Loading...
2022-08-10 Economic Development Commission MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Nicole Hughes, Chair Kevin Harris, Vice Chair Darrol Haug Jay Hoag Kevin Smith Keith Hamilton David Kaufer COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lee Reeves(unexcused) Carrie Hulbert (excused) SPECIAL MEETING August 10, 2022 LIAISONS PRESENT: None LIAISONS ABSENT: Susan Paine, Councilmember, ex-officio Angela Harris, Port Commissioner, ex-officio Ryan Crowther, Edmonds Chamber, ex-officio Roger Pence, Edmonds Planning Board GUESTS: None STAFF PRESENT: None (Megan excused) Economic Development Commission meeting conducted via ZOOM and called to order by Nicole Hughes at 6:02 p.m. Call to Order 1. Roll Call and Recognition of Approved Absences: Carrie Hulbert is an excused absence. Lee Reeves is an unexcused absence. 2. Approval of Agenda: Kevin S. moved to approve the August agenda; Darrol seconded; motion passed. 3. Approval of July 20, 2022 Meeting Summary: Jay moved to approve the meeting summary; Kevin S. seconded; motion passed. 4. Audience Comments: None. 5. Questions of follow up discussions prior to joining Planning Board meeting: Nicole asked for last minute comments or questions regarding the 7 pm joint Planning Board/EDC meeting, and noted that Kernen Lien, Planning Manager had sent several public comments to the EDC for review. David asked what our role was in the upcoming joint meeting- participants, observers? Nicole mentioned she reached out to their Chair, but had not heard back. She noted that our interaction with Roger and Kernen indicated we were full participants. We are weighing in on the economic focus related to the BD2 Zone adjustment options considered by the Planning Board. Darrol mentioned they work at the direction of City Council, and will make recommendations to them. Kevin H. noted that we still don't know what the Planning Board's expectations are of the EDC — to weigh in individually, as a consensus -based EDC opinion, to part of coalition -building with the Board? Kevin suggested noting this caveat at the beginning of the joint meeting, to clarify expectations. Jay stated he feels strongly against reducing commercial development. Nicole noted the EDC does not yet have a consensus recommendation. Kevin H. asked for clarification if the background that Kernen described in his earlier presentation results in two fundamental issues impacting economic development: first floor heights and parking? Darrol noted the history includes design standards. Jay again objected to removing 100 percent commercial. Kevin S. noted Meeting Summary Economic Development Commission August 10, 2022 Page 1 that the right decision could impact Edmonds for the next 30 years. Jay noted that the design standards are not the issue, they are fixing a mixed use problem that didn't occur in the past. Darrol noted that V floor heights are different in several parts of town, and that the 15 ft limit is more difficult for developers to deal with (less square footage). Vivian Olson joined the meeting, and noted that design standards are a part of our town's identity. 6. Group Discussion -City Facilities Locations: Vivian noted that many city hall offices remain empty. Kevin H. suggested interviewing city leaders, community leaders, other boards/commissions to assess how they feel about potential moves, considering pandemic work -related changes, prior physical/symbiotic working relationships that may have changed since the pandemic (for example, the convenience of court and police proximity). Interviews could include the Mayor, new Policy Chief, and the leads of other public service functions. Vivian noted that the satellite/annex office only has a 3-year lease — not locked into that location or size in the future. David asked if other cities have made similar moves; Vivian said she hadn't looked into that. Nicole noted that Darrol has synthesized information into a slide deck; she then presented it, including a history timeline, building $$ values/details, stakeholders/data points discussion, questions for the EDC to consider, and potential next steps. Kevin S. asked about the market values (county -assessed?); Darrol used county records, typically lower value than market value. Kevin H. suggested using the slide deck questions as a starting point to frame assessment interviews with leaders, managers, other relevant commissions/boards to better inform us of where people stand on these issues, and to expand nuance and detail. Kevin S. agreed with Kevin H., and added a potential city hall employee survey re: remote/hybrid/in-office preferences, to understand the workforce opinion, which could help drive real estate utilization needs moving forward. Darrol noted that the former police chief had no resistance to moving City Hall, but that we now have a new chief. David commented this should be focused on the best use of resources, hiring and retaining a workforce, as part of the policy view. Nicole suggested different budgeted models using office space optimization, shared desks/hoteling, part time desks. Darrol mentioned that Patrick Doherty is coming back on temporary assignment, perhaps in an HR function, which could help inform us. David corrected that Patrick is coming back in a temporary PIO position. Nicole asked for 'next steps'. Keith asked if physical space availability in Edmonds has been explored. Nicole responded that isn't a part of our EDC function, and would likely come out of a professional study. Jay said we should meet with department heads and other commissions. 7. Adjourn to join Planning Board Meeting: Nicole adjourned the EDC meeting at 6:48 pm to transition to the joint Planning Board/EDC meeting at 7:00 pm (no EDC notes for this Planning Board meeting). 8. Next meeting: September 21, 2022, 6 PM location Zoom, will include discussion with Susan McLaughlin re: neighborhood interests. Meeting Summary Economic Development Commission August 10, 2022 Page 2 MINUTES Joint meeting of Planning Board & Economic Development Commission August 10, 2022 Approved by Planning Board 9/14/22 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 13132 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 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 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