Loading...
2011-04-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS Minutes of JOINT PLANNING BOARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING April 13, 2011 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room, 3rd Floor City Hall, 121 — 5d' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Mary Monfort Marianne Zagorski Bruce Faires Stacy Gardea Don Hall Darrol Haug Beatrice O'Rourke Evan Pierce David Schaefer Rich Senderoff Bruce Witenberg Rebecca Wolfe Frank Yamamoto READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Diane Buckshnis COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Betty Larman Kerry St. Clair Ayers Paul Anderson Rob VanTassell VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he lives in a neighborhood located across the street from a true Neighborhood Business (BN) zone that serves the local neighborhood. The property is well -landscaped and the building is set back appropriately from the residential properties behind. The property was developed in full compliance with the code requirements, including the setback of the building so it is far enough back to allow for adequate sight distance when approaching the major intersection. Mr. Hertrich pointed out that the proposed amendment to reduce street setbacks would apply to all BN zones, large and small. He expressed his belief that the BN zones are different in character, and one setback requirement for all may not be appropriate. He observed that Westgate is a special area because it is located on a state highway (SR-104) and a major arterial (100t' Avenue West). He said he envisions an opportunity in the future to widen the roadways and add a right - turn lane to make the intersection more efficient. However, allowing buildings to be constructed within five feet of the right- of-way would eliminate this possibility. If the 20-foot setback area is maintained, the roadway could potentially be expanded if necessary at some point in the future. He summarized that a 20-foot setback results in a good looking neighborhood and provides safety for pedestrians who use the sidewalks. Mr. Hertrich encouraged the Planning Board to use their influence to let the University of Washington team know they are interested in the concept of creating a new and specific zone for Westgate called the "neighborhood shopping area." Having a distinct and specific zoning designation would make it easier to accomplish the identified goals for Westgate. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (BD) ZONES Mr. Chave reviewed that the Planning Board has discussed potential amendments to the downtown BD zones on at least two previous occasions. Draft amendments were prepared based on input from the Planning Board regarding four broad issues that have been raised by the staff, City Council and individual citizens. He referred to the draft amendments and invited the Board and Commission to provide additional direction. Restricting Uses in the BD1 Zone to Retail Only within the Designated Street Front Area Mr. Chave advised that the proposed language would restrict the uses in the BD 1 zone to retail only. While restaurants would be allowed, office and other types of service uses must be located outside the designated street front. If these rules are adopted, existing non -conforming uses would be dealt with via the non -conforming rules in the zoning code. They would be allowed so long as they continue to be occupied. In addition, other kinds of service or office uses could locate behind the designated street front or on upper floors of a building, but the emphasis going forward would be for retail and restaurant uses along the commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave said that in the intervening years since the BD zones were adopted, issues have come up because numerous office and service uses have located in the BD1 zone. Staff believes these uses can be successfully located outside the designated street front areas or in other BD zones. He shared an example of a medical office that located in the BD1 zone. Because of privacy requirements, screens were placed in front of the windows. This is contrary to the City's goal of providing a pedestrian -friendly environment in the retail core. He reminded the Board that the City Council was reticent to make the BD1 zone retail only when the code language was initially adopted. However, staff is asking the Board to reconsider this position. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the proposed amendment would also prohibit drive -through businesses in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave said the Board discussed this issue and agreed that drive -through businesses should no longer be allowed in the BD1 zone. Changes were made to Table 16.43.1 to implement the Board's direction. Board Member Johnson said she conducted a windshield survey of the BD1 zone and found 10 finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) offices, 10 health and beauty services, and two medical office buildings all within the ground level storefront area. These 22 businesses would theoretically become non -conforming if the proposed amendments are approved. She asked if similar businesses would be allowed to occupy these spaces if the current businesses leave. Mr. Chave said another service or office use would be allowed to occupy the space as a non -conforming use. However, if the space remains vacant for a year, service and/or office uses would no longer be allowed. He clarified that the proposed language is not intended to drive out the existing service and office uses from the BD1 zone, but it would enable the City stop further erosion of the Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 2 retail core. Mr. Clifton said he has been contacted by numerous business owners who were interested in locating in the BID zone but were unable to find the right space. Board Member Stewart recommended the code be amended to require a property owner to change the use to retail when an existing service and/or office use moves out. She expressed her belief that if the City truly wants to change the makeup of the BD 1 zone, they need to help it along rather than waiting for change to occur. Vice Chair Reed asked if the code language could be written in such a way to restrict the types of uses allowed in the BD1 zone when the current service and office spaces become vacant. Mr. Chave agreed this is an option, but it would require an amendment to the non -conforming section of the code to specifically spell out the requirements for the BD 1 zone. Normally, a non -conforming use would be allowed to continue unless the space is vacant for a long period of time. Mr. Clifton suggested another option would be to shorten the time period a space can remain vacant before it is required to comply with the retail use requirement. Commissioner Hall observed that the purpose of the proposed restriction is to slow down the growth of service and office uses in the downtown so it can become more vibrant. He reminded the group that people come to downtown Edmonds to shop, and he encouraged them to move forward with the change. If a service or office use moves out of a space, the new use should be restricted to retail only. Board Member Clarke pointed out that most of the space in the BD 1 zone is smaller in size and older, which equates to lower rents. In addition, most of the blocks are divided into small ownership. He suggested that many downtown retailers would be unable to afford the higher rents that new development would require in order to pencil out. He referred to downtown Kirkland and explained that much of the retail space in the newer mixed -use developments is vacant because small businesses cannot afford to pay the high rents. Commissioner Yamamoto agreed that most of the retailers in the BD1 zone are small and require between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet of space. Businesses prefer to locate in the downtown core were foot traffic is significantly greater. He expressed concern that some of these retail spaces are currently occupied by service and office uses that do not depend on foot traffic. Board Member Clarke said he would prefer to allow flexibility for a property owner to fill space in the 13131 zone with something other than retail, depending on market demand. Otherwise, spaces could remain vacant for long periods of time, resulting in blight. Commissioner Yamamoto pointed out that the City has never tried to limit the BD1 zone to retail uses. He said he knows of business owners who want space in the retail core, but there is none available because it is occupied by service and office uses. He expressed his belief that if the code is amended to restrict the uses in the BD1 zone, the spaces would be filled quite quickly with retail uses. Commissioner Pierce said Board Member Clarke has a valid point that prohibiting service and office uses could result in vacant buildings because the space would only be marketable to a narrow group of business types. He pointed out that much of the first floor commercial space in the newer buildings in downtown has remained vacant because the older buildings offer more flexibility and lower rents. He expressed his belief that restricting the uses in the BD zone would be a bad idea because it would eliminate potential tenants. Board Member Clarke noted that rents for the newly renovated Old Mill Town are triple the previous rates. Much of the space is vacant at this time because rents are too high and the spaces are too large for the typical tenant who wants to locate in downtown Edmonds. He said the same would be true for any new mixed -use development. Rents would have to be significantly higher in order to make the proforma pencil out. He expressed concern that eliminating some of the potential tenants could make new development unfeasible. He felt the code should allow flexibility for other types of uses if spaces are not marketable for retail. Otherwise, the City could eliminate a property owner's ability to lease space. Mr. Clifton said his predecessor, Jennifer Gerend, shared her experience that allowing too many office -related uses along the storefront can kill the retail core. He suggested there needs to be a balance. At what point should the City say no to office uses in the ground floor storefront areas. He reminded the group that the proposed amendment would not exclude office uses in the BD1 zone, but they would have to locate outside of the ground floor storefront areas or on the upper floors. Board Member Clarke said he does not believe that financial, insurance and real estate businesses would want to occupy space that is located behind a storefront, with no visibility from the street. He expressed his belief that these uses fill a demand in the Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 3 community. Mr. Clifton said some businesses have chosen not to locate in Edmonds because they cannot find space in the most desirable location (BD1 zone). He suggested that having more restaurant and retail uses would make the downtown more attractive. He said he understands Board Member Clarke's concern, but at some point there is a tipping point where the downtown goes downhill because there are not enough retail and restaurant businesses to attract people to the area. Mr. Chave shared an example of a medical office locating in the BD 1 zone. Because the code does not allow them to cover the windows, they put up screens inside the space to provide privacy for their patients. He said he does not believe this is an ideal situation for the downtown retail core. He explained that office uses are important to a downtown because they provide employees to use the retail businesses. However, it is not so important that they have a street presence because they are not directly related to the people on the sidewalk. Typically, offices use blinds to close their space off so that people cannot see in from the street. Because of this, medical offices are not generally compatible with retail uses, and should not be encouraged in the BD 1 zone. Board Member Johnson said some service uses can benefit the downtown because they draw people to the area. Mr. Chave agreed but cautioned that if service uses are allowed to expand in the BD1 zone, they could eventually overpower and undermine the retail uses. Council Member Buckshnis said Port Townsend is a good example of a vibrant downtown. If the City wants to move forward in tourism and retail, they must change the look of the downtown. While barber shops and other service uses are important, more retail is also needed. She said she would like the City to become an artist and tourist destination within the next five years, and parameters should be added to the code to move in that direction. Board Member Johnson suggested they start by prohibiting office uses within designated street front areas. Mr. Chave agreed that the code language could make it clear that professional office uses are prohibited within the designated street front areas, and existing businesses could be allowed to continue in their current locations. However, if the space remains vacant for an extended period of time, it must be converted to a retail use. Another option would be to identify the specific service uses that are compatible with retail uses and prohibit all others within the BD zone. He reminded the group that the BD1 zone is intended to have a retail focus. However, this was never specifically spelled out in the code language, and the City Council was reticent about limiting the BD zone to retail uses. Board Member Cloutier reminded the group that the City's goal is to raise retail presence in the downtown core, and prohibiting service and office uses would be a step in the right direction. However, they must be careful not to damage the economic viability of the downtown in the process. He suggested the code language should be written in such a way to allow service uses if the real estate market cannot support enough retail uses to fill the available spaces. Property owners should not be forced to leave the space vacant. On the other hand, he cautioned that a developer's bad choices should not set the City's policy. Mr. Chave said the Hartland Study that was conducted approximately eight years ago indicated that it would not be feasible to redevelop the BD1 zone based on the current zoning requirements, regardless of the types of uses allowed. He said he does not anticipate significant redevelopment in the BD1 zone in the near future. Board Member Clarke agreed that redevelopment is so costly that developers must charge significantly higher rents to make projects pencil out. Small retailers do not typically generate enough revenue to pay these higher rents and still remain successful. Vice Chair Reed suggested that perhaps they should break down the different types of service uses into categories. Some categories may be more appropriate for the BD1 zone than others. Perhaps the more compatible service uses could be allowed in the BD1 zone as secondary or conditional uses. Mr. Chave explained that allowing a service use as a secondary use to a primary use that is allowed would merely add an additional step to the process. The City could allow service uses in the BD1 zone as a conditional use. However, unless there are clear criteria in place to innumerate the conditions that must be met, every application would be automatically approved. Mr. Chave suggested the group either continue their discussion on this item to the next meeting or make a decision to move forward with a public hearing based on two different options: prohibit professional office uses only or prohibit any uses except retail. It may be helpful to invite public feedback on both options. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Clifton suggested that to address the concerns raised by Board Members Cloutier and Clarke, the code could be amended to require a property owner to replace a vacant space with a retail use. However, if the space remains vacant for an extended period of time, the City could grant an exemption to allow the space to be leased for service or office uses. He agreed that no property owner wants a commercial space to remain vacant for an extended period of time, and an exemption provision would address these situations. It would also help the BD1 zone transition over time to retail uses without having a lot of vacant space. Commissioner Witenberg asked if the conditional use requirement could be keyed to a specific percentage of retail space that must be maintained. Service uses could be allowed as long the total amount of retail space remains at or above the required percentage. Mr. Chave cautioned that this approach would require the City to maintain a detailed inventory of the uses in the BD1 zone. He suggested that Mr. Clifton's recommendation would be more useful. If a property owner can prove he/she has been unsuccessful in renting the space for a retail use, the City could grant an exception and allow the space to be filled with a service use. Commissioner Pierce agreed there should be some mechanism that protects property owners who are unable to lease their space for retail uses. He cautioned against establishing restrictions that can push property owners into a negative financial situation. Change the Commercial Depth Requirements to be the same for all BD zones Mr. Chave advised that the proposed language would change the commercial depth requirements to a consistent 45 feet. In addition, the depth requirement would be directly tied to the expanded Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) covering all BD zones. He explained that, at this time, the BD zone has a 30-foot commercial depth requirement, but the commercial depth requirement for all other BD zones is 30 feet. He explained that staff believes the 30-foot standard is too small to ensure adequate commercial space. However, it makes no sense to require a greater standard outside the retail core. He reminded them that the BD 1 zone is intended to be the downtown's strongest commercial district. Mr. Chave reported that staff conducted a walking survey a few years ago to measure the depth of the commercial spaces in the BD1 zone. They found that nearly all of the spaces had a commercial depth of at least 60 feet. Therefore, a 45-foot commercial depth requirement would not be asking too much of the current property owners. He emphasized that the new requirement would not be applied to existing spaces, which would be allowed to continue as non -conforming uses. However, newly created commercial spaces would be required to provide 45 feet of commercial space along the designated street front. As proposed, the front 45 feet of space along the street front must be reserved for retail commercial uses. Mr. Chave advised that the proposed amendments also include an update of the Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1), which identifies all designated street fronts within the BD zones for which the commercial depth requirement would be applicable. He noted that the map was originally adopted for the BD1 zone, but staff is recommending to include all BD zones. Chair Lovell said that although the map identifies 4th Avenue north of Bell Street as a designated street front area, the Board previously agreed that the proposed amendments would not be applicable to the BD5 zone (4th Avenue Cultural Corridor). Mr. Chave explained that although this area would be identified as a designated street front, the criteria would be somewhat different than for other BD zones. He reminded the Board that once the Westgate and Five Corners zoning proposals have been adopted as examples of form -based zoning, they agreed to consider the option of also applying the form -based zoning concept to the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor since the initial design work has already been done. The Board agreed to address specific criteria for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor (BD5 zone) as a separate issue later in the year. Adopt Language to Allow Development Agreements Mr. Chave reported that the Board discussed development agreements in some detail on March 23rd and authorized staff to prepare the draft code amendment language found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050. He noted that the language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and specifically authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. The Board has had discussions about whether these are the right criteria and whether the development agreement option should be available in all BD zones. They specifically discussed not allowing development agreements in the BD5 zone. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Chave explained that development agreements are allowed in the code, but can only condition or limit what a developer is already allowed to do in the zone. They cannot give any additional flexibility. Because of the location, configuration, topography, etc. of some properties in the BD2 zone, staff is recommending the Board entertain options that are somewhat different than the standard zoning requirements. He referred to the draft language (ECDC 16.43.050), which would allow standard development within the BD zones as specified in the current code language. However, a developer could also submit an application for a development agreement that would ask for certain code variances if certain criteria can be met. He pointed out that Section B describes what can be approved as part of a development agreement. As proposed, a development agreement could vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030, 16.43.035 or 16.43.040. An alternative to Section B would only allow a development agreement to vary the step back requirements and adjust the height to a maximum of 35 feet. He noted that the alternative language was created in response to the City Attorney's counsel that the language should specifically identify the standards that can be varied. Mr. Chave referred to Section C, which lists the criteria that must be met for approval of a development agreement. As currently proposed, a development would have to be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification. In addition, it would have to meet two of the following three criteria: 1. Designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent of green building certification. 2. Incorporate one or more of the following uses designed to further the City's economic development goals: hotel, post office, and studio work space, housing or live -work space for artists. 3. Include enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave explained that development agreements would involve a public process, with public hearings before the Planning Board and the City Council. The City Council would make the final decision. A developer may request a bonus for height, setbacks, etc. in exchange for providing a number of community benefits. Mr. Clifton added that applicants would be required to state why they are asking for modifications and identify what would be provided in exchange. The City Council would make the ultimate decision about whether the items offered by the applicant warrant the proposed modifications. Mr. Chave said the burden of proof would be on the applicant to show how their proposal would meet the criteria found in ECDC 16.43.050.C. Commissioner Pierce observed that, as drafted, Section.3 does not define what the enhanced services and amenities would be. For example, would an applicant be required to dedicate a certain percentage of open space based on the size of the project? He suggested the required open space be clearly defined. Commissioner Senderoff said it is his understanding that when a developer submits an application for a development agreement, the final design of the project would already be done. The City Council's ultimate decision regarding the development agreement would be based on the actual design. He suggested that this be clearly stated in the proposed language so the public is aware that the final decision would be based on a specific design. Commissioner Senderoff suggested that Section C.3 should provide more information about what is meant by "public amenities." He said he is generally in favor of the development agreement concept, but he felt they should consider additional criteria besides the three items listed in Section C. For example, only one hotel and post office are needed in the downtown. Once both of these uses have been developed, Criteria C.2 would no longer be an option. Mr. Chave pointed out that, as proposed, an application would only be required to meet two of the three criteria. Commissioner Pierce questioned the difference between a development agreement and a contract rezone. Mr. Chave said development agreements are intended to replace the contract rezone mechanism, and there is a significant difference between the two concepts. Only the applicant had the ability to propose and approve modifications to a contract rezone proposal, and there was no opportunity for the City to negotiate with the applicant. A development agreement involves a contractual discussion process that allows the City to negotiate the various elements of the agreement with the developer. He summarized that a development agreement offers the City more control in the process. Chair Lovell referenced Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70B.170, which authorizes development agreements. It states that development agreements must be specific to a project. Commissioner Senderoff observed that this would be Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 6 consistent with his earlier comment that development agreements would be based on final design proposals. Mr. Chave clarified that while development agreements would be based on actual development proposals, they would not be based on exact designs because the design review process could potentially modify the design further. He concluded that a developer would not be able to go straight from a development agreement to a building permit because design review would be required. Chair Lovell summarized that a development agreement would spell out the specific requirements of the proposal at the programmatic design stage. Commissioner Senderoff questioned how the City would ensure that designs are not modified so much that they are no longer consistent with an approved development agreement. Mr. Chave said staff would ensure that a developer adheres to the requirements identified in the development agreement. The design that is provided as part of the development agreement process is intended to describe what the project would generally look like, but would not identify every detail. Changes would likely be made as part of the design review process that would come later. Commissioner Pierce asked if the development agreement criteria and code standards would be applied uniformly for every development agreement proposal. Mr. Chave answered that he does not anticipate a significant number of development agreement applications, but each one would be different to address the unique circumstances of each site. However, every development agreement proposal would be evaluated against the Comprehensive Plan policies and the adopted design guidelines for the BD zones. Mr. Clifton said that when he served on the City of Seattle's Design Review Board for three years, he found that those projects that were designed at the 80% to 90% level were typically approved more than those that included simple building envelope sketches. He concluded that developers who refine their sketches will be more likely to gain acceptance from the public, the Planning Board, and the City Council. If applicants expect to gain approval to modify a development standard, they will have to build exceptional projects. Council Member Buckshnis suggested the criteria (Section C) should be expanded to be more global so it does not appear to specifically apply to a single property. For example, Section C.2 could also include the option of developing a farmer's market. Mr. Chave said it was not staff s intent to create language that is only applicable to one property. The proposed language was intended to include the uses previously identified as desirable by the City Council, the Planning Board, the Economic Development Commission, and the public. He agreed that a farmer's market would be a good addition to Section C.2. He cautioned against leaving the criteria open ended and undefined, but he agreed that the list could be expanded to include other desirable uses the City wants to encourage in the downtown. Board Member Clarke observed that the community has struggled with the height limit in the downtown for a number of years, and 30 feet appears to be a sacred line. If the proposed language is adopted as proposed, a developer would be allowed to propose additional height as part of a development agreement in order to provide adequate height on the first floor for retail space, with two residential stories above. Although the applicant could provide evidence that the additional height is needed in order for the project to pencil out, the City Council could ultimately deny the development agreement because it calls for increasing the height limit above 30 feet. Mr. Clifton said staff does not believe the community and/or City Council would support the development agreement concept if it allows heights to be adjusted significantly. He suggested the language may be more acceptable to the community if it identifies a cap for building height. Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide visual photographs to illustrate various building heights to help the public and the decision makers understand that the visual difference of a few extra feet would be minimal. He reminded the group of the City's goal to have unique and modern architecture. Greater ceiling heights result in buildings that are more marketable and their values are enhanced. For example, third floor residential units with taller ceilings command a significantly higher real estate value. In addition, modern building design requires more space for mechanical equipment. He expressed his belief that it would be difficult to visually see the difference between a three-story building that is 37 feet and one that is 33 feet. He suggested the language focus on the number of floors allowed rather than a specific height limit. He further suggested the City allow some bonus for architectural creativity of facades rather than just straight boxes. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 7 Board Member Clarke suggested they also consider allowing for the transfer of development rights. For example, the City's goal is to promote the 4`h Avenue Arts Corridor by providing public amenities. Rather than developing public amenities on site, a developer could be allowed to put dollars into a fund to pay for public amenities and enhancement of this unique corridor. Board Member Stewart said she likes the idea of allowing three-story developments that are aesthetically pleasing. She referred to the site development standards (Table 16.43-2), which identify a 15-foot minimum ceiling height requirement for ground floor space in the BD1 zone. She reminded the group that incorporating green building design, particularly higher energy upgrades, requires more space. Green roofs also require more space so the structure can be properly reinforced, but they offer a very good insulating component and are very attractive. She summarized that if the City is going to require developments to meet LEED Silver or equivalent, they need to reconsider the practicality of the current code limitations. Board Member Stewart suggested that in addition to identifying the types of developments they would like to encourage in the BD zones as part of the criteria for obtaining a development agreement, the language should also emphasize the City's goal of creating a consistent and connected look in the downtown. The City's goals also include enhancing the pedestrian experience, creating a lively cultural and civic campus, and preserving history. She expressed concern that if each development is considered separately, piecemeal development would result. Mr. Chave pointed out that all of these goals are identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and all development agreements must be consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, there is no need to call out the goals separately in ECDC 16.43.050. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern about allowing development up to three stories high rather than setting a specific height limit. He felt this would encourage developers to build to the maximum extent possible because there would be no cap on height. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that it would also result in more attractive roof design than just boxes. Commissioner Pierce noted that a three-story development would be allowed by the proposed 35-foot maximum height limit. He said he believes there needs to be a defined limit for height. Board Member Clarke disagreed and suggested the City should be more concerned about the overall building design instead of just the height. Again, he expressed his belief that it would be difficult to distinguish between 35 and 37-foot buildings. Again, he reminded the group that taller ceilings and creative window design enhances the marketability of third -floor residential units, and he felt it would be very short -sided for the City to limit the height to 35 feet. Commissioner Faires said that, conceptually, the development agreements are interesting because of the flexibility they allow. However, given the context of Edmonds and the current political climate, he suggested that having an absolute height limit would be necessary in order to successfully incorporated the development agreement concept into the code language. Commissioner Zagorski said she likes the flexibility afforded by development agreements. She said she would also support a proposal that would address bulk and mass by the number of stories allowed rather than a specific height limit. She agreed with Board Member Clarke that using a three-story requirement would allow for creativity and flexibility. Commissioner Hall emphasized that if they want Edmonds to become a vibrant town, they need to make changes now and not wait. He observed that developers are doing wonderful projects in other locations. He cautioned that if Edmonds is not ready when the economy improves, they will be left behind and their downtown will suffer. Board Member Reed referred to the Economic Development Commission's January 19th minutes in which Mr. Spee presented his plans for a new development in the BD2 zone. He pointed out that Mr. Spee could develop up to three stories using the existing height limit, and increasing the maximum height limit to 35 feet could allow him to accommodate four stories. If the proposed language for 16.43.050 is approved, Mr. Spee would not be able to develop the four stories he has indicated he might prefer. He said he could consider supporting the concept of eliminating the maximum height limit and allowing three stories. Two and three story development would be consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. However, a baseline height limit must be established so the community has some assurance about what is being proposed. He suggested that perhaps they use language such as "three stories not to exceed He noted that topography plays a significant role when determining the number of stories allowed on a site based on the current code. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 8 Chair Lovell requested clarification about the step back requirement and whether or not the standard could be modified by a development agreement. Mr. Clifton reminded the group that the purpose of the standards is to create buildings that relate well to the streetscape, have architectural interest, etc. He suggested that allowing flexibility might encourage developers to produce the types of buildings they are looking for in the downtown. He said he does not understand why a step back is required in all BD zones except the BD 1 zone where development is supposed to be of a more intimate scale. He suggested the step back requirement should apply to all BD zones. The proposed language would allow a developer to modify the requirement via a development agreement. Board Member Johnson observed that the problem they are trying to address is lack of flexibility and the impact this has on economic development. Development agreements would allow staff, the City Council and Planning Board to consider flexibility. In addition to achieving certain objectives like public art or a farmer's market, development agreements can enhance economic development. She suggested the language should specifically identify economic development as a purpose of development agreements. This would make the development agreement provision consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to economic development. Board Member Stewart pointed out that zoning is already tied to the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, so there is no need to specifically call out economic development in the proposed language. Mr. Chave added that the development agreement language actually identifies the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as criteria that must be met. Vice Chair Reed requested clarification of whether staff is recommending approval of Section B or the alternative language. Mr. Clifton said staff prefers the language in B, which would allow all zoning standards to be modified through a development agreement subject to the criteria. Chair Lovell agreed and commented that there is no sense creating the development agreement provision if they are not going to allow flexibility. Vice Chair Reed cautioned against allowing 16.43.050 and thus development agreements to override all design guidelines. Mr. Clifton clarified that staff is not advocating that the design guidelines and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies be modified via a development agreement. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that ECDC 16.43.135 refers to ECDC 22.43, which is the BD Design Guidelines. Mr. Clifton agreed to research this issue further and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Senderoff said he is attracted to the development agreement concept because it would be driven by the City rather than the developer. Development agreements would also allow the City to focus on certain uses that create the different business zones they want to achieve. Commissioner Zagorski voiced her belief that the boundaries of the BD3 zone extend too far south. She briefly described the current development and noted that once you start up the hill at Howell Street, the properties are not really desirable locations for commercial uses. She asked the Board to consider changing the boundaries at some point in the future to address the existing conditions and site constraints. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REDUCE STREET SETBACKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) ZONE Mr. Chave reported that staff presented an interim ordinance to the City Council on April 5t' to potentially amend the City's BN zones to reduce required street setbacks from the current 20 feet down to a 5-foot minimum The intent of the proposal is to better align the neighborhood business zones with City policies and design guidelines. Even though it would be ideal to wait for the planning process to be completed for the Five Corners and Westgate areas, preliminary discussions with a prospective developer for a key Westgate intersection is prompting staff to make a code proposal now. Without the code change, development would continue to be recessed into building sites, removing opportunities for improving the streetscape and enhancing pedestrian access. Mr. Chave further reported that the City Council elected not to adopt the proposed interim zoning ordinance but inquired whether the issue could be "fast tracked" to get a recommendation returned to the City Council. If considered by the Board, the same amendment would be reconfigured as a permanent zoning change. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Chave reviewed that requiring a 20-foot setback is inconsistent with the design guidelines and Comprehensive Plan policies that call for pushing buildings towards the street to make development more pedestrian friendly and locating parking to the side or rear of the buildings. The current requirement pushes buildings into the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between the building and street front. Mr. Chave announced that the City received an application from a bank that wants to construct a new building at the corner of SR 104 and 100th Avenue. In order to meet the 20-foot setback requirement, the building must be pushed way back into the site, resulting in drive aisles and parking that surrounds the building. If the setback requirement is changed, the building could be located closer to the street front, and traffic and pedestrian conflicts could be reduced. It would also provide an opportunity for an enhanced street front and pedestrian amenities. Mr. Clifton said the City Council asked why the developer is encouraging staff to move in this direction. He clarified that the amendment was proposed by staff as a reaction to the application. Staff believes the amendment is appropriate because it would allow the building to be located closer to the right-of-way, which is consistent with various Comprehensive Plan objectives as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Chave provided several photographs to illustrate the traditional BN development pattern that exists in the Westgate and Five Corners areas. He noted that buildings are separated from the street by parking areas and drive aisles. He also noted that the Starbucks building is located close to the street front and is very pedestrian friendly. However, it is non -conforming based on the current code. Mr. Chave acknowledged that the timing of the proposed amendment is poor, and staff would rather wait until the University of Washington planning process is finished before making recommendations for zoning changes. However, staff believes if they wait, they would likely lose a key location in the Westgate area. Mr. Clifton said he has had discussions with the project architect and engineer about whether the applicant would be willing to wait for the process to be completed, and they indicated the applicant is ready to move forward with the project now. That is why staff proposed the interim ordinance. Commissioner Schaefer pointed out that the site would likely be redeveloped regardless of whether the proposed amendment is approved or not. Mr. Clifton agreed the property owner could move the project forward based on existing codes, and the building would be set back at least 20 feet from the street front. Commissioner Pierce asked if the property owner provided assurance that they would be willing to push the building forward to the street front if the code amendment is adopted. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively and said the applicant has prepared preliminary plans that would move the building closer to the street and widen the sidewalks. He said he spoke with the applicant's representative today about whether or not they would be willing to wait for the process to go through the Planning Board and City Council. Staff believes the amendment could be through the public hearing process and presented to the City Council for approval by the end of May. She agreed to discuss the issue with the applicant. The applicant has expressed concern that because the final decision would be made by a political body (City Council), there is no assurance that the amendment would be approved at the end of the process. The applicant does not want to wait for a long proactive process only to find that they City Council will not support the change anyway. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed amendment would be consistent with the direction the University of Washington team is heading. Mr. Chave answered that although work with the University of Washington is not complete, preliminary polling done during initial public work sessions indicates a strong interest in moving neighborhood commercial buildings toward the street. He reminded the group that the University of Washington team would present their findings at a joint Economic Development Commission/Planning Board meeting on April 201h. They would also propose some alternatives to solicit comments from the group. A public meeting has been scheduled for May 3`d Mr. Clifton advised that staff based their work on the proposed amendment on numerous design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan as cited in the Staff Report. Therefore, staff believes the proposed amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave added that staff anticipates the interim ordinance would only be in effect until the University of Washington study has been approved and can provide more guidance. The proposed ordinance would make the BN zone work better with the existing guidelines and is worthy of pursuing at least on an interim basis given the key location of the subject property. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 10 Commissioner Monfort said she is a pedestrian and walks at all four corners of the SR 104 and 100'b Avenue West intersection on a regular basis. She said she would much rather walk along buildings than parking lots. She said she encourages people to walk rather than drive whenever possible, and the proposed change would allow development that is much more inviting to pedestrians. Chair Lovell said he attended the public meetings regarding Westgate, and the group he participated with expressed their desire to lessen the amount of asphalt along the street front. While he acknowledged it would be difficult to create a neighborhood atmosphere along SR 104 because of the high volume of traffic and its speed, things can be done to improve the situation. He felt that the proposed amendment would encourage development that enhances the pedestrian experience. To clarify the width of the existing rights -of -way, Mr. Chave said the standard calls for a 5-foot planting area along the street front, with an 8 to 10-foot sidewalk. The total right-of-way between the street and the private properties is 15 feet wide. However, in many cases, the rights -of -way have not been developed to standard. Vice Chair Reed expressed frustration that the City is just one week away from receiving a valuable report from the University of Washington team. He said it is important to keep in mind that there are numerous BN zones throughout the City, and the proposed amendment would impact more properties that just those in the Westgate area. He cautioned against making a wholesale change that applies to all BN zones without carefully studying the unintended consequences. Mr. Chave said staff does not foresee any negative aspects associated with the proposed amendment. Vice Chair Reed disagreed. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that while the Comprehensive Plan is very specific as to the design they want to see in the BN zones, the zoning is about 20 years behind. Mr. Clifton said staff is frustrated about the timing, as well, and they understand that the City Council wants to avoid interim ordinances as much as possible. Staff would rather wait to learn the outcome of the Five Corners and Westgate studies. However, the applicants can choose not to wait because there is no specific timeframe for completing the work, and there is no guarantee that the City Council will support the study recommendations. In this situation, the applicant has indicated they do not want to postpone their project until the City has completed the Westgate process. Again, he reminded the group that the proposed amendment was put forth by the City staff and not the developer. The developer has the right to move forward with the project at any time, subject to the existing zoning standards. Staff presented the interim ordinance to the City Council for consideration because they felt it would be more consistent with the design objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan to place the building closer to the street front and the applicant agreed to consider the option. He pointed out that the University of Washington's report would be available before the Planning Board would be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. He asked the group to provide specific direction about whether they want to consider the ordinance on an interim basis to move the BN zones closer to what the Comprehensive Plan says or if they want to wait until all work has been completed for the Westgate and Five Corners areas. Commissioner Pierce asked how the City would ensure that buildings constructed closer to the street front would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Chave said the proposed language would require applicants to address the design guidelines currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and it specifically calls out pertinent sections. Adherence to the design guidelines would ensure the buildings are attractive and interesting. Board Member Stewart said she appreciates Mr. Hertrich's observation that SR-104 is a major thoroughfare, and she is glad there is sufficient right-of-way to provide a space between the sidewalk and the roadway to address pedestrian safety. She agreed with staff that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to bring buildings to the street edge, but she questioned whether a five-foot setback would provide enough separation given the heavy traffic on SR-104. She said she hopes the developer can wait at least one more week to proceed with an application until the University of Washington team has presented their findings at the joint Economic Development Commission/Planning Board meeting on April 20th. She suggested staff invite the developer to attend this meeting, as well. Board Member Stewart said she assumes there would be a process for cleaning up the site since it was previously used as a gas station. Commissioner Zagorski said she recently spoke with the property owner, who indicated the ground is not contaminated and no soil remediation would be required. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Pagel l Board Member Clarke said he sees no down side to bringing the buildings closer to the street in BN zones. He reminded the group that, regardless of the recommendations in the University of Washington study, the developer has the right to submit an application based on the current zoning requirements, and the City does not have the ability to deny the application just because they want the property owner to wait. He summarized his belief that the proposed change would be a positive start towards making the area more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Clifton emphasized that the City has not told the applicant they cannot move forward with their proposal based on the current code requirements, and they are not trying to stymie the developer in any way. While he made it clear what the code currently allows, he also asked if the developer would be willing to wait to make the site more attractive if they could get a code amendment approved to move the building closer to the street. He summarized that staff is trying to work with the developer to make a site that is more pleasing to the public, but they have to allow development to move forward if it is consistent with the zoning standards. The applicant has indicated they are willing to wait to some extent, and staff has advised that it could take the City until the end of May to move the proposed amendment through the process. To clarify Mr. Hertrich's concern, Mr. Chave explained that street maps detail the future rights -of -way, and setbacks in zoning are not intended to reserve space for future rights -of -way. Board Member Clarke agreed that property owners should not be limited by what the State may or may not want to do to the roadway in the future. The group discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to schedule a public hearing for the proposed amendment now or wait until after the University of Washington team has presented their findings. Vice Chair Reed asked if a mailing would be required to all properties within 300 feet of every BN zone in the City. Mr. Chave explained that because the proposed amendment is a legislative action, there would be no mailed notice requirement. Legal advertisements would be published in the local newspapers and displayed in various locations throughout the community. He cautioned that it is not be feasible to do a city-wide mailing every time the zoning code is changed. Commissioner Senderoff suggested that one negative aspect of the proposed amendment is that it would change the setback requirement in all BN zones without carefully considering the potential unintended consequences. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposed amendment would not establish a minimum setback requirement. Therefore, property owners in the BN zones would still have the ability to set a building further back than five feet. The proposed amendment would merely offer more flexibility. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THE BOARD SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN BN ZONES AS SOON AS MAY 11TH IF POSSIBLE. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Because he would not be present at the May 11'h meeting, Board Member Clarke expressed his view that there is no downside associated with the proposed amendment. He sees only positive impacts. Flexibility would provide an opportunity to increase property values at a time when the City is pursuing economic growth and an increased tax base. Vice Chair Reed stated that while he would support scheduling a public hearing on the proposed amendment, that was not an indication of support for or opposition to the amendment. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Johnson observed that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Westgate area as a commercial center that is unique from any other business center in the BN zone. She asked if it would be possible for the proposed amendment to apply to just the Westgate area rather than all BN zones in the City. Once the enabling legislation is in place, she also suggested they consider the development agreement option as a way to address special situations in Westgate, as well. In addition, the group should keep in mind the relationship between required setbacks and roadway speed and perceived safety. She observed that a person would have a different sense of safety while walking along SR 104 compared to Bowdoin Way, and the engineering standards reflect this difference. Mr. Chave cautioned that the right-of-way and setback standards are not related. Generally, it would be desirable to have a 5-foot planting strip and a 7-foot sidewalk between the street and the Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 12 building. Board Member Johnson asked if this would be possible given the current right-of-way space. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. The Board agreed to continue their discussion regarding the proposed amendment on April 27th REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the Board's extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell reported that he met with Mayor Cooper and learned that the City Council is scheduled to consider potential candidates for the vacant Planning Board positions on April 19`h. He said he and the Mayor agreed to meet on a regular monthly basis. Chair Lovell announced that the Request for Proposals for a Strategic Plan Consultant has been issued, and a member of the Planning Board has been asked to participate on the selection committee. The Board appointed Board Member Johnson as their representative. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Reed announced that myedmondsnews.com provided a link to a video presentation prepared by Michael Reagan who draws two portraits a day for the families of men and women who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He recommended the Board Members all take an opportunity to view the video. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Minutes April 13, 2011 Page 13