a place for citizens and guests to enjoy, and the economic impact it brings to the City as one of the most significant tax contributors. The Port is committed to working with the City and other stakeholders in this process, expecting a cooperative and collaborative effort that addresses the best interest of all. Marlin Phelps said if there was someone in the community who grew up here, went to college, came back and did something of great substance to which a younger generation wants to emulate her, something very good has been done, a legacy. He commented Edmonds is a fine city with a fine city council. He relayed in 2015, Judge Linda Coburn gave an order to have a private inspector work for him, unsolicited, which he thought was odd but he was grateful. The inspector ran a PUD list of where his wife of 10 years had lived and none of it was close to what he had known to be true. He goggled her, looked at several background check websites, found his name and her kids' names, but her employer is a law firm Honigman, Miller, Quartz and Cohn. He was being persecuted and had good story, so he called 50 law firms, and the only one that returned his call was Honigman, Miller Quartz, Cohn so he knew there was a connection. U.S. Senator Carl Levin then abruptly retired, became the managing lawyer of that law firm. Meanwhile, he received a letter from Maria Cantwell offering her help. Senator Levin was Maria Cantwell's mentor in the senate. He referred to the murder of Tom Wells, the path of righteousness, and finding out who killed him, something that is well within the City's rights and is why municipal courts were invented. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, commented she had little time to prepare because the BD2 agenda item was recently changed and Friday's packet did not contain some of the information being presented today. She pointed out BD2 has the label downtown mixed use commercial, a separate district from all the other BD zones because it is complimentary to the BD zone, especially BD ground floor street front which only allows businesses with open door policies, not by -appointment businesses unless they are grandfathered in. BD2 allows offices such as accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, medical, acupuncture, counseling, tutoring, etc., businesses that provide services not permitted in BD 1 and providing a symbiotic relationship. BD4 is labeled downtown mixed residential which the proposal is trying to turn BD2 into. She questioned why BD2 was called mixed use commercial when the zones were created instead of saying it is all BD4, downtown mixed use residential. She expressed concern with doing this hurriedly and having outside people evaluate what is best for Edmonds. Multifamily is being constructed throughout Edmonds; the zones considered did not include all the multifamily downtown such as up on the hill, on 3', 2' or 5'. She referred to the book, Building a Vibrant Community, and a statement in the book about not rushing things and not thinking that what is good for one city is good for another. She questioned whether the goal was to build a vibrant city for Edmonds, that considers walkability, use of services, and that leads to using retail and commercial. Jack Malek, Shoreline, a Windermere relator, spoke regarding BD2 Designated Street Front. He has a listing for the Soundview Plaza on 2" d & James; the suggested extension is in front of 2" d & James which he opposes. The market study favors residential; allowing mixed use and a more robust ability to adapt to different economies is a smarter choice. He suggested a fully residential building could be allowed with the option to use the ground level for commercial in the future to allow for fluctuating market conditions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.e Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, explaining Edmonds has taken the rights and worth of their trees, making the building and safety of their homes infeasible with regulatory and monetary takings. The intent seems to be to decrease the value of vacant property so the City can acquire it at lower prices for their tree agenda. Edmonds has 35% tree canopy but only 2% buildable vacant land in single family zones. She questioned whether it was necessary to punish those needing and providing housing. In 2017, she and her family found a beautiful, sloped 1.25 acre property with trees to build homes for themselves and her then 82-year old parents. They hired a geotech whose reports verified there was no critical area, and water retention and soil integrity on the sloped property was so strong, he certified no risk of slides in the next 100-200 years. The report was provided to Edmonds planning who assured them there was no obstacle to dividing the property and they purchased it. After purchasing, Mike Clugston advised dividing would be difficult with the small wet corner that is a landslide risk area; he did not reveal this before. With his encouragement, they gave the corner to the neighbor, a process that took two years, and were then ready to apply for division in November 2020, the week the Edmonds city council halted applications to write tree codes requiring exorbitant tree fees and more work from their engineers and arborists. On June 22, 2021, Edmonds council voted to take ownership of every tree on all vacant, private properties, violating the constitution's takings clause. Before division is permitted for single family homes, payment of $3,000412,000 for each tree needing removal must be made to the City. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have applied for division retaining 50% of the trees, forfeiting safety and mountain and sound views. The City's response letter states all trees retained on private property become the City's protected trees involuntarily and indefinitely. When the property is sold, no trees rights remain for homeowners. In the event a tree is damaged, arborist appraisals are still required for every tree, at a costs of $200-$300 each along with a list of replacement trees and planting locations or payment of an additional $2500 for each tree in addition to the worth of each removed. An attached drawing showed about 40% of their property is now classified as untouchable critical area, shocking their geotech. Trees in this area would not count toward the 30% open space or tree retention. She relayed Kernen Lien's explanation that if 50% of trees are retained, trees in critical area count toward retained trees. If less than 50% are retained, trees in the critical area do not count and additional trees must be retained, plus fees of over $107,000. She urged councilmembers to let them build their homes without the unconstitutional [inaudible] only upon vacant land owners and future homeowners. The Edmonds tree ordinance violates the 5th and 14' amendments and takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, the Growth Management Act, and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. She requested the council reconsider and rescind the tree ordinance. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding Ordinance 4079, the 2017 upzone of the SR-99 and park mitigation. In 2017 the City promised to improve the park system within or near SR-99 to address geographic gaps in service. Specifically, the City promised to expand and partner with the Edmonds School District. This was always a bit of a false commitment as there are no Edmonds schools in the SR- 99 area. Second, explore property acquisition and development and partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions to expand recreational opportunities for the community. By and large that did not happen with the exception for the Uptown Market last year, no acquisition and no improvements since 2017. Chase Lake is not in the SR-99 area so another false commitment. Third, acquire park land in the SR-99/104 area to provide adequate park services in redeveloping areas, create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreational needs especially where service gaps exist or high residential impact is planned. That clearly did not happen. Defining the best routes and treatments to create pedestrian and bicycle corridors did not happen. Increasing connections to the Interurban Trail using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian and bicycle enhancements focusing on crossing Highway 99; the City did not even include the Interurban Trail in the bicycle Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.e improvement plan. Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District; again, did not happen. Broken promises from the past five years not fulfilled in the draft PROS Plan. One new proposition with only a $1.5 million budget will be less than 1 acre and will not provide adequate service for residents living in the area with the growth and existing land use applications let alone what is planned over the coming years or make up for the historic inequity in service provided to this area. Ms. Seitz continued, those living in the area pay increased property taxes associated with higher land values in the SR-99 area which the City caused despite the upzone so the expensive property excuse is not valid because residents already pay higher taxes to offset higher acquisition costs. All the park mitigation in Ordinance 4079 is feasible if the City stops diverting their revenue to downtown. The PROS Plan CFP demonstrates the City does not have the will to mitigate development impacts because they are not identified in the PROS Plan as promises made to this area. With the over $41 million of investment identified for downtown compared to the less than $4 million for SR-99, the City is not creating spaces for these commitments to occur. Section 5B of Ordinance 4079 identifies that planned action ordinances shall be reviewed no later than five years from the effective date by the SEPA responsible official. The assumptions made by the environmental impact statement are not relevant because the City did not undertake the required mitigation and is not planning to. August 2022 is the timeline for this review; she requested the City perform outreach and engage the SR-99 community in the SEPA responsible official's review of the EIS. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, asked whether any of the apartments proposed in BD2 would be designated for lower rent housing. Next, she did not want streateries to return to Edmonds, noting there were other options for outside dining. She was interested in having things done to the right-of-way on Highway 99 to improve safety. She supported construction of a parking garage in downtown Edmonds, envisioning it would solve a lot of problems. She did not object to closing Main Street occasionally such as once a month in the evenings, but she did not support an open pavilion with no parking. Something needs to be done about all the crime on 80t' and 76t''. Arisha Ko, Edmonds, described her family's circumstances over the past 16 months. Her parents are immigrants from Hong Kong and she is the first generation to go high school and university. They are trying to open a family business restaurant in Edmonds near Highway 99. Her 75-year old uncle has been helping her dad realize his dream of opening a small business noodle shop. Unfortunately, their general contractor's construction estimate of $138,000 went up to $400,000 with equipment. Her family will be borrowing those funds from their uncle. They trusted the contractor to do the work, but he did not finish the fire alarm system and they failed their firm alarm inspection. The contractor hired a lawyer to sue them and for the past 16 months they have been unable to afford to pay for the fire alarm system. As a result, her family has been struggling with mental health issues, including her father with anxiety disorder. They want to open a noddle shop, Harvest Wonton Noodle, in Edmonds. 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.e With regard environmental impacts, Council President Olson said the City has been aware of creek impacts and downstream stormwater issues for decades and this is an opportunity to deal with some of those issues. With regard to the WWTP, perhaps some of the funds could be used to address the new environmental requirement/standard that the WWTP is being held accountable for. Retention of WWTP employees is a real issue and has been on the City's radar and would be money well spent. The nonprofit allocation was underfunded in the last funding allocation. She encouraged councilmembers to share their thoughts regarding this opportunity. Councilmember Paine suggested when this comes back to council, hearing more about green infrastructure related to global warming and climate crisis. She was also interested in hearing from directors about their progress on opportunities such as the Perrinville Creek watershed and making a lasting impact. She was interested in lessening the burden on carbon fuels that are completely destroying the planet. The council also needs to hear about projects that are already underway. With regard to providing funds to nonprofits, she was interested in hearing about nonprofits' needs. Some nonprofits have other funding streams from ARPA; for example, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has some terrific funding sources. She was also interested in supporting human services and ensuring Edmonds is funding its fair share and taking advantage of collaborative programs with neighboring communities. Councilmember Chen said his priorities are small businesses and family relief. There are many small business who are struggling such as those in Plum Tree Plaza who were negatively impacted by a fire and some are still looking for space and recovery. He referenced the comments by during Audience Comments regarding Ms. Ko's family's struggles. Many of the services provided to residents are offered by nonprofits and they should not be forgotten. A third priority is a homeless shelter and wraparound services. Last week the council passed a compassionate enforcement ordinance; now it is up to the council to follow up by provide the necessary services and shelter to make the ordinance better. The environment is also important; flooding from Perrinville Creek needs to be taken care of. Councilmember L. Johnson reported she recently learned the City of Kenmore made affordable housing their #1 priority and have discussed dedicating half of their ARPA funds toward 100 units of affordable 30% or below AMI. She hoped Edmonds would explore that. She also supported fully funding human services and fully funding Edmonds's share of short term shelter and not simply relying on other cities to provide it. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented there is some urgency to lifting the moratorium. The last time this was discussed, council was exploring the possibility of extending the designated street frontage. Staff wanted to ensure council understands the implications of doing that, what a market demand analysis says, and will present that information tonight. Mixed development is definitely supported by the comprehensive plan as is residential development. This will offer transparency to what the market wants to do and what the implication would be in terms of extending street frontage or not in meeting comprehensive plan goals. She apologized for the late arrival of agenda materials, acknowledging it was a lot to process overnight Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Recap o Multifamily Building Permit Moratorium Ord. 4247 adopted to address insufficient design standards for multifamily only building in the BD2 zone o Moratorium extended three times —Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.e o Interim Design Standards for BD2 properties outside the designated street front that allowed multifamily only were adopted April 29t' with Ordinance 4256 o Led to discussions regarding BD allowed uses and designated street front o Council indicated a desire to explore expanding the designated street front • Potential Designated Street Front Designation � Designated Strcel Fran! � o� 6ALEY ST yyeH I Si 'ry AlkDl SI �r Tr, fn--� i Bn3 n s. ELL IAt � ncNo.0 �Y a F EREER DR o Councilmembers voiced interest to have commercial office to support retail core o Legislative history favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street as part of the original designation o Solid blue line = designated street front current in the zoning code o Light blue = potential areas for expansion of the designated street front ■ 6' Avenue & Main down to Dayton ■ On Sunset, extending 2nd Avenue to James Street ■ Dayton & Third • 16.43.020 Uses Table o Clarify ambiguities o Fill in blanks in uses created by Ordinance 3955 o Reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements 0 Comprehensive plan: Supports a mix of land uses o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E, E-1 ■ Provide for a strong central retail core ... while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. ■ Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. • BD Zone Purposes — ECDC 16.43.030 o ...Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.e Designated Street Front — key differences o Must be commercial use within first 45 feet of designated street front 0 12-foot minimum ground floor height in BD2 (15 feet in BD 1) o Different design standards Market Demand Analysis o Would designated street front restrictions inhibit market demand for residential development? o Is there existing market demand for mixed commercial buildings? o Is there market demand for solely commercial buildings? Market Analysis Area o Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 designated areas, defined by blue outlined areas, focus of commercial analysis o Target Area 2: Expanded search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow 0 Commercial Space Demand Data RETAIL MARKET Current Average days on Market All SF types of Spaces available spaces DOM Historical days on market — last 3.5 years N/A 255 DOM (historical) General retail 5 276 DOM (current) Vacant — not listed: C'est La Vie 1 N/A Business appears closed — not listed: 1 N/A Bop N Burger OFFICE MARKET Current Average days on Market All SF types of spaces available spaces (DOM) Historical days on market — last 3.5 years N/A 230 DOM (historical) 1000 to 2000 sf spaces are what currently 7 307 DOM (current) is available o Closeness of the historic and current DOM is an indicator of a stable market. Inventory is low in retail sector but not considered a leasers market o Retail is the stronger of the two commercial uses based on DOM Multifamily Rental Units Demand o Approximately 425 MF rental units in study area ■ 56% Two -bedroom Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.e ■ 34% One -bedroom ■ 10% Studio and Three -bedroom 0 1 % vacancy rate in the study area ■ 5 —6% vacancy rate considered strong and balanced market ■ Average DOM approximately 20 days o Biggest takeaway from multifamily information is short supply and high demand of rental units o Study did not look at affordability of units, low inventory drives up rents, limiting who can live in the downtown Edmonds area. Mr. Lien explained the analysis also looked at types of development that occur: • Option 1 — Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-Story over below grade parking o Residential Units �a:1=U•1 ■ 2 BR: 7 ■ 3 BR: 3 ■ Total:22 o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 22 o Building height: ■ Garage below level ■ First floor: 9' ■ Second floor: 9' ■ Third floor: 9' ■ Parapet: 3' ■ Total Height: 30' Option 2: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3 story o Residential Option ■ 1 BR: 6 ■ 2 BR: 6 ■ 3 BR: 3 ■ Total: 15 o Garage parking at grade (1 stall per unit required): 16 o Building height: ■ First floor: 10' ■ Second floor: 9' ■ Third floor: 9' ■ Parapet: 2' ■ Total Height: 30' Option 3: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 2-Story o Commercial: 1900 square feet o Residential Option ■ 1 BR: 4 ■ 2 BR: 2 ■ 3 BR: 2 ■ Total: 8 o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 12 o Building height: ■ First floor: 12' ■ Second floor: 8' ■ Parapet: 2' Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 10 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.e ■ Total Height: 2' o Note: Financial feasibility of a 2-story with commercial may be questionable. Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and specific site constraints Examples of three story development with below grade commercial entrance 0 307 Bell Street 0 2' & Main (Post Office) Conclusion of market analysis o The risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make mixed use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer. Recommendation o Given that the current designated street front map is consistent with the comprehensive plan and BD zoning purpose, staff does not recommend extending the designated street front o Adopt amendment to ECDC 16.40.020 use table which clarifies ambiguity within the code Councilmember Paine commented there are new properties coming on line in BD 1 that are all commercial. The analysis recognized it is not a big zone and she asked how having commercial space in BD 1 would impact BD2. Ms. McLaughlin referred to DOM and the absorption rate and how it factors into the proforma for developers making those decisions. A solely commercial building has the lowest absorption rate. Given the increase in commercial from Main Street Commons, the report mentions that may dilute the absorption rate potential for commercial. It is important to differentiate between commercial and retail, commercial office, which is allowed in the BD2 zone, has the lowest absorption rate. Retail has a positive absorption rate, however, the Main Street Commons presents a question whether it will dilute the historic absorption rate. Council President Olson commented the council had been waiting for the market analysis; it was not intentional for it to be added to the packet late. The intent was to have this on last week's agenda, but that was not possible as the information was not yet available from the consultant. She agreed with the comps, Mukilteo and Snohomish, and she found the comparisons enlightening for Edmonds as well as for the other cities. One of the possible deficits in Edmonds compared to other cities is parking per unit; Edmonds is the only city with 1 space per housing unit versus 1.5-2 parking spaces per unit in other cities; even the smallest units have 1.5 parking spaces. Edmonds may want to evaluate that criteria. Council President Olson recognized the importance of what is happen with the Edmonds Commons and the addition of commercial property, but it is open door commercial property, it is all restaurants. The design of the BD zones was to have offices in the next ring. As downtown expands, having businesses and patrons for those businesses is appropriate. She referred to a written comment submitted to council regarding the idea of versatility and the ability to change the lower level from commercial to residential via a code change in the future if there is less demand for commercial. However, it does not seem appropriate to shortcut the BD2 zone today which is what would be done if the edge on the side of 6th at least is not captured. She remarked on the differential between the commercial absorption on 5t' heading toward Pine versus on Main Street. Ms. McLaughlin advised the exiting BD2 zone accommodates commercial, but the proposal the City received was not commercial. It likely was not commercial because of the absorption rate and the risk to developers of building solely a commercial building and combining it with residential does not get the residential yield to justify it due to DOM for a commercial tenant space. Some of the risk is if that mixed use development isn't feasible, development will not turn over. Councilmember Tibbott said his comments relate well to Council President Olson's comments. The spaces currently in the corners where consideration is being given to extending the street front are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 68 6.A.e currently commercial spaces that are rented and where businesses have been in existence for many years. As the downtown continues to grow and become more robust, the City will run out of that kind of space in the downtown area. He had no reason to dispute the DOM that were presented, but recalled the spaces at 2" d and Main filled up quickly with interesting and exciting businesses that the City was glad to have them. He anticipated the City would be glad to have commercial businesses in the areas where the designated street front was extended. There are a lot of ways to configure buildings and improve residential opportunities. Councilmember Tibbott relayed one of his concerns was losing service space. Eliminating the ability for residents to walk to a service business instead of driving was a lost opportunity so he wanted to preserve those commercial space. There are many good examples of integrating commercial into a building that conformed with the parameters. It may not be ideal to step down into a commercial space, but when visiting one of those spaces recently, he found it very nice and people appreciate those spaces even if have to step down two steps. Councilmember K. Johnson commented all the information in the presentation was new to her as she had no time to read it prior to the meeting. In addition, it came to a conclusion very rapidly. She asked staff to review the conclusions again. Ms. Laughlin explained staff wanted to make sure if the designated street front was extended, there would still be developable lots given the market demand for mixed use development. The study found it could be more challenging to build a mixed use development with a residential component, literally because of the ground floor height requirement for commercial offices (12 feet) or retail (15 feet). Those requirements, combined with the City's 30 foot height limit, mean it is not possible to get enough residential units to ensure a return. The analysis concluded that long absorption rate to occupy commercial and retail spaces, coupled with the reduction in the number of residential units, means a mixed use project would be very challenging on these sites. Staff recommends not extending the designated street front, because there can still be mixed use development, commercial development, and residential development within the existing zoning and would allow the market to dictate. It is also consistent with the comprehensive plan and existing zoning ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson how many closed door business are currently in the 6t' & Main development. Mr. Lien estimated 8-10. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if those eight businesses could be replaced. Ms. Laughlin answered staff is not the developer of this parcel; staff is looking at what the market is demanding and understanding the likelihood of what types of development they may see. The market analysis showed those types of businesses are more sluggish at the moment, but that's okay because when looking at the mix of retail, commercial and residential in downtown Edmonds, there is a very healthy market overall. The other good news is residential development will continue to boost economic development; the report states the City cannot go wrong with adding residences to a robust economy that serves retail and commercial which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. She summarized staff s goal is to offer transparency to the council with the market analysis and understand the implications. Staff is not developing this parcel and she did not want to be too hyper focused on that development in particular. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand the implications of eliminating eight closed door businesses; those businesses may not relocate in the retail core. Ms. McLaughlin suggested Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises, address that. Ms. Berne relayed her understanding there was a specific proposal for development on the northeast corner of 6" & Main and there are currently two houses with commercial offices. She asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's question was if those offices were removed for a new development, would they find places elsewhere within downtown Edmonds to locate. Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether those eight closed door businesses located on Main Street would be able to find closed door business space in that area. Ms. Berne answered in the area Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 69 they studied, which was not a full-blown study due to a limited area and limited time, there were spaces where those businesses could relocate in that core area. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled citizens have complained about the scale of development. She asked if the frontage were extended and it was a mixed use development, would the building scale be less and more compatible with the adjacent residential areas. Ms. Berne answered that was a complicated question; a lot of analysis goes into developing property. That could possibly be the case, but it could be commercial development on first floor, office or retail, most likely retail because offices do not like to be on the first floor, the rest would be residential. If the building was residential multifamily units or commercial on the first floor, depending on how it is designed, a developer could do a 3-story building with underground parking. She concluded the building could be exactly the same scale with or without commercial depending on how the developer analyzes the feasibility of the project. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if commercial was allowed in BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes. Ms. McLaughlin commented there could be a solely residential building. Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether commercial was allowed in the BD2 zone. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes. Ms. Berne asked if her question was related to commercial office or retail; commercial is a general category. Councilmember K. Johnson said she meant closed door businesses. Ms. Berne asked if that meant office and/or services. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Ms. Berne said those are allowed in the BD2 zone. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if retail was allowed in the BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes, both commercial uses are allowed in BD2. Councilmember K. Johnson did not understand the conclusion not to designate the street front in that area. Ms. McLaughlin said the conclusion comes from the market analysis. Staff s recommendation pulls from that conclusion and the reason is because there can be a mix of uses, retail, commercial, residential under the existing zoning, Extending the street front designation would limit what developers can do and the City may not see any development in the near term. In terms of limiting the potential to build residential units downtown, staff thinks that's problematic given there is a very low supply and as the market analysis indicated only a 1% vacancy rate, a very high demand for residential units. Because of those implications, staffs recommendation is not to extend the designated street front. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that recommendation was based on the 1% vacancy rate. Ms. McLaughlin advised it was based on the conclusion, the risk associated with long absorption time. If a building is required to be mixed use, either retail or office for the 45' depth in the BD2 zone, the absorption rate is quite lengthy so a developer would need to lean on the residential unit yield of the development to make it feasible. If the number of residential units is cut in half with this zoning change, that means a developer will likely not be able to make a mixed use development work. Ms. Berne commented this a very complex discussion on a very complex topic. There are no black and white answers; she has been a developer and developed projects throughout her career. She listed a few factors that go into a development analysis. 1. Absorption rate — this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines financial feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin, internal rate of return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are based on historical DOM for the proposed use and projections as to what the future absorption could be. Absorption rates are directly related to the risk of the given project. 2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete — a mixed use project requires a more complete property management system than a single use project. 3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best use of a property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of developing and maintaining the property over the greatest number of income -producing units. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 70 4. Construction costs — these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site, the size of the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials. Ms. Berne explained given the current market in commercial uses and residential supply, they considered what a developer would to build in the community and how would they look at it given assumptions they have to make. They will look at current absorption rates; the new retail space, Edmonds Commons, will be an indicator of how much retail the community can absorb. There are two large spaces in that development that have not been leased, one that is 4,000 square feet and another that is 1,900 square feet. If those remain vacant when it opens, that is an indicator there is not a huge demand for more retail development. Office space has softened, there is more available than there was in the last two years; it not a bad market but it is not a hot market. Their conclusion was a developer will look at the biggest demand in the community and that is residential. There is a huge demand for multifamily residential in the downtown area and there is very little supply. This only affects 21 lots in the BD2 zone, some of which cannot be developed individually and would have to be assembled. It is about 15 development projects that could include retail or office on the bottom floor or not. Mayor Nelson commented this agenda item had exceed the allocated 30 minutes. He asked when council was provided this packet. Ms. McLaughlin answered 7 p.m. yesterday. He commented when councilmembers publicly acknowledge they have not read the packet and now want full-fledged explanations, that holds up and delays everything else. He reminded councilmembers to come prepared so meetings can be more productive. Councilmember Buckshnis said providing council a packet at 7 p.m. last night was not a lot of time, but she read it. She acknowledged the highest and best use downtown would be an apartment complex. A lot of time was devoted to crafting the BD2 zone in 2013 and it is an offshoot of the BD 1 zone. She did not believe it should be changed. Ten businesses have been displaced; the other building purchased by this developer displaced several other businesses. Those business owners are upset and contacted her, but do not want to rock the boat. She wanted to keep BD2 as it is with the storefront. She referred to the Greggory building which was the first one with below grade commercial. She recalled the Spee property took about five years to get through council. The council has spent a lot of time on these designations. Sixth & Main is a main corridor where there is a lot of traffic. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged a lot people want to live downtown but the fact of the matter is 35% of downtown is already residential. Her vision was to retain the charm in Edmonds and that does not include allowing multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. She referred to 39.80.018 which states BD2 is mixed commercial. The City's comprehensive plan is very outdated and still includes Edmonds Crossing. She wondered where the ten displaced business would go. Likely they would not be able to afford to locate in a new building due to increased rent. She preferred to honor downtown businesses and if the desire was to change the entire BD2 zone, it should be mapped out clearly and not spend less than two months trying to figure it out, getting a report at 7 p.m. last night and discussing such a hot topic tonight. She has received a lot of comments from people who are tired of talking about it because no one is doing anything other than trying to pushing this building through. Councilmember L. Johnson said listening to this discussion begs the question where is the concern over the housing shortage, an actual crisis, homes for people to live in, specially multifamily? She had yet to hear anything about a commercial or retail space crisis, yet the council's focus is on retail displacement without any actual facts. Her hairdresser was one of the displaced businesses and they found another location and she suspected others have as well. Councilmembers are referring to the displacement of ten businesses when there are spaces available to absorb them. She referred to a councilmember's comment that commercial in the downtown area gives residents an opportunity to walk to a service base; walking is only possible if one lives in the general area, yet another bowl centric focus. There are many other areas Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 71 6.A.e of Edmonds where services can be increased such as Highway 99; she suggested adding services there that are within walking distance, it does not have to be bowl centric. The analysis found absorption is longer for commercial; vacant spaces do not create vibrancy, people do. People living in an area support business. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, this began as a concern with how the building looks; that can be addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Councilmembers keep throwing out other things, but are not interested in addressing the housing shortage. The council should be prioritizing multifamily, not fighting against. If it is a priority of council to increase commercial, although it should be a priority to increase multifamily, she suggested talking about increasing heights, something that was mentioned in the report but not discussed. In light of news reports about housing and the 1% multifamily vacancy rate in Edmonds, the council's roundabout discussion does not make sense, priorities are very mixed up and they do not address the need for housing. She reiterated the council should talk about increasing heights, what that would look like and what that would offer. Ms. McLaughlin commented an aspects of the report was to look at zoning challenges if the designated street front were extended, One of those challenges is the 12-foot floor height suitable for commercial office. Adding two floors of residential then bumps up against the 30-foot height limit. Sunken commercial office is challenging from both an absorption rate perspective and is not best practice for pedestrian friendly design as it is not accessible for people with disabilities and is more expensive. As the report indicates, the delta is only 2-5 feet; trying to mitigate for the sunken commercial office strategy and allowing developers to get 3 floors which pencils out for the mixed use development option. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a statement that given the height restrictions, mixed use projects are not feasible for the average boutique builder. She asked if an additional 2-5 feet were allowed, would mixed use development be feasible for the average boutique developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that is what the consultant team concluded. She recognized applying that to Edmonds was challenging. If that tactic would make mixed use development successful on these BD2 properties and council is willing to support it, that is a solid recommendation to get what we want, mixed use develop in the BD2 to support the retail core. Councilmember L. Johnson commented it is clear something has to give and she hoped it was not decreasing the availability of multifamily. To her a win -win across the board would be to consider a height increase and she hoped other councilmembers would consider that. Ms. Berne answered if the height were increased 2-2% feet, there would be a much more pedestrian friendly commercial spaces. She pointed out the different between walking down the older Main Street where everything is at eye level and very inviting compared to the below grade commercial spaces which are not as inviting and not artistically creative. An addition 2 feet would also result in more residential because the extra 2 feet would allow commercial with 2 floors of residential. The 30 foot heigh limit at one time meant 3 floors with 10 feet per floor. The below grade commercial has been an unintended consequence of the 30-foot height limit Councilmember Chen appreciated the study and the discussion, noting a lot of work was done in a short amount of time. He referred to the conclusion, which relates to whether the development will work for the developer. He acknowledged developers are very important to the economy, but he preferred the study focus on Edmonds, whether extending the designated street front was good or bad for the City in the long term. Real estate and commercial markets fluctuate. He preferred the study focus on the outlook for the City and not what will work for the developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that was where staff was coming from, what is the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. She agreed demands fluctuates; staff has done a thorough job of interpreting the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.e policies, zoning code and market demand, the conclusion is not based on a single parcel. All the parcels that extending the designated street front would apply to were considered and then the average was factored into the analysis. She empathized the analysis did not focus on a particular parcel or development; it is about the best approach for the City for the BD2 zone. The goal is to afford the most flexibility so it does not result in undevelopable lots thereby resulting in a de facto moratorium or lots that are developed and cannot be occupied (risk of vacancy). It is about balancing marketing demand as it fluctuates and giving developers the most flexibility moving forward. Council President Olson remembered a terrific business, a drop in daycare operated by December Louis, commenting it would be amazing to have a daycare like that at the top of Main Street. She recalled the history of the 25 foot height going to 30 feet height was the 25 foot limit resulted in 2 story buildings with flat roofs. The height limit was changed to 30 feet to get pitched roofs, but now people are building flat roofs to get 3 floors. Mr. Lien explained the height limit actually came down. Back in the day, there was a 40 foot height limit downtown that was reduced to 35 and then to 30 feet in about 1980. What has changed over the years is what happens between 25 and 30 feet. There have been pitched roofs, modulation, etc. He summarized the 30 foot height limit has been in place since about 1980. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE AND THAT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 5 TO AMEND DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMEND ECDC 16.43.020.A BE ADOPTED. Council President Olson stressed this is an interim ordinance. The council got this information really late, but the council needs to make a decision because the moratorium is coming to an end. There are a lot of moving parts; for example, looking at the designated street front map, it is appropriate to extend it on 6t' but it may be worth considering moving it north on 5" Avenue and allow more residential there. Since this is an interim ordinance, it will go to the planning board and there will be more public hearings, so the council should adopt something a little more conservative that protects the core. A lot of time, effort and thought went into establishing the BD zones and how they supported each other and in the next few months, these other things can be discussed with more public participation and participation by the experts on the planning board. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson advised this was staff s recommendation in the original packet, not the staff recommendation provided today. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion, and recommended re -analyzing the BD zones. She believed what was done in 2013 was very thorough and comprehensive and she would like to retain mixed use commercial. Councilmember Paine did not support extending the designated street frontage for the reasons outlined tonight. BD2 allows for mixed use which means multifamily, commercial and all the options. The most conservative methodology would be ensure developers and businesses are not impacted in ways the City cannot recover from. The demand analysis states to have effective commercial, building heights would need to be raised 2-5 feet and that current market conditions support multifamily housing. The City needs more housing in the downtown area; housing abundance and options are good for the community. She supported having more analysis done, but was not in favor of extending the moratorium or having a de facto moratorium. She supported having this considered in a broader way through normal procedures like multifamily design guidelines and zoning. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to comments about sticking with the original 2013 plan. That begs the question whether there was a housing crisis in 2013 and what was the focus in 2013. Sometimes things need to change with the times and not get stuck in the past. This presentation was through and the information, although provided late, was easy to understand; a councilmember only needed to read it and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.e it pretty much explained itself although it may not have been the outcome some hoped for. With regard to analysis, no analysis is needed to understand the need for more housing; the need is clear, specifically multifamily housing. A delay does not address the housing crisis, something the City needs to focus on and it also seems like kicking can down the road. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Chen said he cannot support the proposal, not because he didn't not like it, but because he was confused. Within the same meeting, staff presented two conflicting recommendations, one is to extend and this one is not to extend. More analysis is needed. Ms. McLaughlin said staff did not recommend extending the designated street front in a previous agenda. Mr. Lien explained the ordinance in the packet was for council consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the ordinance was prepared that way because at a previous meeting, it appeared the council wanted to go in that direction. Given the timeliness the moratorium, staff wanted to have that ordinance ready but wanted to share the implications of doing it so council could make an informed decision. Mayor Nelson clarified staff drafted an ordinance but did not recommend it. Ms. McLaughlin said staff s recommendation was not to extend; council asked for an evaluation related to extending the designated street front. Councilmember Chen asked if this was urgent or was there more time. Mr. Lien answered the moratorium expires June 2" d which is one of the reason the ordinance is in the packet. If council acts on the ordinance tonight, it will be in effect before the moratorium ends. The urgency depends on whether the council wants to extend the designated street front. It is possible to extend the moratorium again, but it has been extended three times already. Councilmember Chen concluded more study was needed including looking at the relationship to the City's development from a long term standpoint, not from the standpoint of one project. Ms. McLaughlin said the analysis studied all the parcels this would be applicable to approximately 15 parcels. Council President Olson referred to the agenda memo which states staff will provide a more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. This was not the recommendation in the packet. The motion she made was in conflict with the recommendation made on the slide. Her recommendation is in the interim, stay the course, extend the designated street front on Main and through the process that follows, all of this will be revisited during the hearings. She asked it was better to adopt an interim ordinance rather than extend the moratorium or would it be better to extend the moratorium. Ms. McLaughlin agreed with a previous councilmember's comment that enough analysis has been done to know where this will land. At this point up it is to council in terms of the direction they want to go, vote to either extend the designated street front or not. Council President Olson clarified the motion on the table is to extend the designated street front and all the attachments to the ordinance in the original packet before the new information yesterday. For Councilmember L. Johnson, Council President Olson explained the motion is the last two sentences on packet page 196 in the staff recommendation section. That section also stated staff would provide a more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. She restated the motion: THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE. A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 5 WHICH AMENDS THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMENDS ECDC 16.43.020.A IS HEREBY MOVED. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SIMPLY CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY BUT NOT EXTEND THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT. Councilmember L. Johnson said obviously the ambiguity needs to be clarified, but as has been stated, the moratorium has been extended a number of times, the council has the information it needs to make an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.e informed decision. Clarifying the ambiguity is necessary but she did not believe extending the designated street front was in the City's best interest. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment although she supported the original motion. She clarified a misstatement during discussion, when she on the planning board in 2012, there was discussion was about 25 plus 5 feet not 30 feet. The height was never intended to be 30 feet, it was intended to be 25 feet plus 5 feet for articulation. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment because there is new, good, data -based information and this is the cycle of market. This may have been what was needed in 2013 or 2008, but it is no longer those times. Not extending the designated street front would allow more multifamily housing, would not put the entire BD1 and BD2 in a moratorium, and offered Edmonds a lot more opportunity for vibrancy and participation in the marketplace. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment and will support original motion. Zoning is permanent for a long time; this is the result of a rush decision, targeted toward one parcel when it affects a larger area. From an interim standpoint, the 6th & Main parcel is very important to the downtown business area and the designated street map should be extended to allow commercial on the lower level. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday pointed out the main motion is lacking specificity with regard to the map. Before the council votes, he wanted to ensure staff understood the map because there is not an amended map in the packet. He believed he understood what the maker of the motion intended and Mr. Lien described earlier in his presentation where the designated street front could be extended. Mr. Lien said the amended map is Exhibit 1, packet page 198. The ordinance contains a space for a public hearing date; a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption of an interim ordinance. He recommended setting the public hearing date before the vote. July options include the 5th, 19th, or 26th. Council President Olson advised the public hearing would be held on July 19th UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson commented he did not believe the council would get to the Waterfront Study agenda item. 2. STORMWATER CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE Interim Public Works Director Rob English introduced Rebecca Dugopolski, PE, Herrera Environmental Consultants, and Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell. He explained this item was discussed in July 2021 and public hearings were held in September 2021. The project was delayed by a SEPA appeal and the resignation of the City's stormwater engineer. Staff is proceeding now that the appeal is complete and Herrera Environmental Consultants was hired to help with the process. Ms. Dugopolski reviewed: • Why the Update? o The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City's development code to meet or exceed Ecology's standards designed to protect surface water from being impacted by development Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.f ULong Bay Enterprises, Inc. Real Estate Consulting May 23, 2022 MEMORANDUM To: City of Edmonds Susan McLaughlin Development Services Department Director From: Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. Cynthia Berne Principal/Broker Subject: Submarket Demand Analysis for Commercial uses in the BD2 zone and surrounding Downtown zones. Per your request we have performed a cursory market demand analysis regarding commercial uses in the BD2 zone and immediate surrounding area of Downtown Edmonds. We have added some general information about the current and recent history for the demand of rental multi- family units. (See attached map depicting target areas referenced below.) The commercial space analysis, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north, a zigzag to the waterfront and 3rd Ave to the west, Holly Drive to the south and 7th Ave to the east. The multi -family rental information, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north, waterfront to the west, Pine Street to the south and 7th Ave to the east. Market demand for any use, does not limit itself to submarket zones, but more from a sense of "place" for a given particular use. For instance, a retailer looking to locate in Downtown Edmonds will focus on zones that allow the proposed use but will not target one zone. Rental rates, parking availability, visibility to auto and pedestrian traffic are examples of criteria that may go into a decision on where to locate rather than a specific zone. Submarket Demand Analysis (studying a very small micro area) does not lend itself to the general real estate data bases for all the statistical information. Many data bases are city wide driven, and or regional analysis. We pulled information from several sources and then extrapolated data for the micro area of study. This is not an exact science, as there may be a pocket of data missed for the micro market area, but the sources below offer a comprehensive look at Downtown Edmonds. Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. 320 Dayton Street, # 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 937-9536 www.longbayenterprises.com Packet Pg. 76 List of sources used 6.A.f Commercial Broker Association multiple listing data base Northwest Multiple Listing Service data base Snohomish County Assessor's web site OfficeSpace.com Hotpads.com Loopnet.com Apartment.com Rent.com Trulia.com Walking the target area for signage of space available that is not listed in any of the above COMMERCIAL SPACE DEMAND DATA RETAIL MARKET Current available Average Days on Market (DOM) all SF types of spaces spaces Historical Days on Market — N/A 255 DOM (Historical) Last 3.5 years General Retail 5 276 DOM Current Vacant — Not listed: 1 N/A C'est La Vie Business appears closed — 1 N/A Not listed: Bop N Burger OFFICE MARKET all SF types of spaces Current available spaces Average Days on Market (DOM) Historical Days on Market — N/A 230 DOM (Historical) Last 3.5 years 1000 to 2000 sf spaces are 7 307 DOM (Current) what currently is available MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL UNITS DEMAND DATA There are approximately 425 muti family rental units in the target area. The largest number of units are 2-bedrooms, which account for approximately 56% of the total units. One -bedroom units represent approximately 34% of the total unit supply and the remainder 10% are 3 bedrooms and studios. Currently there are approximately 5 units (three 2-bedroom units and two 1-bedroom units) available in the target area, which equate to a 1% vacancy rate. A 5-6% vacancy rate is considered a strong and balanced market for Lessors and Lessees. From the small amount of information, we could gather from our sources, we extrapolated the average DOM to be approximately 20. DEMAND CONCLUSION The data above demonstrates that historically and currently the retail market has been stable, strong, and even robust at times. The closeness of the historic and current DOM is a good indicator of a stable market. The inventory is low in the retail sector but not what is considered a Lessor's Market. The office data shows a stable and at times strong market. The retail Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. Packet Pg. 77 6.A.f market is the stronger of the two commercial uses analyzed, using the indicator of DOM as the key factor. There are many other indicators to analyze but this study did not lend itself to the next layer of research, that being calculating the full office and retail inventory in the entire submarket. The additional information this next layer of research would provide is the vacancy rate of each commercial use. The vacancy rate is a valid indicator but is more informative to a prospective developer than prospective tenants or zoning criteria review. The addition of Main Street Commons, to the commercial district of Downtown Edmonds, is worth noting as a very large influx of retail uses that add to the current inventory. The absorption rate of all the retail space in this new development will be a significant indicator of the strength and demand for retail space. In many ways it is a project that will generate more interest in this corridor, but it could also affect the inventory enough that the demand will slow due to this new supply of spaces. The multi -family information is more cursory in nature as it was not an initial request of this analysis. It is an important factor in the overall review of zoning uses and requirements and therefore we added this general information to help with the broader discussions. The biggest take away from the multi -family information is the obvious short supply and high demand for these rental units. We did not evaluate the affordability of the current market inventory, but a brief look indicates that the extremely low inventory is driving the rent rates very high and therefore limiting those that can afford to live in the Downtown Edmonds area. FEASABILITY OF MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BD2 ZONE The results of the Otak massing development analysis identifies that the mixed -use alternative reduces the number of multi -family units significantly in comparison to all residential unit alternative. Due to the cumbersome height requirements for the commercial space and height limit of the entire building, the project loses an entire floor of residential units, reducing the number of units from 15 to 8. The commercial space is approximately 1900 SF which could render 3 small -size retail spaces. The risk associated with the long absorption time for the retail spaces (see chart above average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make the mixed -use project not feasible for the average boutique developer. There are several factors to consider for a project of this type to be determined feasible; below are a few examples 1. Absorption rate —this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines financial feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin, internal rate of return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are based on historical DOM for the proposed use and projections as to what the future absorption could be. Absorption rates are directly related to the risk of the given project 2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete- a mixed use project requires a more complete property management system than a single use project. 3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best use of a property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of developing and maintaining the property over the greatest number of income- producing units. 4. Construction Costs- these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site, the size of the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials. Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. Packet Pg. 78 Shoreline Sanctuary... W dp�,As-- log Fd IQ ` -- ^:;ton St sit _.� R ■ - ■ Cox ■ �i Rt � ails . `� ,^ .! � • i In9 i Edmonds Marsh Minna dhd: - ' n Beach Park ty rE �. • , u� - • it + "Edwards Paint r• F - - 7 lP I I '.. 00A NEIGI 16 le-..,�,_ _� ...„.__ ....... 6.A.g Otak Memorandum To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Chad Weiser Copies: File Date: May 23, 2022 Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations Project No.: 20793 Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to Edmonds City Staff and City Council on potential code changes to the BD2 zoning regulations. The findings of this analysis indicate no significant revisions to the code are required, although some minor refinements in code language and standards should be considered. The recommendations include suggested code changes to the requirements for the BD2 zone to address inconsistencies and to improve the ease of development for owners and developers in achieving the intent of the allowances within the zone. Summary of 13132 Zoning Development in the BD2 zone is regulated through the development standards located in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.43. New buildings in the BD2 zone located along a Designated Street Front must have a street level floor with commercial uses at a minimum 12 foot height. New buildings located outside of the Designated Street Front are not required to have commercial uses on the first floor and may be multifamily residential (only) buildings. New buildings in the BD2 zone are limited to 30 feet in height. Height is defined as the vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of a site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. Buildings located along a Designated Street Front are allowed to place commercial storefronts below grade with limitations as defined in the code. No off-street parking is required for new commercial or retail uses, and one parking space is required per multifamily residential unit. Public open space is required in new developments on lots of 12,000 square feet or more or on lots with 120 feet or more of street frontage. Please reference the Edmonds BD2 Zoning Memo for additional information. Summary of Comparable Cities Other Puget Sound communities similar to Edmonds, such as Mukilteo and Snohomish, have similar downtown zoning requirements as Edmonds, although Edmonds has more subsets of their Downtown Business District zoning. Mukilteo and Snohomish are similar in size and scale to Edmonds including their downtown areas. In general, the Downtown Business District zoning is very comparable between all three communities including permitted uses and bulk/dimensional standards. However, there are some minor, but notable differences. Both Mukilteo and Snohomish have higher maximum height requirements (35 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx Packet Pg. 80 Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations Page 2 of 4 May 23, 2022 and 40 feet respectively) than Edmonds, but in comparison, require more off-street parking for both commercial and residential uses. Mukilteo restricts residential development on the ground floor of new buildings in their downtown business zone similar to Edmonds BD2 regulations for Designated Street Front, while Snohomish has no restrictions on the location of residential development. Please reference the Zoning Memo — Additional Research on Comparable Cities for additional information. Recommendations Permitted Uses Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC 16.43.020. No changes to specific permitted uses are recommended. It is recommended to revise the use table ECDC 16.43-1 to clarify where multi -dwelling housing is allowed to eliminate the inconsistencies in language regarding the allowance of all residential development in the BD2 zone when not on a Designated Street Front. Site Development Standards (setbacks, height) Site development standards for the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(A). Existing regulations limit building development in the BD2 zone to 30 feet in height. The analysis shows that a 30-foot building height with a required 12-foot first floor height puts constraints on mixed use development within the downtown core. Requiring a 12-foot commercial first floor along with a 30-foot height limit, constrains the ability of a developer to build three stories on many sites within this zone. It is possible to develop a 3- story mixed use building while meeting the code requirements for the BD2 zone if the site has sloping topography and the commercial space is, in part, set below existing adjacent grade. By using the average grade methodology for measuring building height, as defined in the code, developers have been able to achieve a third floor. The addition of a third floor to a mixed use development project within the existing height limits often results in needing to build a partially subterranean first floor. The below grade commercial space impacts the aesthetics, marketability and desirability of street front commercial as well as the general streetscape appearance in the downtown business district. Examples of developments in the downtown business district where these regulations have impacted development have been included for reference, see Figures 1, 2, and 3 below. Figure 1. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance. I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx Packet Pg. 81 Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations Page 3 of 4 May 23, 2022 It is recommended a minor increase in allowed building height be considered in the BD2 zone, as well as any other BD zones similarly affected. This height increase would create more flexibility for a developer to design a 3-story mixed use development. An increase of two (2) to five (5) feet in building height would encourage more 3-story mixed use redevelopment by making a third story feasible on more sites and allowing already feasible sites to be developed in a manner that avoids less desirable subterranean first floor commercial space. This recommended change is intended to make the Designated Street Front commercial requirement as feasible to integrate into a 3-story development as developing an all - residential development. Any increases in height should be crafted with code language that limits all BD2 development to no more than 3-stories in height. Figure 2. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance. I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx Packet Pg. 82 Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations Page 4 of 4 May 23, 2022 G-gle EaM Pro — B X File Edk Y J-k Ada yap Figure 3 — A multi -family residential building (left) adjacent to a Mixed Use Building (right) showing the 3-foot height difference in the first floor Designated Street Front Regulations for the Designated Street Front are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(B). The extent of Designated Street Front as reflected on the Designated Street Front Map (EDCD Map 16.43-1), could be expanded based on the discretion of the City Council and the City's goals for the downtown business district. An expansion of the extents of Designated Street Front should be addressed in the context of the other noted recommendations. Off -Street Parking Off street parking regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(D) The existing off-street parking regulations are more flexible than comparable cities and do not negatively impact the ability to develop parcels in the BD2 zone. As long as the community is not experiencing a negative impact from a less stringent parking requirement in the downtown area, no changes are recommended for this requirement. Open Space Open space regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(E). No changes are recommended for the Open Space regulations. I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx Packet Pg. 83 ALLEY ACCESS 6.A.h LL U) STAIRS 0 0 m PARKING rn 22 0 A LU L w LU H d LU A STAIRS EL. J DESIGNATED STREET FRONT GARAGE RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 1BR: 12 2BR: 7 3BR: 3 TOTAL: 22 2 BR 2BR 921 SF 927 SF STAIRS 1 BR 1 BR 670 SF 625 SF 1 BR 1 BR 625 SF 625 SF STAIRS EL- 3 BR 1,440 SF LOBBY 2BR 2BR 921 SF 927 SF STAIRS 1 BR 670 SF 2 BR 970 SF 1 BR 625 SF STAIRS EL. 3 BR 1 BR 1,325 SF 700 SF GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED) TOTAL: 22 BUILDING HEIGHT: GARAGE: BELOW GRADE FIRST FLOOR: 9' SECOND FLOOR: 9' THIRD FLOOR: 9' PARAPET: 3' TOTAL HEIGHT: 30' Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Residential Option 3-Story Over Below Grade Garage 2BR 2BR Q 921 SF 927 SF m C O STAIRS C 1 BR 1 BR O 685 SF 600 SF 2 V 3 a 1 BR 1 BR 600 SF 600 SF to d Q STAIRS E cC EL. x W 3 BR ++ 1 BR 1,200 SF N 570 SF E 0- 0 Q 4- 0 3RD FLOOR c �L d c m L 0 0 U co c d E t r r Q r c a� E a OPTION 1 Packet Pg. 84 RESIDENTIAL IDENTIAL .�V*Pv REs,�roN dim lgv� OT&I'lk Packet Pg. 85 6.A.h ALLEY ACCESS STAIRS vLLj o I0 GARAGE CO PARKING rn A 16 O J WdIF J w LU A XIco W STAIRS I 3BR 1,260 SF I LOBBY J > 0 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT — N a1 C �L GROUND LEVEL d 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR m RESIDENTIAL OPTION: GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED) L o 1 BR: 6 TOTAL: 16 U 2BR: 6 3BR: 3 BUILDING HEIGHT: 00 FIRST FLOOR: 10' r_ TOTAL: 15 SECOND FLOOR: 9' E THIRD FLOOR: 9' PARAPET: 2' r Q TOTAL HEIGHT: 30' E R Q Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Residential Option 3-Story OPT10 Packet Pg. 86 0 A. *006P 46 V va%lr S RESIDENTIAL Packet Pg. 87 6.A.h ALLEY ACCESS I LL STAIRS to 0 GARAGE 0 PARKING rn A 12 01 W J LL w LU Q BIKE w STAIRS LOBBY COMMERCIAL 1,900 SF J 0 m C O R d 2 a N d Q E R X W C d Q O LAIJ 4- DESIGNATED STREET FRONT O N a1 C �L d GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR m COMMERCIAL: 1,900 SF GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED) o TOTAL: 12 0 U RESIDENTIAL UNITS: BUILDING HEIGHT: NOTE: 00 1 BR: 4 FIRST FLOOR: 12' Financial feasibility of a two-story with commercial may be 2BR: 2 SECOND FLOOR: 8' questionable. Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height m E 3BR: 2 PARAPET: 2' limitation and specific site constraints. TOTAL: 8 TOTAL HEIGHT: 22' r r Q r c a� E R z Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning 1 Commercial Option 2-Story 0 Packet Pg. 88 RESIDENTIAL GSM VoN�,p� COMMERCIAL OPTION 3 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.h LU w w H ALLEY ACCESS GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL OPTION: 1,900 SF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 1 BR: 6 2BR: 6 3BR: 2 TOTAL:14 LL Cn O O O O H O 111 a X W J 2 BR 2 BR 1,000 SF 925 SF STAIRS 1 BR 755 2 BR 1,000 SF 71X 1 BR STAIRS 755 3 BR 1,140 SF 1 BR 755 2 BR 2 BR 1,000 SF 925 SF STAIRS 1 BR 755 2 BR 1,000 SF 1 BR STAIRS 755 3 BR 1,140 SF 1 BR 755 PAMBI VEi1161 1:791 IEi1161V GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED) TOTAL:14 BUILDING HEIGHT: NOTE: GROUND LEVEL: 12' Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and FIRST FLOOR: 8' specific site constraints. An additional 2' in height allows for a SECOND FLOOR: 8' more traditional building design that would front the street with PARAPET: 2' commercial at grade with fronting public sidewalk. TOTAL HEIGHT: 32' Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Commercial Option 3-Story OPT Packet Pg. 90 loto 0 loto a * ;000 9 , , ir 7A v RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Packet Pg. 91 6.A.i Otak -. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1 Memorandum To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak Copies: Chad Weiser, Otak Date: May 19, 2022 Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities Project No.: 20793 Purpose The purpose of this memo is to provide a short summary of the approaches comparable cities to Edmonds have taken to zone their historic downtowns. A summary of both the City of Snohomish's Historic Business District zone and Mukilteo's Downtown Business zone have been provided below. A comparison table, showing at a glance the differences between the approaches Snohomish, Mukilteo, and Edmonds have taken in their downtown zoning, has been provided, see Table 1 below. Table 1. Research Comparison Table Setbacks (NOTE: may differ for developments adjacent to residential zones) Max Height Multi Family allowed Commercial Space requirements Open space requirements Special Parking requirements Commercial parking Edmonds BD2 Zone 0' 30' Yes, but restricted on `Designated Frontage Streets' Yes, first 45' of the bottom floor must be commercial Yes (on lots larger than 12,000 or with a frontage of over 120 ft) Yes No parking required for commercial or retail uses. 1 parking space required for every 500 Mukilteo DB Zone 0' Required if necessary to provide adequate 10' wide sidewalk 35' No, no multifamily only structures allowed Yes, the first portion of the street level floor of all structures must be commercial No No Parking varies per use. 4.5 to 5 spaces required per 1,000 sqft of gfa for commercial or retail uses Snohomish HBD Zone 0' 40' Yes, no restrictions No, no requirements No Yes 1 parking space required for every 400 sgft of new commercial, retail, or service uses. 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities .docx Packet Pg. 92 Page 2 of 2 Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities May 19, 2022 sqft of uses that are not commercial or residential. Residential 1 parking space 1.5 spaces per studio 2 spaces for two - parking required per and one -bedroom units, 2 bedroom dwellings or multifamily unit. spaces for all other units, larger, 1.5 spaces per plus 1 space for every one -bedroom dwelling, four units for guest 1.2 spaces per dwelling parking unit per studio unit Snohomish Downtown Zoning Summary Snohomish has designated their downtown zoning district, the 'Historic Business District' (HBD). Snohomish allows both multifamily buildings and mixed -use buildings anywhere within the HBD, but has a max residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Snohomish has no setback requirements for buildings in the HBD zone and has a max height of 40 feet. There are no open space requirements for new structures in the HBD zone. New buildings within the HBD zone containing commercial, retail, or services uses, must supply one off street parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Multifamily dwelling units must provide parking based on unit size, 2 spaces for two -bedroom dwellings or larger, 1.5 spaces per one -bedroom dwelling, and 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit per studio unit. Mukilteo Downtown Zoning Summary Mukilteo has designated their downtown zoning district 'Downtown Business' zone (DB). Multifamily buildings are not permitted in the DB zone, residential units are only allowed as part of a mixed -use building. The front portion of the street level of all structures must be occupies by commercial/retail uses. Residential uses may be located above, behind or below commercial/retail uses. In the event that a lot depth is less than 60 feet, the entire street level of the structure must be a commercial/retail use. Mukilteo has designated certain streets as 'pedestrian -oriented street' in their downtown business district subarea plan and has codified design standards pertaining to pedestrian access for structures along these streets. All structures in the DB zone are encouraged to build right up to the lot line, unless a setback is required for adequate pedestrian access, public space, or outdoor dining areas. The max height in the DB zone is 35 feet. There are no special parking regulations for the DB zone, parking is required based on the proposed use, which can vary from 4.5 to 5 spaces required per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Residential uses must provide one and one-half spaces per studio and one -bedroom units and two spaces for all other units, plus one space for every four units for guest parking. k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities .docx Packet Pg. 93 6.A.j Otak _. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1 Memorandum To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak Copies: Chad Weiser, Otak Date: May 19, 2022 Subject: Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum Project No.: 20793 Zoning Analysis The purpose of this zoning memorandum is to provide a summary of the development regulations in the city of Edmonds BD2 zoning district. This summary will support the planning team with development of designing yield alternatives analyzing the effects of zoning changes on housing yields. Background The purpose of the Downtown Business (BD) zone is to: ■ Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. ■ Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. ■ Identify supporting arts and mixed -use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. ■ Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. The "downtown business" zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: ■ BD1 — Downtown Retail Core; ■ BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial; ■ BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial; ■ BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential; ■ BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com k: project120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 94 Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum Page 2 of 6 May 19, 2022 The extent of the BD2 zone is show below in Figure 1 1 1 1 1 ccd®¢ Downtown Business a BD1 Downtown Retail Core BD2 Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 rn Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 a Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 Downtown Arts Corridor Historic Sites Sites on Edmonds Register of Historic Places uRezones Contract Rezones (contractual requirements apply) 0 PRD PRD - Planned Residential Development Figure 1. Excerpt from City of Edmonds Zoning Map Allowed Uses Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in EDCD Table 18.43-1 and provided below for reference. Permitted uses are split into three use categories, Commercial, Residential, and Other Uses. Some other uses may require a conditional use permit. Uses that are only allowed as secondary to a permitted or conditional use are marked with *. Commercial Permitted Uses ■ Retail store or sales • Offices ■ Service uses, including dining or entertainment uses ■ Automobile sales and services ■ Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public ■ Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeports;Vinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 95 Page 3 of 6 Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum May 19, 2022 ■ Printing, publishing and binding establishments ■ Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC Residential Permitted Uses ■ Single-family dwelling ■ Multiple dwelling unit(s)' Other Uses Permitted ■ Bus stop shelters • Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 ■ Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) ■ Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 • Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use* ■ Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone* ■ Hotels and motels ■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Other Conditional Uses ■ Commercial parking lots ■ Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 ■ Amusement establishments ■ Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions ■ Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) • Laboratories ■ Day-care centers • Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums ■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 ■ Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 ■ Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers ■ Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 ■ Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use* ■ Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC* Site Development Standards Site development standards for the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC Table 16.43-2. There are no minimum lot area requirements and no minimum front, side, or rear setbacks. The maximum building heightz is 30 1 A Memorandum of Legislative Intent, dated April 13, 2022, clarified that the current adopted code never intended to limit the location of multifamily housing outside of the Designated Street Front. 2 Pursuant to EDCD 21.40.030, height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 96 Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum Page 4 of 6 May 19, 2022 feet. The minimum height of the ground floor within the Designated Street Front is 12 feet3. Definitions for the Designated Street Front and ground floor are provided below. Designated Street Front Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030 (B) there are special regulations for the ground floor of buildings in the BD2 zone that are located along a Designated Street Front. The locations of the Designated Street Front are shown in blue in Figure 2 below. The Designated Street Front is defined as the 45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot line fronting on each of the mapped streets. t� Designated Street Front LI__ 5� r� �r BELL ST � ... BOT N Y DAYTO �L= MAPLE ST n--F--J--l_L ALDER s7 � � - r --� WALNUT s T W LLV DR.- 7 a BE13 -.--. HQM1{�ELL wqv M W N HOMCLwHG 6V - x Q } ERBEH DR w Figure 2. EDCD Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zone 3 Minimum height of ground floor means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front. If the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete. k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 97 Page 5 of 6 Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum May 19, 2022 Ground Floor Regulations for the ground floor of development in the BD2 zone are in EDCD 16.43.030.(B). The ground floor is defined as the floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. Within the BD2, development on the ground floor along the Designated Street Front must consist only of commercial uses. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. If the first 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then multiple -family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front. In all areas of the Designated Street Front, pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within the Designated Street Front as shown in Figure 2, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry must be within seven inches of the grade4 level of the adjoining sidewalk. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed to meet one of the three following conditions. ■ The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry. ■ The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. ■ For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with these access requirements. Parking Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(D), no parking is required for any permitted commercial uses located within the BD2 zone. Pursuant to EDCD 17.50.010.(C), all new buildings or additions in any BD zone that are not commercial or residential uses shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. Any portions of a building in any BD zone used exclusively for residential uses5 must provide one parking stall per dwelling unit. 4 Grade is measured at the entry location for the development. 5 The term residential uses refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features. k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 98 Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum Page 6 of 6 May 19, 2022 Open Space Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(E), new buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or on lots that have an overall building width of more than 120 feet must provide open space available to the public. Open space is not required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. A minimum of five (5) percent of the site area must be devoted to open space, the width of the open space cannot be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space. Open space must be provided adjacent to the street front, must be open to the air, and can be provided as any combination of the following ■ Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments). ■ Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public. ■ Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. Design Standards Development in the BD2 zone must be consistent with the design standards outlined in EDCD Chapter 22.43. The design standards provide guidance on the architectural form, ground level details, window transparency, signage, and other street level, pedestrian oriented, details. The design regulations do not provide any regulations that are relevant to this size, scale, or use of the structure, and have not been summarized for the memorandum. k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx Packet Pg. 99 6.A.k B. BD2 Designated Street Front Mr. Lien introduced the Designated Street Front recent history, ordinance history, and map revisions. With the adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, councilmembers voiced an interest in having commercial office to support the retail core. Legislative history has favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street as part of the original designation. With the new regulations there must be commercial use within the first 45 feet of designated street front; and there are minimum ground floor requirements of 12 feet in BD2 and 15 feet in BD 1 and different design standards. There are also changes to the use table which clarify ambiguities, fills in blanks, and reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements. Mr. Lien reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Goal E, E-1 for the Downtown/Waterfront Area to provide for a strong central retail core while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding area and to support a mix of uses in downtown including a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The BD zoning purposes state that it is to provide a strong retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding retail core area. Staff had wondered if Designated Street Front restrictions would inhibit market demand for residential development, if there is a market demand for a mixed commercial building, and if there is a market demand for solely commercial buildings. An analysis by staff of commercial shows that the commercial leasing market appears to be stable. The multifamily rental market shows that there is short supply and high demand for rental units. He reviewed drawings of designs of development they might see in the BD2 zone with the Designated Street Front. The overall conclusion of the market analysis is that the risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make mixed -use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer. The interim ordinance passed by Council will expire on December 1. To make it permanent it will have to come through the Planning Board. Some of the councilmembers want to take a broader look at the Designated Street Front. Staff is not recommending a broader look at this time but possibly in the future in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted it is possible to extend the interim ordinance for more than six months if there is a work plan for how they are going to address it. He suggested a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission on this. Discussion: Board Member Rosen agreed that they should meet with the Economic Development Commission before making any recommendations. He understands staff s recommendation to not take a broader look at this time but expressed concern that the expanded area could be developed all residential before they do this. He thinks it is prudent to consider the impacts of the "dotted blue lines". Mr. Lien agreed that they should look at the dotted blue lines. If they want to take a bigger look at the Designated Street Front in other areas of the city, he thinks that should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the clarification and recommended they don't eliminate any options before meeting with the Economic Development Commission. Chair Crank concurred. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.k Board Member Gladstone asked about the ceiling requirement on the ground floor commercial (12 and 15 feet) and how that compares with residential. Mr. Lien replied that the examples showed 8 or 9 feet for residential. Mr. Lien explained the code shows the ground floor requirement for the first floor in the BD zone is 15 feet from the first floor to the top of the 2nd floor level and 12 feet in the BD2 zone. The taller ceilings are desirable for commercial. Board Member Gladstone commented that desirability is subjective; she wondered if there was a more objective reason. Board Member Cloutier commented that no one will rent a commercial space with a low ceiling. There is a feeling of more light and more air with the higher ceilings. When there is commercial space already on the market that is not renting, this would be building non -usable nonrentable space. Board Member Gladstone welcomed the opportunity to do a walking tour around how things are zoned the way they are so she could have a better grasp of the topic. Board Member Cheung asked about councilmembers' reasoning of having commercial use because it would support retail. Mr. Lien explained that in the BD 1 zone commercial is required on the ground floor. He thinks the Council was interested in protecting commercial/office space outside the BD 1 core but also having residential use downtown that supports the commercial use. Board Member Cheung recalled councilmembers' statements quite a while ago about having more office space people would give life to commercial as they were walking around at lunchtime but wondered if those statements were made pre- Covid. He thought that now, when more people are working from home, it might have shifted, and the residential might be what gives the life to commercial in the downtown area. Vice Chair Pence expressed concern about submerging the main floor as a way to still get three floors. Since there is some general recognition that this is not a desirable building form, can they do some tweaking to the allowable building heights and floor -to -ceiling heights to allow developers to get a functional 3-story building that still keeps with the desired aesthetics. Mr. Lien commented that it would only take an additional two feet to make three floors feasible. He noted that this same discussion has occurred over the last 50 years regarding downtown Edmonds but people are resistant to increasing building heights. Board Member Campbell agreed with looking at raising the allowable building height in order to provide economically feasible buildings that can have people inhabiting them. She thought that people who don't live in the downtown core are less likely to use those businesses than people that live there because of parking challenges. Board Member Gladstone stated she is one of those people who has historically resisted increased building heights, but she has always assumed they were talking about adding another 10 feet to get another floor. This is the first time she has heard it is only two feet. She asked if there were ever renderings done to show what it would look like if they did that. Board Member Cloutier suggested looking at meeting minutes from 2008- 2010 where renderings were made to show the difference between setbacks and cake backs. Mr. Lien noted that building form is what they need to look at to preserve the light and openness. He commented on some of the discussion that occurred in the past and offered to pull up the meeting minutes from way back to give some insight into those discussions. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and discussed a potential meeting with the Economic Development Commission in July or August. There was consensus to try to schedule a joint meeting with the EDC at the Planning Board's regular meeting on August 10 and have a summer break on August 24. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.k CITY OF EDMONDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING July 20, 2022 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Nicole Hughes, Chair Kevin Harris, Vice Chair Darrol Haug Carrie Hulbert Jay Hoag Kevin Smith Keith Hamilton David Kaufer COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lee Reeves - unexcused LIAISONS PRESENT: Susan Paine, Councilmember, ex-officio Roger Pence, Planning Board, ex-officio LIAISONS ABSENT: Angela Harris, Port Commissioner, ex-officio Ryan Crowther, Edmonds Chamber, ex-officio GUESTS: STAFF PRESENT: Megan Luttrell, Program Coordinator CS/ED Kernen Lien, Planning Manager Economic Development Commission meeting conducted via ZOOM and called to order by Nicole Hughes at 6:00 p.m. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement 1. Roll Call and Recognition of Approved Absences: Round robin introductions to introduce David Kaufer to the Commission. Lee Reeves is an unexcused absence. 2. Approval of Agenda: Darrol would like to add a parking discussion as 6.5; Kevin H. would like to add an item to discuss the August meeting as 7.5 and the next meeting date needs to be noted that it's incorrect and should be August 171". Kevin H. seconded, Darrol's addition; Darrol seconded, Kevin H.'s addition; motion passed unanimously. 3. Approval of June 15, 2022, Meeting Summary: Jay moved to approve the meeting summary; Carrie seconded; motion passed. 4. Audience Comments: None. 5. Presentation and Discussion: Edmonds Business Districts: Kernen Lien, Planning Manager is here to give an overview of the BD2 designated street in preparation for the August joint meeting with the Planning Board. Kernen shared a PowerPoint presentation with the Commission to explain the topic and share history on how the designated street front has evolved. The City Council adopted Ordinance 4247 establishing a moratorium on building permit applications for multifamily only buildings in the BD2 after there was a design review application for a multifamily building -to address insufficient design standards. The BD Zoning was adopted in 2007 to define distinct districts in the downtown core. He shared the BD Ordinance History. Kernen explained in the detail the evolution of the BD designated street front. A recent concern is whether multifamily only buildings should be allowed in the BD2 Zone, eliminating commercial space. There was a Market Demand Analysis done to determine commercial and residential space demand and Kernen explained the outcome of the analysis. He continued to cover the history of building heights and limitations that they create. He explained the next steps moving forward and opened it up for questions. Darrol asked what the rationale for 12' ceiling height for first floor spaces in BD2 Zones Designated Street Front. Kernen explained he hasn't Meeting Summary Economic Development Commission July 20, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.k researched why but it has been that way since the inception of the BD Zone. Kernen explained that he's looking for the EDC to weigh in commercial space impacts; there could be discussions on ceiling heights for the 1st floor; EDC could explore height limits. Discussion continued to explore ideas where the EDC could add value to the BD Zone discussion. No parking is required for commercial space in BD Zone. 1 parking space is required for residential space in BD Zone. Nicole concluded to review the attachment that was included in this month's packet. The EDC will join the Planning Board meeting on August loth at 7pm to participate in the joint discussion on this topic. 6. Presentation and Discussion: Consideration for Moving City Facilities: Nicole explained that the last time this was discussed, everyone was directed to review Councilmember Chen's email requesting the Commission research the idea of the moving City services out of downtown. She shared a history of the EDC's past work on this topic. Nicole opened the discussion up to determine how the group feels about moving forward on this idea. Kevin H. suggested opening the discussion up to City staff to see what the observations are, including Police Chief Bennett Darrol added that he will be gathering notes of what was discussed within the committee. He's also discussed this with several councilmembers and will also gather those notes. Nicole suggested taking Darrol's notes and meeting with Councilmember Chen. She also recommended that the commissioners discuss with the stakeholders, the impact of moving. Darrol pointed out that there has been significant turnover in staff and Council since the last time this was recommended by the EDC. The last recommendation that was presented to Council was in 2018 and it was specifically to move City Hall, not Public Safety departments. 6.5 Parking Discussion: Darrol noted that a parking enforcement position has been requested to serve all of Edmonds. 7. City Update: Last night at Council, Todd Tatum was confirmed as the new Community Services/Economic Development Director. 7.5 August Meetings: The EDC will participate in a joint meeting with Planning Board on August loth Nicole suggested maintaining the regularly scheduled, August 17tn meeting also to have Susan McLaughlin attend to discuss the Neighborhood Branding. Kevin H. noted discussions with Development Services Director/Susan McLaughlin to better align neighborhood efforts, to avoid duplication, and to better understand and share goals and objectives. Susan indicated interest in joining an EDC meeting to further discuss. Darrol suggested that the EDC meet at 6pm on August loth to prepare for the joint meeting and then jump into the 7pm PB meeting. Carrie asked to meet with Susan M. at the September EDC meeting so she can attend. Jay also suggested forgoing the August 171h meeting and to meet in September; Susan P. agreed. Kevin H. will reach out to Susan M. to see if we can push the meeting with her into September. If so, the group will conduct the full EDC meeting on August loth, instead of the regularly scheduled date.. 8. Liaison Updates a. City Council (Susan Paine) Council confirmed the CS/ED Director's appointment. Susan McLaughlin is doing some very dynamic work with the neighborhoods. The Hwy 99 revitalization project is ramping up. The City has received a significant amount of donations over the past years to maintain the beautification efforts. It was shock to learn Monday that Councilmember Kristiana Johnson passed on Monday. She made a huge impact on our City. b. Port of Edmonds (Angela Harris) absent. c. Chamber of Commerce (Ryan Crowther) absent. d. Planning Board (Roger Pence) Roger seconded Susan's sentiments. Meeting Summary Economic Development Commission July 20, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting August 10, 2022 Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement. Board Members Present Staff Present Alicia Crank, Chair Roger Pence, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Todd Cloutier (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS GregBrewer rewer expressed concern about the erosion of the business base in the BD2 zone as a result of changes to the permitted use tables which would allow 100% residential buildings. He urged the Planning Board to protect all of the BD2 zone. Michelle Dutch commented that the BD2 designation is defined as downtown mixed commercial. She reviewed how the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element discuss downtown mixed commercial. She urged the Planning Board to preserve commercial in the BD2 zone. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Pagel of 6 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.1 JOINT MEETING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION A. BD Designated Street Front Economic Development Commission Members Present: Darrol Haug, Keith Hamilton, Jay Hoag, Vice Chair Kevin Harris, Kevin Smith, Chair Nicole Hughes, David Kaufer, David Coffer, Councilmember Susan Paine Introductions were made. Senior Planner Clugston introduced the topic and made a brief presentation regarding the BD Designated Street Front. He reviewed: • Language from the Downtown Mixed Commercial and Downtown Mixed Residential sections of the Comprehensive Plan. • Designated Street Front regulations: must be commercial within first 45 feet of designated street front; 12-foot minimum ground floor (15 feet in BD 1); different design standards History of BD2 projects that have occurred since 2011: Post Office, 303 Edmonds Street, 117 2nd Avenue S, 611 Main Street, 627 Dayton Street, 310 Daley. With the exception of the post office, all the other projects were residential proposals. Potential Recommendations: 1. No change — keep Designated Street Front as in Ordinance 3865 2. Accept interim map and use table in Ordinance 4262 3. Accept interim map and take broader look at all BD zones after Comprehensive Plan update (staff s recommendation) 4. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use (to have Designated Street Front requirements) 5. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use and consider zoning change after Comprehensive Plan update to facilitate two floors of residential above commercial Mr. Clugston invited discussion regarding the topic and noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 28. EDC Chair Hughes explained that there is not necessarily a consensus among the EDC regarding this topic. EDC Commissioner Harris asked what led the staff to the recommendation they favor if the Comprehensive Plan is the overall guiding document. Mr. Clugston replied that the timing of the project in relation to the Comprehensive Plan update is not ideal. Staff feels that making the interim ordinance into a permanent ordinance results in the changes that the Council wanted to see, but it doesn't take a larger step of redrawing an entire area in the downtown area. Planning Manager Kernen Lien explained that part of the Comprehensive Plan update process will be a visioning process where they can take a broader look at the downtown core and where those designated street fronts should be or not. EDC Commissioner Haug referred to first floor height requirements for BD 1 and BD2 zones. He noted that a previous EDC looked at this extensively and made a recommendation to change BD 1 to allow 12-foot construction, the same as what BD2 is right now. The EDC was confused about why there was a difference in first floor height requirements between the two zones. Planning Manager Lien stated that the BD 1 height requirement had to do with the retail/display use of the ground floor. The BD2 zone had more to do with office uses where 12 feet is the standard. He noted that the ground floor height impacts the ability to potentially get three floors. The economic analysis in the packet shows that it is harder to Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.1 get three floors with the ground floor height requirement. Recommendation 5 would be to consider some flexibility with the heights to allow potentially three floors if commercial is required on the ground floor. PB Chair Crank asked for clarification about the pieces that are likely to get changed anyway in the update and visioning process so they don't spend too much time working on those things right now. Planning Manager Lien replied they will be looking at the whole downtown area. This item has been flagged as something that specifically needs to be looked at. He thinks they will likely be looking at commercial use in the downtown area and housing use/availability. EDC Commissioner Smith referred to the old post office and asked how the ground floor building heights compare to what would otherwise be available in the BD2 zone. He asked if the preferred recommendation #3 would allow the building without commercial or if it would require street fronts. Mr. Clugston replied that the post office had 12-foot first floor heights. The preferred recommendation would leave the map as it is with the interim ordinance and the few extensions that the Council approved in June as well as the updated use table. In the future they would look at the broader view of the downtown area after the Comprehensive Plan is updated. EDC Commissioner Hoag noted that the 6ffi & Main project is removing an existing commercial building to put in residential. He acknowledged that there is a housing crisis, but there was a good reason that BD2 had intentional mixed use with business on the ground floor. He thinks they will regret losing the commercial space in the BD2 zone. PB Member Gladstone asked what the drivers are to push for this now rather than waiting for the update and visioning process. Mr. Lien reviewed recent history which brought this to attention and caused Council to adopt a moratorium and interim ordinances for designated street front and design standards. The ordinances are only good for six months. If they are not addressed now, the interim ordinance will just revert back to what it was before it was adopted. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR CRANK TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OPTION 3. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. EDC Vice Chair Harris commented he doesn't have a good understanding of the risks of letting things go back to status quo or changing it to the City's preferred option. Mr. Lien explained the designated street front would get contracted back down to what it was before the interim ordinance. It was extended to protect the retail core by having commercial around the BD 1 zone and to identify areas where there were commercial uses on both sides of the street and within the primary pedestrian areas downtown. Another important part of this was the update to the use table to clarify the uses in the BD2 zone. Recommendation 3 matches what staff is hearing from Council and what they have been hearing from the public. Chair Hughes commented she was leaning towards being able to support Recommendation 3. PB Member Rosen spoke in support of protecting the area for additional business growth. He pointed out that they are not talking about either/or but how much residential. In addition, he referred to previous discussions about transition zones. He noted that people are responding to their experiences walking down the street and their interaction with the buildings. He also spoke in support of Recommendation 3 to "protect the dirt" while also saying they are not done talking about this. PB Member Gladstone asked if the interim designated street front lines reflect what is on the ground better than the actual map. Mr. Lien explained how the expanded lines in the interim ordinance were drawn. They reflect what is actually on the ground right now. PB Member Gladstone asked the Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 106 6.A.1 difference between making the interim designation permanent and the Recommendation 5 regarding allowing mixed use. Mr. Lien explained Recommendation 5 would also address potential height issues. • EDC Commissioner Smith commented that the Comprehensive Plan update is the appropriate time to take a deeper look at this. He cautioned against getting rid of potential commercial space as they are seeing vibrant growth in the city. He voiced support for Recommendation 4. • PB Member Kuehn expressed concern that if they only do Recommendation 3 it allows issues to happen in other areas. He agrees with "protecting the dirt" until they can take a broader look at this. He spoke in support of Recommendation 4. • PB Member Campbell spoke in support of trying to raise the building height limits in order to get to three stories. She thinks it is going to be necessary in the long run to have this commercial space. She spoke in support of Recommendations 4 or 5 to keep commercial space from disappearing. • EDC Commissioner Hoag commented that this will all lead to some reevaluation of the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't seem feasible that the current owners of the building could adjust their current building to match the interim standards and get it approved before they get to the Comprehensive Plan update. He wasn't sure if anything would ever occur if they did Recommendation 3. MOTION MADE BY PB MEMBER ROSEN TO SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDATION 4 TO "PROTECT THE DIRT" AND TAKE A BROADER LOOK AT THIS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. MOTION SECONDED BY PB MEMBER GLADSTONE. • Student Representative Distelhorst spoke to the need for more housing and spoke in support of preserving options for multifamily housing. • EDC Commissioner Haug asked if EDC members should participate in voting tonight. Mr. Lien noted that the formal recommendation by the Planning Board would be taken following the September 28 public hearing. He stated that they would like to hear the recommendation from the EDC. • EDC Commissioner Hamilton agreed that the City does need some housing in the downtown area, especially charming housing. He thinks that this will help the existing businesses. He also recommended making sure to change height requirements so that they can get three floors. He recommended Recommendation 3 which gives the most flexibility and uses the Comprehensive Plan process. • PB Member Kuehn clarified that the motion would extend the BD2 zones and take a broader look at all BD zones after the Comprehensive Plan process. It will not take away the ability to build residential units. THE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED OPTION 4 PASSED. Mr. Lien stated that staff would bring back Recommendation 4 to the public hearing on September 28. Chair Crank thanked the EDC for joining them tonight. EDC Chair Hughes thanked the group for the collaboration. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone (AMD2022- 0001) Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced the public hearing for the permanent standards for multifamily only buildings in the BD2 zone as recommended by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) last week. He reviewed Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 10, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 107 6.A.m OFEb4 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ins. iggo PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on permanent amendments to Chapter 16.43 ECDC regarding the extent of the Designated Street Front requirements for the Downtown Business (BD2) zone along with other minor clarifications. The permanent standards are intended to replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Ordinance 4262. NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds FILE NO.: AMD2022-0003 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 28, 2022 Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for all inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on September 28, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/i/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062 Password: 598700 Physical Location The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.m File No.: AMD2022-0003 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 14th day of September, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance. However, it was not posted at the Edmonds Public Library because it is currently closed due to a water leak that occurred on June 24. I, Mike Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 14th day of September, 2022, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Packet Pg. 109 6.A.m From: Rothfus, Debbie To: Martin, Michelle Subject: FW: Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:25:34 PM From: Sound Search <Oregon-Washington-Classifieds@clicknbuy.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:05 PM To: Rothfus, Debbie <Debbie.Rothfus@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. Ad # 962576 Thank you for placing your classified advertisement. The following represents the current text of your advertisement: CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on permanent amendments to Chapter 16.43 ECDC regarding the extent of the Designated Street Front requirements for the Downtown Business (BD2) zone along with other minor clarifications. The permanent standards are intended to replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Ordinance 4262. NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds FILE NO.: AMD2022-0003 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 28, 2022 Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for all inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on September 28, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https:Hedmondswagov.zoom.us/j/88526558062? pwd=YUtoNGFF021002U5SDdwRUFadXI5dz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062 Password: 598700 Physical Location The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston&edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Published: September 9, 2022. EDH962576 You also have the exciting option to enhance your online advertisement with extended text, photos and even multimedia at no additional cost. Enhancing your classified advertisement will give you increased exposure to thousands of online shoppers that visit our classified section every day. You can also choose to add shipping and delivery options for the buyer. Enhancing your advertisement is easy; just follow the online AdWizard to add an expanded description, photos and even video/audio of your item. To log in to the New Ad Wizard use your email address and existing password. Go to: Packet Pg. 110 6.A.m https://secure.adpay.com/adwizard_login.aspx?1=32298576 , if this link is inactive, cut and paste it into your browser address window. If you need any assistance with your advertisement, please contact our classifieds department. Thank you for using Click-N-Buy Classifieds. Packet Pg. 111 IIIIIII I 6.A.n Designated Street Front ""NpDALEY IN w Q -3= i �BD3 L WAY LE ST ALDE DALEY ST 'z ILI a' c — a c — Iw BELL aE:E l�J= N n w� la cco c m a� a, El=CD N O WALNUT o ST MLCL c m s V co ram.. Q c d E s Q I Packet Pg. 112 IIJ Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/3 6.A.n 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 GBDI BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A A Offices A X A A A A Legal/law fines A X A A A A Financial A X \ A A A Advising A X A A A A Mortgage A X A A A A Banks (without tellers) A X A A A A Accounting A X A A A A Counseling A X A A A A Architecture A X A A A A Engineering A X A A A A Advertising A X \ \ A \ Insurance A X \ \ A A Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club) A X A \ A A Service uses A A(2) A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A A Automobile sales and service X X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C X A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C X A A A C Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC' A A A A A A Residential Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must he losated Rn second FlRo_ or behind first 45 feet fron...:aeival . or rights 4�see ECDC 16.43.030.13 for further location standards A X A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A A The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 113 Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 2/3 6.A.n Permitted Uses BD1 GFSF(') BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A X A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B X B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B X B B B X Commercial parking lots C X C C C X Wholesale uses X X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) X X C A C X Laboratories X X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X X C X X Day-care centers C X C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X X C C A X Medical uses, e.g., A X A A A A Physicians A X A A A A Dental A X a A A A Optometrist (without retail) A X A A A A Physical therapy (without retail) A X A A A A Counseling A X \ 1 1 1 Other similar medical services A X \ 1 1 \ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C X C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 114 Exhibit B Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 3/3 6.A.n C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted NOTES: (1) BD Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD Zone GFSF requirements. (2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business are not allowed within BD 1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed. For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. B. Exception to the BD1 GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD zone may apply for an exception from the restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The space is less than 500 square feet; 2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk; 3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and 4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021. Packet Pg. 115 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2022 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History The Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") is a document that guides the City of Edmonds decisions on a wide range of topics and services over a 20-year time period. As the Plan acts as the blueprints for development in the city, it will impact neighborhoods, businesses, traffic, the environment and you. The Plan is also meant to reflect the vision and priorities of the city and residents, while meeting the requirements of state and federal law. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities and counties update their Comprehensive Plans on a periodic schedule. This is an opportunity to revise population and employment growth forecasts with the most up to date data, review existing policies to ensure they make sense for the community, write new policies that reflect the priorities of Edmonds, and confirm that all federal state and local requirements are met. Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that cities and counties update their Comprehensive Plans on a periodic schedule. This is an opportunity to revise population and employment growth forecasts with the most up to date data, review existing policies to ensure they make sense for the community, write new policies that reflect the priorities of Edmonds, and confirm that all federal state and local requirements are met. The purpose of the 2024 Update is to comply with the requirements of the GMA in RCW 36.70A.130 for the City of Edmonds to: Plan for the next 20 years of population and employment growth Review and revise the Plan and development regulations to ensure they comply with the requirements of the GMA. The deadline for adoption of this update is December 31, 2024. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The City of Edmonds kicked off community engagement for the Comprehensive Plan update with a six - week theme outreach over the end of the summer. Each week focused on key topics that touch upon various aspects of the plan and including identity, quality of life, economic growth, environment, culture, and livability & land use. Each week included articles in local media, presence at local events like the Summer and Uptown Markets, coffee with the director, special events like walk and talks and Packet Pg. 116 7.A panel discussions, and mini surveys. The goal was to solicit 3,500 comments from the community. More than 8,500 comments were received (600+ from events and nearly 7,900 from the surveys). The next step will be to review all the comments from the community and draft a vision statement that will guide the development of the comprehensive plan. The draft vision statement will be revealed on November 5th during an event downtown that is currently being plan. Feedback will be collected on the vision statement before being finalized and presented to the Planning Board and City Council. Staff will provide a presentation on this summers community engagement events discuss some key themes that were heard, and discuss next steps. Packet Pg. 117 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/28/2022 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review Extended Agenda Narrative Extended Agenda attached. Attachments: 09.22.2022 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 118 �y oV EQAf a l $90 October 2022 Oct 4 Council meeting PLAHM CoOOARD Extended Agenda September 22, 2022 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change October 12 1. CIP/CFP Introduction 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Quarterly Report 3. Tree Code Update October 26 1. CIP/CFP Public Hearing 2. Comprehensive Plan Update 3. Civic Park Rules 4. Code Modernization Process and Updates to Chapter 20.80 ECDC November 2022 Nov 9 1. Civic Park Rules 2. Wireless Update — Work Session 3. Tree Code Update Nov 23 1. Day before Thanksgiving... 2. Special meeting on 301"? December 2022 Dec 14 1. Election of Officers 2. Tree Code Update January cuc3 Jan 11 1. Jan 25 1. Comprehensive Plan Update r Q Packet Pg. 119 items ana liates are sui 9.A.a o change Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP For Future 2 Climate Action Plan update and public outreach Consideration 2022 3. Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design) 4. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis 5. Subdivision code updates 6. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 7. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners) 8. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates 9. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates 10. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies b. Parking standards 11. ADA Transition Plan (Parks) 12. CIP/CFP Recurring 1. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23) 3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed 4. Development Activity Report r Q Packet Pg. 120