2009-07-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 22, 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 — 5 h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
John Reed
Judith Works
Kevin Clarke
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Cary Guenther (excused)
Jim Young
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Michael Clugston, Planner
Jennifer Machuga, Planner
Kernen Lien, Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
City Council Member Steve Bernheim recalled that at the Board's last meeting, Board Member Stewart requested
information about the City of Seattle's ordinance pertaining to chickens. He distributed copies of Seattle's current language,
which falls within Section C of their animal control ordinance. It allows up to three domestic fowl on each lot and one
additional chicken for every 1,000 square feet of lot size greater than the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet.
He noted that the third page of the packet he provided is an extract of the operative language related to hen control from the
City of Seattle's ordinance. The 4 h page of the packet provides a copy of Edmonds current animal control ordinance, with the
proposed addition of a Section D to address female domestic fowl. The proposal would simply insert the City of Seattle's
language into the Edmonds code. However, rather than allowing additional hens for larger lots, the proposed ordinance for
Edmonds would limit the number of hens to three per lot regardless of lot size. The proposed language would also protect
those property owners who took advantage of the grandfather privilege years ago and registered their chickens with the City.
Board Member Reed inquired if the proposed code language provided in the packet currently before the Board is the same as
the language that he originally presented. Council Member Bernheim answered affirmatively.
Rick Doughty, Edmonds, pointed out that chickens are an inexpensive, wholesome, healthy alternative to commercially
produced eggs. Having up to three hens would provide good pest control and a ready source of fertilizer for organic gardens.
Keeping chickens would also provide a connection to where food comes from, and it would be great for kids to understand
that connection. Three hens would likely produce more eggs than a single family would need so they would be able to share
with neighbors, building a sense of community at the same time. Birds that are raised in a backyard rather than an industrial
farm situation would receive far more humane treatment and housing space. Commercial hens are confined to a space the size
of a piece of paper, and they do not have access to the outdoors and fresh air. Hens raised in a backyard would be free of
antibiotics and pesticides. There would be less chance of disease outbreaks in small flock that are raised on a single-family
lots as opposed to the inbreeding and poor living conditions that are common in industrial farming. He summarized his belief
that it would be good for the City to allow single-family property owners to keep chickens. He summarized that a lot of
citizens in Edmonds would properly care for hens, and nuisances could be adequately addressed via the City's existing codes.
George Murray, Edmonds, said he purchases fresh eggs and knows there is quite a difference between fresh eggs and those
that are commercially produced. He expressed support for the proposed ordinance that would allow up to three hens on
single- family properties.
Mr. Murray reported that he attended a question and answer sessions where the Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds
spoke about climate control. It appears that not a lot of attention has been paid to this issue, and the joke of the day was that
the Port would have to consider extending its area all the way back to the ferry terminal in the near future. If this is a potential
consideration, he suggested that the issue of water table should be an important part of the discussion.
Mr. Murray recalled that at the last City Council meeting, the term "cultural direction" came up several times. The same was
true during recent discussions related to the Transportation Plan. He applauded the concept and expressed his desire that
Edmonds should become a hub of cultural activities. He said he recently attended a cultural event in Port Townsend, where
he estimated they made between $500,000 and $750,000. He suggested that Edmonds could sponsor a similar revenue
producing event. He noted they already have the cultural venue and the 4 h Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan is progressing, as
well.
BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTIONS FOR PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
Ms. Machuga referred the Board to the draft interim ordinance that would amend the City's nonconforming regulations
(ECDC 17.40) to allow a building setback exemption to residential properties that have been annexed into the City since 1994
where the properties had valid building permits on the date of annexation, but the permits expired prior to final approval. She
explained that, currently, if a permit expires following annexation, all vesting is lost and the project must be altered to meet
current code requirements.
Ms. Machuga announced that the City Council reviewed the draft ordinance as an interim ordinance and voted to forward it to
the Planning Board for review. They have asked the Board to conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the
City Council. She noted that the item is not scheduled for discussion at this time. She asked the Board to provide direction
about whether they would like staff to schedule it as a public hearing, or if they want to schedule the issue for additional
discussion prior to the hearing.
Vice Chair Lovell said that as per Ms. Machuga's memorandum to the Board dated July 14, 2009, it sounds as though the
Elders did everything appropriate at the time they obtained the necessary permits from the County for the new addition. Ms.
Machuga agreed that prior to annexation, the Elder's received a valid permit from Snohomish County. However, Mr. Elder
got sick and was not able to finish the project before the County permit expired. Vice Chair Lovell questioned why the City
cannot just issue an occupancy permit if the project is consistent with the code. If upgrades need to be completed to be
consistent with the City's code, they could be done without requiring an interim ordinance. Mr. Chave explained that the
Elder's never finished the permit and obtained the necessary final inspections to vest the actual structure. The non-
conforming provisions in the code will not allow the City to administrative waive the permit requirement, and the proposed
interim ordinance would be the least costly option.
Vice Chair Lovell asked why variances are expensive. Mr. Chave said it would cost Ms. Elder approximately $2,000 to
submit a variance application, and there is no certainty that the project would meet all of the criteria for approval.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 2
Board Member Works asked how much of the project has been completed. Ms. Machuga answered that from the outside, the
project looks finished, but there is work remaining on the interior. Right now, the addition is walled off from the main house
and is not accessible from the inside.
Board Member Reed observed that if an interim ordinance is approved, it would only pertain to this one item. Mr. Chave said
the proposed interim ordinance has been constructed to apply to annexed properties where projects were started with permits
that were issued by the County prior to annexation.
Board Member Works inquired if Ms. Elder's property is the only site the ordinance would apply to. Mr. Chave answered
that staff has no way of knowing how many sites it would apply to, but they do not know of any others at this time. Again, he
explained the ordinance is intended to take care of this situation and any other situations that might come up.
Board Member Stewart observed that Snohomish County was at fault because they failed to notify the City of the expired
permit. It is unfortunate that the County failed to do their duty as per the annexation agreement, but she did not feel the
Elders should bear the complete burden for the mistake.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Elders are not the only family that has experienced this type of situation. The
Edmonds School District did not realize that the Woodway Elementary School site had been annexed into the City of
Edmonds, and that they were a legal, non -conforming use with a permit from the County. They did a lot of things that were
illegal without even realizing it. He suggested there are many people in the southern portion of the City who do not have any
idea what really happens with annexation, and they don't have a clear understanding of their legal rights. The City must help
these people understand the regulations. He expressed his belief that it would be worthwhile to pursue the proposed
ordinance.
The Board discussed that rather than creating an interim ordinance, they would be in favor of creating a permanent ordinance
to address the problem into the future. They directed staff to prepare draft language for the permanent ordinance and
schedule it for a public hearing. They agreed no further discussion would be necessary prior to the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY OASIS. INC. TO REZONE THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 7631 —
212TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS (BN) (FILE NUMBER R-2009-36)
Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is proposing to change the zoning of property located at 7631 — 212" Street
Southwest from Residential Multi -Family (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood Business (BN). He explained that the subject property
is currently developed with four office buildings that were constructed in the mid 1960s, and the uses were allowed under a
conditional use permit. The three rectangular buildings are currently used for medical offices, and the round building was
previously a real estate office. If the rezone is approved, the applicant intends to use the round building as a pharmacy and
apply for a conditional use permit to locate a drive -through window in the building.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40.010 identifies six factors
that must be considered when reviewing and approving rezone applications. He reviewed each one as follows:
1. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
parcel as "Mixed -Use Commercial" within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The proposed BN zoning would be
consistent with that designation, while the existing RM-2.4 designation is not. The proposed rezone would bring the
parcel into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, upzoning the subject parcel from RM-2.4 to BN would
provide for a mixture of uses, which is a stated goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Impacts should be minimal if the change
in zoning is approved since the existing structures would remain. Any future redevelopment on the site would have to
comply with the height and bulk restrictions of the BN zone, which are very similar to those of the existing RM-2.4 zone.
The existing street system and available amenities would support the intensity of development that is proposed by the
rezone.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 3
2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is
consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The purposes of the BN zone are listed in ECDC 16.45,
which states the BN zone serves to reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, and retail service establishments that offer
goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area and to ensure compact, convenient
development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Rezoning the site to BN would permit
the existing medical office uses to continue by right and would allow for neighborhood -oriented retail uses such as a
pharmacy. A drive -through on the parcel would still require a conditional use permit per ECDC 16.45.010.0
3. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby
property. The subject parcel is in a mixed -use area containing multi -family and office structures, public uses and single-
family residences. In general, more intensive uses lie to the east and south with less intensive uses to the north and west.
The uses on the parcel will remain largely the same with the existing medical offices staying, but allowing the round
building to be used for retail as opposed to office.
4. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City Policy
to justify the rezone. The character of the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel has been stable for many years. The
intersection of 212"' Street Southwest and 76`h Avenue West has long been a neighborhood retail area including office
uses, multi -family residential, and Edmonds Woodway High School. The subject site has had medical office uses on it
since the mid 1960s through a conditional use permit and those uses would remain. Only the round building is
anticipated to be used for retail at this time. Because of this, the impact on the surrounding area should be minimal.
5. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and
under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area and parcels with the same zoning. The property in question is economically and
physically consistent with the description in the existing Mixed -Use Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation and in
the proposed BN zoning classification. The site is flat, contains no critical areas, and has good auto, pedestrian and
transit access.
6. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value
to the property owners. It is expected that additional value would accrue to the subject property owners since
additional intensity of the use would be available as a result of the change from RM-2.4 to BN. Some additional value
may also be added to the City due to a possible increase in the tax base.
Mr. Clugston summarized that staff finds the rezone proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
for the subject property. It is also consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. If the applicant were to pursue a
drive -through window for the pharmacy use, a conditional use permit would be required. Based on staffs conclusion that the
proposed rezone application satisfies the criteria for a rezone, he recommended approval of the rezone request as submitted.
Board Member Reed inquired regarding the current development on the site that is located on the other side of 76" Avenue
West to the north of the BN zoned property. Mr. Clugston answered that the site is currently developed as a 7-11 and a
former nursery. Vice Chair Lovell indicated that the nursery building is currently being used as a residence, and it is on the
market for sale. He recalled that before the round building on the subject property was occupied by a real estate business, it
was an optometrist's office. Mr. Clugston noted that the round building is currently vacant.
Board Member Clarke observed that the most recently constructed medical building in the area has a pharmacy on the east
side. In addition, the Edmonds Professional Center, located just east of the subject property on 212"` Street Southwest, has a
pharmacy, as does the medical building at the corner of 216" Street Southwest and 76"' Avenue West. There is also a
pharmacy located south of the hospital on the west side of 76"' Avenue West. He noted that all of these properties appear to
be zoned some type of RM. Therefore, he said he assumes that RM zoning would not prohibit a pharmacy use. Mr. Clugston
referred to Attachment 4 of the Staff Report, which describes the uses that are allowed in RM zones. The primary permitted
uses in RM zones are single-family and multi -family residential, retirement homes, etc. Attachment 4 also outlines the
secondary uses that are permitted in RM zones with a conditional use permit. While medical offices are permitted secondary
uses (with a conditional use permit) in RM zones, there is no indication that a retail operation should be allowed. He
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 4
reminded the Board that the purpose of the RM zone is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types and a range
of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment.
Another purpose of the RM zone is to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multi-
family residential uses.
Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that pharmacies fall under the category of medical ancillary uses, and he doesn't
know of any instances in the City of Edmonds where a pharmacy has not been permitted in an RM zone. Mr. Clugston
emphasized that because pharmacies are considered to be retail uses, they are not permitted in RM zones. Board Member
Clarke questioned why it would be necessary to rezone the property to BN, which would allow other types of retail uses in
addition to pharmacies, when pharmacies are permitted secondary uses in RM zones with a conditional use permit.
Mr. Chave said he can't answer why pharmacies have been allowed in RM zones in the past; perhaps they were grandfathered
in at the time the zoning code was changed. It could also be possible that when pharmacies are secondary to a medical facility
such as a doctor's office they are considered to be part of the office. In this situation, the applicant approached the City with
the question of whether or not they could place a pharmacy business in an RM zone, and the answer was no freestanding
pharmacy business are allowed in the RM zones. Board Member Clarke concluded that in order for the pharmacy use to be
allowed on the subject property, the zoning must be changed as proposed. On the other hand, if the zoning is changed, the
property owner could choose to do something entirely different on the site.
Don Miller, Planning Consultant, Mukilteo, said his client (the applicant) was approached by a business owner who wanted
to put a retail pharmacy on the subject property. However, upon inquiry they learned that retail uses were not allowed in RM
zones. The applicant has applied for the proposed rezone to bring the existing buildings into compliance with the code. If
approved, the existing conditional use permit would be mute. If the rezone is granted, the applicant would apply for a
conditional use permit for the drive through window for the pharmacy. He expressed his belief that the staff report covered
all of the necessary points related to the application's conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. He
requested the Board recommend approval of the application as presented.
Board Member Reed recalled that the Board went through a rezone application review a few months ago, only to learn
midway through that the applicant was not the property owner and the property owner did not have any knowledge of the
rezone application until he received notice of the hearing. He asked Mr. Miller if his client is the owner of the subject
property. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively.
William Kuh, Edmonds, said he lives directly behind the subject property in a town home. He said he has no objections to
the applicant's intended use. However, he asked that the applicant close the dumpsters that are currently located on the
subject property. When they are left open, they are unsightly from the adjacent residential properties. He wished the
applicant luck with the proposed future use of the site. In addition, Mr. Kuh pointed out while their town home is located in
an RM zoned property, the maps provided by staff do not identify their properties. He also inquired if the applicant would be
allowed to locate a Starbucks or any other type of retail use on the subject property if the rezone is approved.
Board Member Reed explained that whenever the Board deals with a rezone request for a single property, he always likes to
question whether or not it would be appropriate to include more properties. For example, perhaps the BN zoning should be
extended to include all of the property on the east side of 76`h Avenue West as far north as the northern most boundary of the
BN zoning that currently exists on the west side of 76`h Avenue West. He recognized that this additional area is not part of
the rezone application, but perhaps it would be appropriate for the Board to consider it as some point in the future.
Board Member Stewart said she believes the proposed rezone is a really good idea, particularly in light of the fact that the
City is trying to encourage walkability and sustainability. Expanding the neighborhood center would make sense in this
location, especially given the large number of medical facilities that exist in the area.
Board Member Clarke agreed the rezone is a good idea. He recalled one of the problems the community has had, particularly
on 76`h Avenue West, is that much of the zoning south of 220`h Street has a Multi -Family Residential component. Typically,
development has occurred around the hospital campus because the zoning has not been strong enough to accommodate large
scale medical uses. The proposed rezone would provide symmetry at the intersection on both the west and east side of 76`h
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 5
Avenue West. He agreed with Board Member Reed that at some point it would be appropriate to square off the depth of the
BN zone on both sides of the street going north from 212`h Street Southwest. Perhaps it would even be appropriate to extend
the BN zoning all the way to 74`h Avenue West to allow space for development to occur to support the needed growth around
the medical facility. He concluded that the proposal would result in a positive step for the area.
Chair Bowman questioned if the Board was in favor of scheduling a future discussion about the concept of extending the BN
zone further north along 76`h Avenue West as suggested by Board Members Reed and Clarke. Mr. Chave agreed that this
issue could be addressed as a separate discussion on a future agenda. Vice Chair Lovell reminded the Board that, just
recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance that permanently zoned a neighborhood on 215`h Street Southwest as single-
family, even though it is located in the middle of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Board Member Clarke observed that it is typically a challenge for medical campuses to expand and grow because of illogical
land use decisions that are made by elected officials. He suggested the Board become bolder in their recommendations for
this area. If the City is interested in becoming more sustainable, medical and health care will be an important part of the
equation. The hospital must have room to grow and the City's land use policies need to support this direction. Mr. Chave
noted the Board would discuss the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as part of their next agenda item.
BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED THAT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS,
CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD TO
THE CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NUMBER R-2009-36, A REQUEST
TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 7631 — 212T11 STREET SOUTHWEST FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY
(RM-2-4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (NB). VICE CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMIOUSLY.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING UP TO THREE "DOMESTIC FEMALE FOWL" (HENS) IN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the memorandum from Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police, dated July 21', which
responds to some of the issues raised by the Board.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the packet of information submitted by Council Member Bernheim, which contains language
related to the 2001 grandfather provision and asked if the provision limits the number of chickens allowed on a single-family
property. If so, would adopting a new ordinance that limits the number of chickens to three supersede the grandfather
provision? Mr. Chave answered that the new ordinance would have to recognize the grandfather provision. As long a
property owner's chickens have been grandfathered, he/she would be allowed to continue to keep as many chickens as were
registered as per the 2001 provision.
Board Member Works inquired if the ordinance would establish setback provisions for chicken coops. Mr. Chave explained
that coops would be considered accessory structures and would be required to observe the adopted setback standards for the
zone. Board Member Works inquired if property owners who keep chickens would be required to construct a coop. Mr.
Chave answered that this issue has to do with how animals are kept, and the Police Department has indicated there are already
adequate provisions in the Edmonds Municipal Code to deal with these situations.
Board Member Clarke referred to both the existing code language and the proposed language submitted by Council Member
Bernheim and suggested further consideration be given to the use of the words "dwelling unit" and "lot or premises." For
example, if a person owned three legally platted lots in the City and had a dwelling unit on only one of the lots, Council
Member Bernheim's proposed language would allow the property owner to have up to nine chickens, three for each of the
platted lots. Mr. Chave explained that the keeping of animals is not a primary permitted use in single-family zones.
Therefore, the current code language would prohibit a property owner from keeping chickens on a vacant lot. Board Member
Clarke suggested that this be made clear in the proposed language.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 6
SUSTAINABILITY DISCUSSION: MEETING WITH THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE TO DISCUSS
PLANNING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR AND ACTIVITY CENTER
Members of the Highway 99 Task Force were present to provide an update to the Board as part of their continued discussions
regarding sustainability. Those present included Jim Underhill, Bruce Witenberg, Council Member Wambolt, Stanley Piha
and Stephen Clifton.
Mr. Chave provided a map of the Highway 99 Corridor and pointed out that the highway lies at an angle, creating some
challenging property boundaries. He reviewed the current zoning map and existing uses for properties along and near the
corridor. He particularly noted the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, which is intended to be a central location for a
mixture of uses. The intent is to create more pedestrian activity to support transit. The hospital and the high school serve as
significant anchors in the activity center, and most of the properties in the area are occupied by medical uses.
Mr. Chave noted that to the south of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is the retail area. The corridor starts to narrow
in this location, and existing zoning includes both General Commercial (CG) and General Commercial 2 (CG2). The goal for
this area was to encourage opportunities for high-rise development in some locations, but this has not occurred for various
reasons. In recent years, a property owner was able to assemble a large amount of property at the intersection of 220t' street
Southwest for a high -scale, mixed -use development project. However, the project has been postponed due to the poor
economy.
Mr. Chave advised that further to the south, there is a mixture of zoning behind the CG zones, such as Neighborhood Business
(BN) and Multi -Family (RM). These zones provide a transition between long-established single-family residential
neighborhoods and the more intense development on Highway 99. The area has recently been designated as the International
District, and quite a number of businesses have successfully grown in this area over recent years. The City received grant
funding to implement the Highway 99 Enhancement Project, which would provide lighting and artwork to identify the area.
Both the Highway 99 Enhancement Report and the Burke Associates Study indicate there are some large parcels of land in
this area that are ripe for redevelopment. There may be opportunities to combine adjacent properties that have remained
undeveloped for years.
Jim Underhill reviewed that in 2002 and 2003 retreats, the City Council identified the need for Highway 99 improvements in
order to increase tax revenues. In April of 2003 the Mayor established the Highway 99 Task Force. The Task Force started
their effort by reviewing the corridor's strengths (street improvements and public/private interests) and weaknesses (small and
odd shaped parcels, wide-open zoning, and the area along the highway known as Esperance). The Task Force met with staff
from Lynnwood, Mill Creek and Shoreline to learn more about their proposed plans for Highway 99, and then moved ahead
to collect data, maps, photographs, surveys, and tax information to learn more about what currently existed along the corridor.
They immediately identified a need for a market assessment, development studies, and meetings with local property owners.
Mr. Underhill advised that the City hired a consultant, Makers, to focus on design and development regulations for the
Corridor, and they noted such important elements as the need to improve auto and pedestrian access and circulation. These
improvements would allow shoppers to get in and out easily and residents who live nearby could access the businesses safely.
The Makers Study also encouraged the Task Force to focus on segments of the highway that would be easier to develop and
to consider the surrounding neighborhoods. They indicated that a variety of building types should be encouraged.
Mr. Underhill reported that the City also hired Burke Associates to complete a market analysis, which identified significant
"leakage" of taxable retail sales from Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. They estimated that approximately $550 million in
annual revenue leaves the area on as residents go to neighboring cities to spend their money. The report commented that
while Edmonds has strong demographics and growth, they are missing national chain businesses and many of the other types
of businesses one would expect to find on a major corridor. However, they emphasized that it is possible for Edmonds to be
competitive, and they identified four nodes along the corridor where existing zoning would support higher intensity uses.
Mr. Chave advised that the City has offered "high-rise" zoning along the corridor since 1985, but the concept has never really
taken off. In 1995, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to establish the activity center concept. The corridor, in addition to
downtown Edmonds, was intended to be a focal points for redevelopment and pedestrian activity. The Comprehensive Plan
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 7
was updated in 2007 to clarify and streamline the standards for the CG and CG2 zones. The limits were adjusted so that more
things were allowed outright rather than requiring a conditional use permit. The goal was to accommodate more large scale
development. He advised that when the City updates their Comprehensive Plan in 2011, more focus would be placed on
transit -oriented development and sustainability. He also suggested there will be opportunities for the City to collaborate and
coordinate with other jurisdictions (Lynnwood and Shoreline), particularly in light of the new bus rapid transit program that is
being implemented along the corridor. In recent years, it has become more obvious that more focus on design is needed to
address the transition areas. In addition, art would be a component of the design to identify the different districts along the
corridor.
Mr. Underhill advised that the Highway 99 Task Force worked with the Behar Company on a project titled, "Edmonds
Green", which would be located on the southeast corner of Highway 99 and 220`h Street Southwest. The project would
consist of a mixture of transit -oriented uses and green development. The Task Force believes this project would be a
tremendous asset to the City of Edmonds. While the project is currently on hold, he encouraged the Board to review the
available related information.
Mr. Underhill reported that the task force has had discussions with the owners of the Top Foods Store, which is scheduled for
upgrade in the near future. In addition, the owners are considering options for redeveloping a portion of the parking lot. The
property has already been rezoned to accommodate redevelopment.
Mr. Underhill advised that the Highway 99 Enhancement Project would begin this fall and would include seven new light
fixtures along the corridor known as the "International District." The City has already purchased the light fixtures, and they
will contract with an artist to incorporate artistic elements. The City's goal is to complete the project this year.
Mr. Underhill reported that Community Transit plans to implement their bus rapid transit (SWIFT) program in the fall of
2009, and bus stations are currently being constructed in three Edmonds locations. The program would provide rapid transit
bus service from downtown Everett to the Aurora Village Transit Station by November.
Mr. Underhill announced that the Task Force has had discussions with the owners of the Burlington Coat Factory site. They
have particularly discussed that big box stores are not generally interested in the property because of the perceived difficulty
accessing the site. However, the Task Force has noted there is already a lot of business activity on the site, and the general
population has not found it difficult to access. The Task Force will attempt to meet with the owners of the property again to
discuss potential development opportunities.
Stanley Piha advised that he owns transitional property that is located along the edge of the corridor (behind the Aurora
Market Place Shopping Center on 84`h Avenue West), and he joined the Task Force to discuss potential redevelopment
opportunities for not only his property, but other transitional properties within the activity center. He said his property is
approximately 2 acres, and could be classified as a good transit -oriented location. He briefly reviewed the current zoning,
uses and height limits for properties that surround his site. He noted the small tail of land that extends from his property,
which could be used to provide quick access to the new SWIFT Service that will soon be available on Highway 99.
Mr. Piha reported that the Task Force has discussed the transition zones (RM-1.5 and RM-2.4) that are currently located
along the corridor, and the concept of rezoning them to General Commercial 3 (CG3), which would be a new type of zoning.
This would allow the entire corridor to have CG zoning, thus meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Task Force
has noted the impacts the CG zoning would have on adjacent residential properties due to the narrowness of the corridor.
They felt the regular CG zoning would not be appropriate. The proposed CG3 zoning would be similar to the CG and CG2
zones, with the exception of height and setback. CG3 zoned properties that are adjacent or across the street from single-
family residential properties would have similar height and setbacks as the current RM zoning. While the proposed CG3
zoning would not overburden the nearby residential property owners, it would allow the owners of transitional properties to
take advantage of greater density opportunities.
Mr. Piha said the Task Force also discussed earlier failure of many of the mixed -use developments in Seattle, which required
that the first floor be reserved for residential uses only. Given the types of activities that occur in Edmonds, particularly on
Highway 99, he suggested the CG3 zone allow developments to function as commercial or live -work residential spaces on the
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 8
ground floor. These types of uses would enhance the neighborhood. He suggested that the uses that are appropriate and
encouraged on Highway 99 are somewhat different than the uses that would be appropriate for his property on 84`h Avenue
West. He noted that in order to take the pressure off the transportation of vehicles, the access would come from 236t' Street,
which would be the commercial rather than the residential portion of the site. He provided drawings to illustrate what the
height of a mixed -use proposal on his property might be. The drawings also identified the height that is already allowed on
adjacent properties that are zoned CG.
Mr. Piha reported that the Task Force invited him to talk to a variety of housing organizations, and he found the possibility
exists for a senior housing development of some type, particularly given the sites close proximity to transit and shopping
opportunities. This would allow the City to provide more housing opportunities without necessarily adding to the traffic
congestion.
Mr. Underhill clarified that the proposed CG3 zoning designation would basically become a buffer between the single-family
residential and more intense CG zones that are located along the corridor. Mr. Piha agreed and noted that the proposed CG3
zoning would be consistent with the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it would encourage mixed -use
or high -density development within the transition areas located along the corridor. He reminded the Board that CG3
properties that are located adjacent to or across the street from single-family residential properties would have greater setback
and height restrictions to minimize impacts.
Bruce Witenberg reported that the Task Force conducted a walking tour of the Aurora Market Place area, including the
parcel of land owned by Mr. Piha. During the tour, it became apparent that pedestrian access to the shopping center was
difficult, and there are no direct routes from the surrounding residential neighborhoods to the shopping center. One thing that
makes redevelopment of Mr. Piha's property attractive is that it would allow the opportunity for a more direct access from the
neighborhoods to the businesses.
Mr. Witenberg emphasized that while population density is a concern of the residential property owners in the area, they are
more concerned about the number of vehicles a development in the CG3 zone might attract. The City must be careful when
defining the term "transit oriented development" and what parking requirements or restrictions would accompany high -density
development. If Mr. Piha's property were to redevelop, a walkway could be provided from the subject property, through the
shopping center development to the transit station. Mr. Piha cautioned that while he would not be opposed to providing a
walkway access through the shopping center as part of his project, it would require permission from the owner of the
shopping center, as well.
Mr. Witenberg expressed the importance of developing businesses in the transition zones that would be utilized by the
surrounding residential property owners. Not only would these types of businesses enhance economic development, but they
would be a step towards the City becoming more sustainable. He reminded the Board of the City's goal to encourage
opportunities for residents to access the services they need without using their cars.
Mr. Witenberg observed that the residents who live along the corridor do not feel that Edmonds does enough to connect
Highway 99 to the rest of the City. For example, there is no visible signage to identify the Edmonds portion of Highway 99,
and there has been no apparent effort on the part of the Chamber of Commerce to involve the businesses along Highway 99 in
their marketing program. There is currently no connectivity between people who shop on Highway 99 and those who shop in
downtown Edmonds. He summarized that addressing these issues would certainly enhance economic development and make
Edmonds more sustainable. Chair Bowman said he has spoken with business owners on Highway 99, who feel that other
business owners in the City of Edmonds do not really care about them. Mr. Underhill pointed out that only 4% of the
addresses on Highway 99 are members of the Chamber of Commerce. He concluded that the Chamber could become an
important partner in the effort to enhance Highway 99. The Task Force has tried to get them more involved but has had very
little success.
Mr. Underhill concluded his presentation by stating that the Task Force would continue to do the following:
• Consider the impacts of transit -oriented development strategies along Highway 99 and elsewhere in Edmonds and
Snohomish County.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 9
• Consider the impacts and changes in the economy and overall development plans.
• Consider additional zoning changes to encourage future redevelopment.
• Obtain feedback from the Highway 99 business community and adjoining neighborhoods.
• Encourage the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce to help with recruitment/retention of a strong business community
on Highway 99.
• Work to bring Esperance into the City.
Mr. Clifton advised that a representative from Stevens Hospital also participated on the Task Force and made presentations
upon request. He emphasized that Stevens Hospital will be an important player in what happens on the corridor.
Mr. Wambolt concluded that the Task Force consists of an active group of individuals who are trying to encourage positive
changes for the City. He observed that the Behar Project that was proposed at the intersection of 220" Street and Highway 99
would probably have been under construction by now if the economy had been better. Much of the design work has already
been completed.
Chair Bowman requested information about the current status of Stevens Hospital. Council Member Wambolt said he served
on the Stevens Hospital Strategic Plan Review Committee, which met last week to discuss the hospital's strengths and
weaknesses. It was noted that one of their greatest weaknesses is their perceived reputation. They are actually considering
the option of changing their name. At one point, the Hospital Board discussed the option of building an entirely new facility,
perhaps in a new location. However, that is no longer being considered as a viable option. In addition, the Hospital Board
voted not to pursue an increase to the hospital levy at this time. He noted that another identified weakness was that they have
not raised their levy for a number of years, and it is now less than what is collected for the library. They have hired a
consultant to work with them to develop a plan, and they have started a series of community meetings to obtain public input.
Vice Chair Lovell inquired if the hospital is still considering the option of merging with Swedish Hospital. Council Member
Wambolt answered that they have not made any decisions at this point, but it is still one of the options on the table.
Chair Bowman reminded the Board that they have been charged with economic development and finding ways for the City to
raise more tax revenue. He asked the members of the Task Force to share what they see as the hurdles for attracting
businesses to Highway 99. Mr. Clifton said land assembly and the irregularly -shaped lots that currently exist discourage
many business owners. Mr. Underhill added one of the City's best redevelopment opportunities is the Burlington Coat
Factory property, which is a large lot with additional vacant acreage behind. Mr. Chave agreed this is one of the few large
areas available along Highway 99, and the same person owns both the CG and RM-3 zoned properties.
Mr. Clifton expressed his belief that the City needs a good example of the type of mixed -use redevelopment that could occur
along the corridor. The Behar project would have certainly been a good example. In addition, Top Foods is seeking to
remodel their site. He said he has visited with several companies regarding the possibility of relocating on Highway 99, and
he cannot pinpoint any particular reasons why they do not find the corridor attractive.
Council Member Wambolt explained that if Stevens Hospital were to expand on the current site, their main entrance would be
shifted from 76"` Avenue West to Highway 99. He expressed his belief that land assembly is a big problem for potential
redevelopers. He recalled the City could have added another large car dealership along Highway 99 if enough land could
have been assembled. He suggested that is another reason why it is important to continue to pursue the annexation of the
Esperance area.
Board Member Works asked if it would be possible to annex just a portion of the Esperance area. Council Member Wambolt
answered that the State would not allow this to occur. Mr. Witenberg recalled that the Aurora Market Place neighborhood
petitioned to be annexed into the City. Mr. Chave cautioned that the Review Board frowns on commercial annexation
because it appears to be "cherry picking," but each case would be different. Board Member Works suggested the Task Force
talk with property owners and push the concept forward. Mr. Witenberg observed that most of the property owners in
Esperance are emphatically against annexation. Mr. Clifton agreed and noted that Snohomish County is more than willing to
let the area go to Edmonds, but State law dictates that the majority of property owners must be in favor of the annexation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 10
Vice Chair Lovell expressed his sense that that Task Force has a real strategy for making something positive happen on
Highway 99. He suggested the Board take a more proactive approach with the City staff, community, boards and
commissions, etc. to foster development in the City. He commended the Task Force for working with Mr. Piha to push his
proposal forward more quickly.
Vice Chair Lovell inquired if there have been situations where prospective developers have approached the City with
proposals that the City cannot allow because of existing code requirements and restrictions. If so, he suggested the City
explore opportunities to be more flexible in order to attract developers to the land. Mr. Chave reported that the Task Force
has been responsive when people have approached them for help. They helped Mr. Behar pursue modifications to the CG
zone to accommodate his proposed mixed -use development. They also helped an auto dealership push through necessary
code amendments to accommodate their remodel project.
Mr. Witenberg observed that although potential developers have expressed an interest in the Burlington Coat Factory
property, there is currently a long-term lease agreement. While this would not be an insurmountable situation, access is also a
major impediment. He said he does not believe it is likely the State would allow a stop light in this location to improve the
access situation.
Mr. Witenberg reported that the Task Force has had numerous discussions about the types of businesses that are contrary for
the City's future vision for the corridor, such as the storage facility that occupies a significant amount of land but generates
very little tax revenue for the City. He reminded the Board that car dealerships generated about 70 to 75 percent of the sales
tax income for the City when the economy was going well. However, they were not really welcomed into the City. When the
economy turns around, this will likely be the situation again. The question is whether car dealerships are the type of activity
the City wants to encourage on Highway 99. Do they want to have numerous car dealerships, pedestrian -friendly businesses,
or a combination of both.
Mr. Clifton cautioned that in the world of planning and development, it often takes many years to implement a vision. He
recalled that Bellevue sat on a vision for 15 to 20 years until the economy took off and they were able to build what they
wanted. He summarized that this effort has a lot to do with establishing relationships, and the Task Force has worked with
businesses and developers from neighboring cities and the transit agencies, as well. It is their hope that these individuals will
talk about the City of Edmonds's interest in general economic development along the corridor.
Mr. Underhill said neighborhoods have expressed concern that development of the transition areas along Highway 99 do not
result in their neighborhood streets being used for parking lots by people who want to catch the bus. Somehow, development
within the transition zones must be done in a manner that protects the quality of life of those who live in the adjacent
neighborhoods. He summarized that most residents would love to see the Highway 99 corridor redeveloped to provide
services and amenities to their neighborhoods.
Chair Bowman noted that Shoreline has made significant progress in their plans to redevelop Highway 99. He asked if
Lynnwood has similar plans. Mr. Chave answered that Lynnwood has plans in progress for transit -oriented development in
response to the new SWIFT Program that would be implemented in November. He suggested it would be a good idea for the
Board to invite a representative from Lynnwood to discuss their plans with the City. Perhaps there are opportunities for
Lynnwood and Edmonds to coordinate their efforts.
Board Member Clarke thanked the Task Force for their efforts and said he doesn't think the City fully comprehends the
talents of the group's members. He recognized that the City and developers would always have to battle economic and land
use cycles, but the City can be forward thinking by considering the individual character of each parcel. He referred to the
Burlington Coat Factory property, which was significantly impacted when the State developed the interchange with SR 104
and Highway 99. The access point was ruined, and 242°d Street is a dead end with residential development on the south and
north. However, he suggested there are creative alternatives such as moving the street or shifting the CG zoning east to create
a large tract of land for a mixed -use development with numerous components. He suggested the Task Force work to push this
concept forward. He also referred to the large amount of land that is located behind the Safeway Store, which could be
developed to a higher and better use. He further suggested that if land in the area becomes valuable enough, the church would
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 11
likely consider selling and relocating, as well, which would allow even more land for redevelopment. Again, he encouraged
the Task Force to continue to look at parcels one -by -one to figure out how to make them more attractive for redevelopment.
Board Member Clarke recalled that years ago, a previous Stevens Hospital CEO pushed forward an expansion plan that
included the purchase of the property where Value Village and the BMW Dealership is currently located. However, the
hospital decided to abandon their redevelopment plan and sell the property. He expressed his belief that a master plan that
encourages developers to construct medical buildings would result in a higher concentration of medical development in the
area.
Board Member Stewart thanked the Task Force for all they have done to carefully look at the details and possibilities along
Highway 99. She suggested it would be appropriate for the City to focus their efforts on improving the revenue stream from
Highway 99 right now. She liked the idea raised by Mr. Clifton about the importance of setting an example for future
developers to follow. The idea of encouraging green development and sustainable design is also appropriate, and the ability
to walk to transit service is attractive, as well. She expressed her hope that the City would support the Task Force in their
effort to continue to encourage redevelopment on the transit corridor.
Chair Bowman summarized the Board's consensus as follows:
• While there have been redevelopment projects proposed for Highway 99, there is no funding to move them forward
at this time.
• The City should continue to pursue opportunities to annex the Esperance area into Edmonds.
• The irregular shape of many of the lots on Highway 99 makes it difficult to assemble properties for large
redevelopment projects.
• They must address the question of whether they want to encourage more auto dealerships or a mixture of other uses,
as well.
• They need to foster communication amongst the business owners along Highway and make them feel as though they
belong to the City.
Mr. Witenberg added that if the Aurora Market Place is ever redeveloped, it would be important to encourage the developer
to move the store fronts towards the highway to provide easier access for pedestrians who live in the neighborhood to access
the businesses and the bus stations. He suggested the City also consider the issue of providing safe pedestrian access across
the highway.
Board Member Clarke asked how the Board could advance the CG3 zoning concept. Mr. Chave suggested the Board invite
the Task Force to study the concept and provide a report back at a joint Board/Task Force work session. He observed that
while the Board could take on the task themselves, much of the work has already been done by the Task Force. The Board
agreed to invite the Task Force to solidify their proposal and then meet with the Board for a work session.
Mr. Witenberg stressed the importance of obtaining support and input from the residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to
the transition zones. He suggested they would be more willing to support a proposed development if they have an opportunity
to share their ideas and concerns early in the process. He suggested once the Board and Task Force have created a draft
proposal, it should be presented to the public for feedback.
Board Member Clarke noted the significant difference in topography between properties on the east and west sides of the
corridor just to the east of Mr. Piha's property. The properties on the west side slope up and are above grade, and the
properties on the east side slope down below grade. He suggested the zoning depth does not go far enough to the east, which
results in developments that are below the highway grade. He suggested the Task Force explore options for extending the
zoning eastward to provide enough land area to create a large scale development that would allow parking underneath and at -
grade mixed -use development.
The Board took a break at 9:30 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 12
CODE REWRITE: POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE CITY'S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(SEPA) RULES (ECDC 20.15A)
Mr. Lien explained that the current SEPA (ECDC 20.15.A) regulations were initially adopted in 1984 in order to be in
compliance with the new State's new SEPA rules. Since that time, only minor amendments have been made to the City's
document. Staff believes it is appropriate for the City to update their code to incorporate the numerous changes that have
occurred at the State level, particularly those having to do with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and SEPA review.
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the table that was prepared by staff to identify the proposed changes. He noted that many of
the proposed amendments are related to SEPA thresholds. He explained that State SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to
modify the categorically exempt threshold levels for certain minor new construction activities. However, to date, the City has
only modified one threshold. The clearing and grading threshold was increased to the maximum 400 cubic yards allowed by
the State. He suggested the City should undertake a thorough review of the flexible thresholds and consider modifying the
threshold levels as follows:
At this time, the City requires SEPA review for construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling
units or more. However, State law allows the City to increase the threshold up to 20 dwelling units.
The City currently requires SEPA review for the construction of an office, school, commercial, etc. building with
4,000 square feet or more of gross floor area, with associated parking facilities designed for 20 automobiles. This
threshold could be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
The City's threshold of 20 automobiles for parking lots can be modified up to 40 vehicles.
Mr. Lien explained that the City may choose to adjust the threshold levels to apply city-wide, or apply different threshold
levels to different zones within the City. For example, perhaps it would be more appropriate to keep the thresholds lower in
residential zones, but allow a greater threshold in commercial zones. He announced that of the 164 SEPA reviews that have
occurred in the City since 2004, 59 were not subject to the threshold but were triggered for other reasons. Three multi -family
residential developments could have benefited from the flexible thresholds, and 35 projects triggered SEPA review because
they exceeded the threshold for fill.
Mr. Lien recalled that ECDC 20.04 was recently adopted as part of the amendments to Title 20 regarding permit process. He
noted that this section largely deals with SEPA review and planned actions. He suggested the Board consider moving ECDC
20.04 to ECDC 20.15A for ease of implementation and understanding of the development code.
Board Member Reed observed that many of the proposed amendments are administrative in nature to make Title 20 consistent
with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and noted that consistency is required.
Board Member Reed suggested it would be helpful to have a decision tree that identifies the areas where the Board will have
to provide direction and/or policy recommendations.
Vice Chair Lovell asked Mr. Lien to prepare a matrix that identifies how changing the current SEPA thresholds would impact
areas such as downtown, Highway 99, the waterfront, Five Corners, etc. He reminded the Board of their charge to come up
with plans and suggestions for the City Council as to how the City could enhance development and generate revenue. He
suggested the Board discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to relax the thresholds in order to enhance opportunities
for development without the extra burden of SEPA.
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the City is trying to encourage sustainability and alternative choices of
transportation. Reducing the amount of parking required would be one way to encourage this.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Bowman reported that he would meet with Mr. Chave over the next week to solidify the date for the Planning Board
Retreat. He said he would confirm the date via email as soon as possible.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 13
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman did not provide any additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell advised that Mr. Shapiro presented his Firdale Village rezone proposal to the City Council and received
generally favorable feedback. However, the City Council postponed their decision until the middle of August. In the
meantime, Mr. Shapiro would update the proposal to address the concerns raised by the City Council.
Board Member Clarke observed that he has been invited to attend the July 28t' City Council Meeting with Mr. McIntosh,
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director, to present the Board's recommendation for the new park name. However,
the minutes from the meeting at which the issue was discussed have not been approved and he does not have any official
document to support his comments on behalf of the Board. The Board agreed to approve the minutes as the next item on the
agenda.
Board Member Clarke noted that although the Board discussed their desire to recognize citizens who helped design the park,
they never took any formal action as part of their motion. He suggested it would be helpful for the Board to provide
additional direction regarding this matter. The Board indicated they would be in favor of some type of plaque or other
recognition for the citizens who participated significantly in the project.
Board Member Reed advised that the City anticipates receiving a contract rezone application from the owner of the Safeway
Property. Mr. Lien added that the proposal would likely include 30,000 square feet of commercial space, with 300 to 350
residential units. The applicant would likely request a rezone to General Commercial 2 (CG2), which would allow an
additional height to accommodate five to eight stories. Board Member Reed reminded the Board that the proposal would
come before them for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's review would be closed
record, based on the record established at the Planning Board's hearing.
The Board Members were cautioned that because rezone applications are quasi-judicial matters, they must be careful to avoid
ex parte communications. Mr. Lien referred the Board to a memorandum that was written by the City Attorney regarding the
Appearance of Fairness issue. He agreed to forward the memorandum to each of the Board Members.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Although the Board Members did not receive the draft minutes until Monday afternoon, they all indicated they had read the
minutes and were prepared to approve them.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THE BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2009 AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 14