2009-06-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 24, 2009
Chair Bowman called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
John Reed
Jim Young
Judith Works
Kevin Clarke
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair (excused)
Cary Guenther (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development
Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2009 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds City Council, said the purpose of his presentation is to put into the record some other
development concepts for the downtown/waterfront area that are different than the alternatives previously presented to the
Board. He distributed a handout titled "Waterfront Concerns, Visions and Interests," which suggests uses such as parks, a
convention/community center, rooftop open space and reclaimed wetlands in conjunction with commercial and residential
development, a heritage center/museum, a centrally located community center with senior housing and commercial/retail
space, a gateway shopping center along with a community center and mixed use opportunities, and a hotel and community
center with housing opportunities. He said he hopes the Board would consider the options as they discuss future
development opportunities for the downtown waterfront properties.
Council Member Bernheim stressed the importance of the Board moving forward with the full cooperation and consideration
of all of the options so that everyone's opinions are taken into account. This type of approach would allow the Board to
move forward with something that could be approved and supported by the majority of the City Council and citizens. He
referred to the design concepts that were prepared by high school students to illustrate potential development options for the
properties. He expressed his belief that these are the best plans he has seen, including those presented by the consultant. He
urged the Board to consider them with an open mind.
Council Member Bernheim provided images to illustrate how different concepts could be incorporated into the design of the
downtown/waterfront area and advised that nearly all of the illustrations would be code compliant. He specifically noted the
following:
• Pedestrian walkways do not have to be expensive, but they can provide significant access for everyone to enjoy the
downtown waterfront area.
• A 40 to 50-foot height limit is not necessary in order to develop profitable touristic type centers, and five -story buildings
are too tall for the area.
• The Board should focus on achievable engineering results and a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks would not be
a complicated or expensive project.
• Six to eight -story buildings would be a disaster for the City of Edmonds. The waterfront area is not the place for large
scale development.
• While he supports transit -oriented development and it would make some sense to concentrate residential uses near the
train station, the Board must keep in mind that this train station is located in the heart of the most valuable and beautiful
area of the City.
• Although developers have tried to scare the citizens by saying that a mini -mall style development would wreck the
downtown waterfront area, he suggested that is a false statement. He suggested that a mini -mall type of development
would be acceptable as long as it has a good design.
• Overpasses would provide unimpeded pedestrian access from the downtown businesses to the waterfront and could
actually help draw people to Edmonds.
Council Member Bernheim summarized that the purpose of his illustrations was to steer the Board away from the 40 to 50-
foot tall, mixed -use development that has been proposed by the property owners. The zoning code should not allow
flexibility for additional height unless the City has a clear understanding of the contribution the project would have on the
community. The ideas he presented are much better for the low -impact, old fashioned City that Edmonds is famous for. He
reminded the Board that people come to Edmonds to walk around the old fashioned downtown, and he does not want to see
it wrecked by modern buildings that are too large in scale. He urged the Board, City Council, property owners and
community to work together in cooperation and openness to come up with a solution that can address everyone's needs and
concerns. Unless a cooperative atmosphere is established, all sides would continue to fight against each other.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he was impressed with the composite images provided by Council Member Bernheim to
illustrate how the various concepts could be applied to the downtown/waterfront area. He said he supports Council Member
Bernheim's comments, including those related to a cooperative approach. He expressed his belief that "economic
development" does not mean raising building heights in the downtown/waterfront area. He suggested the Board has an
opportunity to do some good work related to economic development in Edmonds, and their discussion should not just center
on the issue of building heights.
Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that one of his earlier ideas for economic development was to focus on Highway 99, which
would never develop well until the zoning parallel to Highway 99 is changed. He suggested the Board come forward with a
recommendation to change the zoning in this area. Once rezoned, the uses and densities on the properties would change over
time. He noted that Highway 99 is probably the only retail location in Edmonds that produces a significant amount of tax
revenue. He expressed his belief that when considering redevelopment options for the downtown/waterfront area, the Board
should not focus so much on tax revenue. Instead, this area should be redeveloped for the purpose of drawing people to the
area and enhancing the area. He credited the high school students who prepared design models for the City to consider.
Mr. Hertrich summarized that this is the Board's opportunity to really be at the root of ideas for making Edmonds grow
economically and also saving what they already have. He pointed out that people purchase property in Edmonds because of
the waterfront and the unique downtown that provides a feeling of living in a small town. Future redevelopment should not
be allowed to replace this ambiance with large buildings. He expressed his believe that any future plan would only be
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 2
successful if the Board could come up with a process that does not alienate either side. On the other hand, if their focus is
too narrow and they push the wrong ideas forward, their recommendation would not be supported by the public.
John Heighway, Edmonds, said he understands that the Board is obligated to follow the codes and regulations that currently
exist, but they have an excellent opportunity to get all of the parties together in a cooperative fashion to come up with a plan
that will work best for everyone. Many people have expressed a desire to maintain open space, and that is something any
future design should address. In addition, recent election results have demonstrated that many citizens want to keep the
building heights low in the downtown/waterfront area.
Mr. Heighway pointed out that whatever development is allowed in the downtown/waterfront area would have an impact on
the neighborhood centers that are located on the periphery of the City. He expressed his belief that it would not be
appropriate to concentrate residential development in the downtown/waterfront area. He would like to see this space
developed as more of a community gathering place. He said he finds the suggestions put forth by Council Member
Bernheim exciting, and the Board has the ability to make recommendations for alternatives that would result in something
the City could be proud of. He suggested that rather than taking a more liberal approach, the Board should stick with the
existing code requirements and apply the current rules to come up with something that is truly unique. He cautioned the
Board against focusing too much on economic interests, and he noted there is already a tremendous amount of available retail
space in the downtown area and many businesses are failing. There are also many condominium projects in the area that are
failing due to the economy. The City needs something that will last.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, concurred with the previous three speakers. She expressed concern that she only found out about
the Board meeting today, and she questioned how long and where it was published. She noted that if it had been advertised
in THE EDMONDS BEACON last week, there would have been many more citizens in attendance. She encouraged the
Board to think outside the box as they discuss the downtown/waterfront area. She said that huge condominium towers are
not what the City needs, and many citizens would agree with her.
Chair Bowman clarified that Board would not be talking about possible designs for the downtown/waterfront area. Instead,
their discussion would focus on economic sustainability. Both Jennifer Gerend and Stephen Clifton were invited to provide
background information about what has happened in the past and review some of the challenges the Board would be faced
with as they continue their sustainability discussions. He emphasized that Council Member Bernheim did not indicate until
late this afternoon that he would make a presentation related to redevelopment of the downtown/waterfront area. The issue
was not scheduled as part of the Board's agenda, and none of the Board Members were aware that the issue would be raised
at this meeting.
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, said she sees the Planning Board as playing a significant role in the City's economic
future. She expressed great concern about the viability of business, tourism and economic development. The economic
future of Edmonds is bleak, and she encouraged the Board to remember that they need to bring more tourism back to the
City. She said she lives near Highway 99 and is concerned about the economic viability of all areas of Edmonds, including
Highway 99. She encouraged the Board Members to drive down Highway 99 and note the differences between the Shoreline
and Edmonds portions of the highway. She pointed out that while the types of businesses are similar, Shoreline's portion of
the highway offers safer pedestrian access opportunities. She suggested that pedestrian access is a very important issue to
consider. She encouraged the Board to consider opportunities for creating more economic development options and drawing
people to businesses in all areas of the City.
SUSTAINABILITY DISCUSSION: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES
Jennifer Gerend said she was present to speak generally about economic development. She emphasized her visit was
completely voluntary and she was not present to comment on any specific proposal. She thanked the Board for inviting her
to speak and said she has many good memories of working with them. She advised that since her departure from the City of
Edmonds, she has held a research fellowship in Berlin, Germany where she worked with German city planners and economic
development professionals to understand their tools and strategies for encouraging revitalization and economic growth. She
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 3
was able to hone in on their creative and trendy temporary uses. She advised that through supportive municipal regulations,
empty lots were transformed into urban beach bars in the summer, a closed municipal swimming complex became an urban
campground, flea markets took root in empty parking lots, and make -shift art and theater venues sprouted up around the city.
A swimming pool was added to a barge in the Spree River. She observed that when people speak of Berlin today, it is often
such quirky and innovative land use surprises that they mention first. She said she would love to see Edmonds take more
risks too and create a bit of a "buzz." In her second year in Germany she was also a retail planner for the City of Trier,
where she worked on concepts to preserve and enhance downtown and neighborhood shopping areas. At the current time,
she is working on a PhD dissertation about retail development planning tools in the U.S. and Germany. In addition, she does
some consulting and is a full-time member of the faculty at The Evergreen State College.
Ms, Gerend said that as Economic Development Director she was able to submit Comprehensive Plan change
recommendations, such as with the neighborhood plans for Five Corners and Firdale Village. She recalled that she
conducted a series of community planning meetings that were used to update the Comprehensive Plan for the two areas.
Many of the neighborhood centers had extremely outdated land use regulations, many of which did not permit mixed -use
development and had very limited height restrictions. She noted that Edmonds has a relatively small amount of
commercially -zoned land, but it is critical. Mixed use or commercial areas present opportunities to add jobs, services, sales
tax and property tax through increased valuation on more densely redeveloped properties. She recalled that residents in the
Five Corners and Firdale Village areas were generally very receptive to changes and were excited to see some attention being
paid to planning their neighborhoods. However, given the current staff s limited resources, the City probably does not have
many options to pursue neighborhood plans as aggressively as one might like. For example, there may be opportunities to
create larger development sites such as around Five Corners, or to consider major traffic alterations such as a roundabout. If
the City had the staff resources, they could continue the neighborhood planning process to update the Comprehensive Plan
language and zoning for all of the neighborhood centers, including Westgate and Perrinville. They could also consider the
development of sub area plans so there would be more areas "ready to go" when the real estate market upswings.
Ms. Gerend observed that Highway 99 was a great place for more generous development regulations, and she was happy to
learn about the changes that were recently made. In addition, the Interurban Trail could make some redevelopment
opportunities more interesting. However, she suggested there is still room to further incentivize development through shared
parking arrangements and this would be a sustainability measure.
Ms. Gerend reported that plenty of cities have successfully used property tax abatements on dense mixed -use developments.
While this may sound counterintuitive in these economic times, it could help spur development in the long run and increase
revenues for the future. She shared an analogy of "Bid Red," which is a large tree situated across from Roosevelt High
School in an area marked for high density, transit -oriented redevelopment because it is next to a future light rail station. A
small constituency worked hard to save the tree, which sparked a big debate about whether to save the tree or redevelop the
site for the largest number of housing units possible. In the big picture, it is appropriate for people to live next to mass
transit, since this would theoretically save trees elsewhere.
Ms. Gerend suggested the "Big Red" of Edmonds is building height. She observed that the City has an opportunity to have a
real urban mass transit village by the sea, which would be one of the few places in the region where people could walk to a
rail connection that could bring them to work. They could also walk to grocery stores, restaurants, and the other amazing
downtown businesses. She reminded the Board of recently proposed State Legislation that would have required such density
around rail stations. While the legislation did not pass, she said she anticipates it will be back soon enough. She emphasized
that if the City were to create an urban mass transit village, it would have to be done in conjunction with historic preservation
efforts. The goal would be to preserve the local treasures and build density up around it. She referred to the 41h Avenue
Cultural Plan, which would connect the Edmonds Center for the Performing Arts and the downtown. She emphasized that
the City has many tools to work with (zoning, design guidelines, historic preservation, transfer of development rights,
changes to the streetscape, wayfinding, etc.) and the City staff is doing a great job of promoting the arts and economic
development in this area.
Ms. Gerend suggested another great opportunity for the City lies in the downtown business owners. She encouraged the City
to implement a business improvement area downtown so they have a sustainable budget with which to do their downtown
events, promotions and beautification. She suggested Edmonds could even create a downtown pedestrian shopping zone.
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 4
She offered to provide pictures from Charlottesville and Burlington, Virginia to illustrate their successful downtown
pedestrian shopping zones.
Ms. Gerend summarized her belief that the City already knows what really needs to happen, but there have been some
inconsistencies related to implementation. This has made developers hesitant to undertake projects in the City because there
are other places nearby with subarea plans in place that are nearly "shovel ready" for developers. She said she would like to
see a wider interest from exciting architects and developers, since this would ultimately result in more attractive projects.
She emphasized the need for straightforward consistency and vision on the part of the City in order to make people feel
comfortable investing their time and money to propose redevelopment projects.
Ms. Gerend recalled that near the end of her time with the City, two City Council Members served as Council liaisons to her
department, and this seemed like a good way for staff and the City Council to discuss policies in more depth and share
information that was private, such as information about specific businesses or property owners. She expressed her hope that
the economic downturn would be an opportunity for Edmonds to move away from old stand offs and consider the
sustainability of the City. This is a great time to plan and be ready for the next economic upturn.
Board Member Works said she has heard over the years that small businesses have little interest in locating in Edmonds even
though there is vacant space. She asked if there are specific reasons for this trend. Ms. Gerend replied that for a long time
while she was at the City, the requirements of the zoning code encouraged developers to construct two stories of residential
space above a ground floor commercial space that was too low in height to be desirable for retail uses. However, the newly
adopted design guidelines should prevent this from occurring in the future. She noted there is a lot of competition right now,
and Edmonds is impacted by its close location to Alderwood Mall and other places that have added modern and useful
spaces and created a lot of synergy amongst the retailers. She suggested that perhaps it is time for Edmonds to be bolder in
their marketing plan and downtown activities.
Chair Bowman asked Ms. Gerend to send the Board a list of other locations, besides Burlington and Charlottesville, who
have successfully redeveloped their commercial areas. He observed that the Board is faced with the challenge of bringing
the City forward without compromising the character that currently exists. He suggested it would be helpful to use other
cities as models for how to proceed. Ms. Gerend agreed to forward a list of model cities for the Board's consideration.
Board Member Works suggested it would also be helpful for the Board to review examples of cities that were not successful,
such as Eugene, Oregon.
Board Member Clarke thanked Ms. Gerend for the time she spent at the City. He said he was impressed when she contacted
him asking how the City could generate interest in office space in the City. He observed that her leadership was not always
appreciated and was often overlooked, and he was excited to have her come back before the Board so they could let her
know how much they appreciated the leadership she provided. He said he appreciates the background she provided as a
result of her experiences in Germany. He suggested that the real issue amongst the citizens is the idea of putting more dense
commercial and residential development in the area surrounding the multimodal transportation center. He noted that this is
the way it is done in Europe so that people do not have to use their cars to get round. He asked Ms. Gerend to share her
ideas about how the City could implement the concept of increasing the housing stock with ground floor retail space in the
area surrounding the Edmonds Station without going so far as to allow four to six -story buildings.
Ms. Gerend responded that the City could create land use changes and zoning for the area that allows two-story retail office
development, but she did not believe developers would be seriously interested in this type of development in downtown
Edmonds. She noted that the housing component of mixed -use development adds financial feasibility that makes the projects
pencil out. She said that visibility is also an important issue to address. The citizens need to see useful examples of
developments they like and they need to be assured that amenities would be included as part of the project. She summarized
that people need to have places to live and places for recreation. She referred to Bell Town, which is an extreme example of
high -density housing and they are still trying to make up some of the amenities they overlooked. Edmonds already has many
of these amenities, but they need to consider the whole package and work closely with the community on a vision. However,
projects must be financially feasible in order for developers to proceed.
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 5
Board Member Clarke referred to the town of Carmel, California, and questioned if this same type of concept could be
applied to the old Safeway Site. Instead of having people live there, they could invite people from the outside to visit the
City and enjoy the seaside experience that they are not able to get in locations where higher densities are allowed. He
suggested the Board consider the option of maintaining the low density and creating a unique shopping experience that
brings people to the area. Ms. Gerend said she was not prepared to discuss this option with the Board.
SUSTAINABILITY DISCUSSION: UPDATE AND OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE DOWNTOWNIWATERFRONT INTERFACE
Mr. Clifton referred to the packet of information that he submitted as part of his Staff Report. The items included the
following documents:
• Past Economic Development Activities since 1984/1985
• Economic Development 2008 (excerpts taken from 2008 quarterly reports to identify projects staff worked on in
2008)
• Economic Development Strategies: Programs, Projects and Opportunities (presented to the City Council in
February 2009)
• February 18, 2009 Staff Update (presented to the City Council on February 28th)
Mr. Clifton reported that he met with the City Council on February 28th to provide more information about Washington
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferry Division's Revised Long -Range Plan for 2009 through 2030 and how it
would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. The document made it very clear that Washington State Ferries (WSF) is
starting to crystallize what the long-range funding issues would be for the overall system. The Revised Draft Long -Range
Plan identifies two possible future service and investment scenarios: One option would maintain the current level of service
through 2030 and the other option would dramatically cut the service levels and routes.
Mr. Clifton advised that the revised plan only identifies $26 million for Edmonds Ferry Terminal improvements, needs and
maintenance, which means the Edmonds Crossing Project would not likely commence construction in 2012 as originally
planned. He said that after verifying the numbers with WSF, it became very clear to him that Edmonds should focus their
attention on the Edmonds Station, which is located between Dayton and Main Streets. He recalled that, previously, the City
was heading in the direction of classifying the station as an interim facility, which meant it would function as a fully
operational commuter rail station but without the level of amenities that were present in the plan that was originally approved
by the City Council in 2002.
Mr. Clifton reported that in February he made a presentation to the City Council and recommended the City request Sound
Transit (ST) to construct the station as per the 2002 plan, which included shelters, railing, light fixtures, as well as
Community Transit (CT) bus stops between James and Main Street. The City Council approved the recommendation, and he
notified Sound Transit of their decision. He further reported that he attended the Sound Transit Finance Committee Meeting
recently where an addendum to the KPFF Contract was approved so that the plans could be revised to implement the 2002
plan. Commencement of construction for the station should take place during the first quarter of 2010.
Mr. Clifton advised that representatives from ST, CT, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the utility districts have
been meeting with the Public Works and Planning Department staff to coordinate utility installation. It is important that all
entities coordinate with each other in this regard. He reviewed that BNSF has proposed to construct a second rail line along
the waterfront, and their most recent anticipated commencement of construction is to begin the first quarter of 2010, with
work beginning south of Dayton Street. Initial efforts will relate to grading and it is not known when they will actually
construct the second line. This is a change from the original schedule proposed by BNSF.
Mr. Clifton announced that Bob Gregg has purchased the Skippers property, and he and WSF are working on a
private/public partnership to redevelop the property between James Street and the parking lot. He reported that the
Legislature appropriated $2 million for WSF to study the possibility of a private/public partnership for the area because they
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 6
know that the owner of the Skippers property is looking to redevelop in the near future. He said he asked WSF to contact the
City when they initiate their efforts towards a partnership. He emphasized that the City should be a key player in any of the
discussions.
Board Member Reed asked what kind of public process would be associated with the public/private partnership. Mr. Clifton
answered that this would be up to WSF. Discussions could certainly take place between the property owner and WSF at any
time, but at some point there would have to be some discussion with the community, as well.
Board Member Works referred to Edmonds Economic Development Plan Goal 1, Policy la, which calls for encouraging and
expanding business expansion and retention programs. She also referred to Goal 3 which calls for diversifying the tax base
and increasing revenues to support local services. She asked if staff has anything positive to report on their efforts towards
these two goals. Mr. Clifton announced that Ace Hardware would be opening soon at Old Mill Town. He explained that
staff placed calls to their headquarters throughout the past several years in an effort to locate a store in the community. He
said he has also been working with other retail business owners, and a lot of discussions have taken place behind the scenes
and cannot be reported to the public during the negotiation phase. He said he recently heard the comment that the City
doesn't do anything to encourage businesses, but that is not true. Staff places and receives calls from numerous businesses
on any given day. He said he has a list of commercial spaces that are vacant, as well as a list of businesses who are seeking
space. He provides this information back and forth. Once the connections are made, negotiations take place between
landlords and prospective tenants, which he is not involved in.
Mr. Clifton acknowledged that Ms. Gerend was much more aggressive in recruiting and retaining businesses, but he pointed
out that he is now serving as the Community Services Director, the Economic Development Director, and is helping to fill
the Development Services Director position, as well. He referred the Board to the activity list for 2008, which identifies
staff s accomplishments. He noted that a lot has also been accomplished thus far in 2009, as well.
Board Member Stewart commended Mr. Clifton for doing a great job with economic development given his limited time.
She asked about the types of businesses the City is seeking for the downtown. Are they looking for businesses where local
residents can find everything they need or are they looking for businesses that attract tourists? She said she would love to
shop in Edmonds if there were stores available to meet all of her needs in the downtown. Mr. Clifton said the type of
business also depends on location. The downtown offers the kind of environment that attracts specialty retail shops, whereas
Highway 99 attracts more national retailers. He said that, generally, the City focuses on those that have a smaller number of
stores because they are a good fit not only for downtown Edmonds, but for the neighborhood centers, as well. The contacts
he has made vary, and he has tried to leverage the City's available dollars as best he can. For example, the City partnered
with the Port of Edmonds and the Chamber of Commerce to place advertisements in the Puget Sound Journal and other
publications. The purpose of these ads was to attract the kinds of businesses that would be interested in locating in the
downtown, but they also focused on tourism. He referred the Board to the list of locations where advertisements have been
placed and noted that the advertisements are funded by the Lodging Tax. He reported that Lodging Tax Revenues are
$9,000 above where they were in 2008 at the same point in time. He further noted that Washington State is first in the
country for in -state tourism and people are staying closer to home because of the economy. In addition, artists are using the
Harbor Inn when they are performing at the Edmonds Performing Arts Center.
Board Member Stewart referred to an article in THE EVERETT HERALD on June 1st about local businesses. It stated that for
every $100 spent at independently owned stores, 68% is returned to the local community as opposed to only 33% for
national chains. She said the City needs to bring people into the area through attractive living situations that provide
amenities and services for them to walk to. All of the publications display Edmonds in all its glory, particularly the
waterfront. It would be wonderful to have more outdoor seating and feature this amenity in publications and advertisements
so that people get the sense that Edmonds is a place where people like to sit with each other and enjoy the beauty of the area.
Mr. Clifton advised that the City tries to emphasize the "shop local" program. While they cannot promote a specific
business, they can promote an area or the City as a whole. In addition, the City recently installed 14 benches throughout the
downtown. They are working on wayfinding signs to direct visitors to the public parking areas. They also have a program
to replace existing flower poles in the downtown. He reminded the Board that an enhancement project is currently taking
place along Highway 99, and Ms. Gerend was instrumental in securing $350,000 in grant funding for the project. They are
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 7
in the process of creating bid documents and they are hoping to go out to bid to get the projected completed in the near
future.
Board Member Clarke asked for more information regarding the potential public/private partnership for the property near
James Street. Mr. Clifton explained that the concept would involve merging the two properties to develop a public/private
use. Leveraging the public and private dollars could involve any number of uses on the site. He reported that WSF is
convening a group to discuss the concept further, and he has been invited to participate. The group would include a
representative from the Port of Edmonds, as well as individuals from both sides of the ferry route.
Board Member Reed asked how the City's goals for redevelopment of the downtown would be impacted if the ferry
relocation project does not come to fruition for quite some time. Mr. Clifton explained that WSF plans to test a reservation
system on the Edmonds/Kingston route. This would allow riders to arrive up until 15 minutes before the ferry departs and
tickets would be paid for ahead of time and scanned at the entrance. This type of program could significantly reduce the
storage requirements and the queuing that takes place along SR 104. Mr. Clifton observed that if the Edmonds Crossing
Project is eliminated, it would have a significant impact on the downtown area. The ferry system would continue to operate
as it currently does. Even with a reservation system, there would still be cars coming down SR 104 and along Sunset
Avenue and Main Street to load onto the ferry. The Edmonds Crossing Project would provide connectivity between the
downtown and the waterfront and pedestrian friendly access. Even if the project, itself, is eliminated, the City could still
designate the area as multimodal and figure out how to effectively, efficiently and safely link the transportation opportunities
with adjacent properties.
Board Member Stewart recalled that many of the slides provided earlier by Council Member Bernheim illustrated examples
of pedestrian overpasses over the railroad tracks. She asked if the City has any plans to construct a pedestrian overpass from
the downtown to the waterfront if the ferry remains in its current location. Mr. Clifton said the concept has been discussed
over the years. The big question is how to design and fund a project of this type. Another big question is how to integrate
the overpass into what is developed on either side of the railroad tracks. He noted that the workgroup of 33 that was formed
to consider development options for the downtown/waterfront area seemed to get hung up on building height, and they did
not really look at the overall development plan to identify how buildings would relate to each other, pedestrian access and
connectivity. Whatever is developed in this area must be integrated with what is developed on the other side of the railroad
tracks.
Board Member Clarke referred the Board to property located on Highway 99 at approximately 105th Street. He noted the
Seattle School District leased the land to a private developer for a shopping center project. The agreement required the
developer to provide a pedestrian access over Highway 99. It uses a spiral approach over the roadway and all of the
development in the area is single story. He suggested this same concept could be used to connect Brackett's Landing to the
property owned by WSF. This would cost minimal dollars to construct. He questioned why the City has not considered this
option. Mr. Clifton said the option has been discussed at various times. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that the
option has only been discussed as it pertains to proposed redevelopment. Mr. Clifton agreed that does not have to be the
case. The City could proceed with a project of this type if they had available funding, as well as support from BNSF and ST.
Chair Bowman said that he and his wife own a retail business in downtown Edmonds, and they are constantly trying to bring
new businesses and restaurants to the downtown. Prospective tenants visit the vacant sites but usually decide to locate
elsewhere. Besides the existing building stock, he asked Mr. Clifton to share some of the reasons why businesses do not
want to locate in Edmonds. Mr. Clifton said that retrofitting is often an issue for prospective tenants when they recognize
their proposed use would require more improvements than they originally anticipated to meet the code requirements. He said
there is also the perception that the demographics in Edmonds are not sufficient to support new businesses. Ms. Gerend
explained that many national chains have radius agreements. Because of the City's proximity to Alderwood Mall, many
businesses are precluded from locating in Edmonds. In addition, the physical building stock is definitely an issue.
Previously, parking requirements were a concern, but this has been addressed. It is important to create first floor space that
can accommodate restaurants because they need higher ceilings. She summarized that restaurants are great to have in the
downtown to provide synergy. The City should also encourage more residents in the downtown to support the retail spaces.
She noted the City only has a 180 degree catchment area because they are located on Puget Sound.
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 8
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave advised that a few modifications were made to the extended agenda, and staff would send out an updated draft to
each Board Member next week.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board is on track to report their efforts related to sustainability and economic
development to the City Council in December. He questioned what they would have to accomplish over the next six months
in order to make this happen. He suggested the Board spend some time to map out the process so that everyone has a clear
understanding of what will be required. Chair Bowman recalled the Board previously discussed the option of holding an
additional off -site work session. He suggested that as the Board delves into the issue, the scope would likely widen. Once
they obtain a certain knowledge base, they could have a special work session to prioritize the issues and identify those they
specifically want to address in their presentation to the City Council. The remainder of the Board concurred.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman recommended the Board focus on the fact that the City is so polarized on the building height that everything
else gets lost. He expressed concern that the City Council is considering issues such as chickens and plastic bags while the
economic issues are being placed on the back burner. They need to focus on the big issues. Board Member Clarke pointed
out that Edmonds was featured twice in U.S. News over the past month, reporting on their discussions related to chickens
and plastic bags.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Works said she is glad to hear people at least talking about the need to cooperate with each other. She
expressed concern that the Board's conversations not get off on "pie in the sky" plans that no one will support or move
forward. There must be funding to implement whatever they come up with. Therefore, the Board should be practical in
whatever they recommend to the City Council.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that in 2004 the City hired an Economic Real Estate Consultant to answer the question of
why the City was getting three-story buildings with sunken first floor retail spaces. The consultant's explanation was
demonized by some in the community as justification for higher buildings, but that was not the purpose of the exercise.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting
June 24, 2009 Page 9