2011-05-11 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 11, 2011
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5t' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2011 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he attended the public open house where the University of Washington/Cascade
Land Conservancy presented their report. He said he found the study flawed because it did not address traffic. He
reminded the Board that traffic is one of the largest impacts associated with development, particularly when
properties are located next to major state highways and arterials, which include large rights -of -way to allow for
future expansion. He also reminded the Board that more people have been invited to use SR-104 as a result of the
ferry expansion and the train service. The goal is to become a transportation hub, and access will come from SR-
104. While he acknowledged it is difficult to identify what the traffic needs will be in the future, he felt the plan
was overzealous on the amount of potential development identified in the study. Again, he said he is dismayed that
the team's work did not include a traffic study to identify the potential future impacts.
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY WHITWORTH LAND CO., LLC TO REZONE THE
PARCELS LOCATED AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —
RS-8 TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — RM-1.5 (FILE NUMBER PLN-2011-0005)
Mr. Clugston explained that the application before the Board is a Type IV-B Action, which means the Board
conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will conduct a
closed record hearing and make a final decision. He reminded the Board that they are only considering the rezone
proposal at this time. Any future development request would be subject to the applicable codes, including a possible
conditional use permit, traffic impact analysis, design review, parking, height/setbacks, building permit, etc.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board of the six rezone criteria they must consider when reviewing the application. He
also provided an aerial photograph of the site, which is bounded on the north by 2281h Street Southwest, on the east
by 95th Place West, and on the south by Edmonds Way (SR-104). He provided a zoning map and pointed out that
the parcels across 228th Street are zoned RS-8 and developed with single-family residences. Across 951h Place West
are two parcels zoned and developed as Planned Business (BP). Further east and north is the Westgate Chapel and
its associated surface parking. Across Edmonds Way (SR-104) are parcels zoned and developed as multi -family.
The parcel immediately to the west is zoned RS-8 and contains a single-family dwelling unit. The two parcels
further to the west were rezoned in 2007 to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW), but have not yet been
redeveloped. Further west is a larger vacant BC-EW parcel, and there is a pending commercial development
application under review by the City for that site.
Mr. Clugston advised that the subject properties are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way
Corridor, which allows the following zoning types: Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (BN),
Community Business (BC) or similar commercial, and Multi -Family (RM). He emphasized that the current RS-8
zoning is not an allowed zone in the Edmonds Way Corridor land use so current zoning is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed that if the subject properties are rezoned to a commercial use (BP, BN, BC), the
site could be developed as retail, service, office, and multi -family above commercial. The applicant is requesting an
RM 1.5 zoning designation, which would allow up to 16 units on the site. In addition to apartments/condominiums,
the site could be developed as a group home, retirement home, and housing for low-income elderly. With a
conditional use permit, a daycare center or office would also be allowed.
Using an aerial photograph, Mr. Clugston pointed out that the two properties are mostly treed and vacant. They are
located on a peninsula of land that is bounded by Edmonds Way, 95th Place West, and 228th Street. He said staff
believes the applicant's request to rezone the property is reasonable. Once again, he referred the Board to the
rezone criteria they must consider, and reviewed each one as follows:
1. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes
the proposed RM zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation but the current RS
designation is not. Several business designations would also be possible, but the applicant has noted that
higher -intensity commercial uses at the subject site would be inappropriate given its location relative to the
existing single-family residents north of 228t1i Street. The applicant also noted that RM zoning would be
more appropriate because access to the site would likely come from 2281h Street rather than SR-104.
2. Zoning Ordinance. 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. Staff believes the
proposed zoning would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. While the applicant does
not yet know the type of use that would be developed on the site, all zoning and building requirements
would be verified when a development proposal for the site is submitted.
3. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and
zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Again the site is located on a peninsula of land surrounded by
roads. While the properties to the north are largely single-family residential, there is multi -family
development to the east and west of 951h Place West. There is an existing Community Transit bus stop
adjacent to the site on SR-104.
4. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding
area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Several rezones have occurred in the vicinity in recent years,
including the BC-EW rezones to the west and the expansion of the Westgate Chapel.
5. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the
existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The subject properties appear to be economically and
physically suitable for development under the proposed RM-1.5 designation because the SR-104 corridor
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 2
provides significant opportunities for transit services. In addition, pedestrian amenities are available
nearby at the Westgate shopping area.
6. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or
decrease in value to the property owner. In addition to increased value that the property owner may
realize from the change in zoning, the City would also receive a small increase to the tax base. More
importantly, the proposed rezone would make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation, which encourages more intense development on sites that are already served by existing
infrastructure.
Mr. Clugston concluded his presentation by stating that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation for the subject property. It is also consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
Based on the Findings of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions and attachments in the Staff Report, he proposed that the
Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request to rezone properties located at
9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way from Single -Family Residential — RS-8 to Multi -Family Residential — RM-1.5.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board Members of the Appearance of Fairness Rules and invited them to disclose any
discussions they might have had about the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing (ex parte communications).
No one identified an ex parte communication. None of the Board Members identified a potential conflict of interest
or reason that would cause them to act unfairly when reviewing the application.
Chair Lovell requested additional information about what appears to be a gulch on the western side of the subject
properties. Mr. Clugston answered that there is not a significant grade change on the subject properties, but there is
a significant slope on the property located to the west. Chair Lovell said he presumes all issues related to surface
water runoff would be addressed as part of a development application. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively.
Board Member Ellis pointed out that if the rezone is approved as presented, there would be one single-family lot
between the properties recently zoned as BC-EW and the subject properties. He noted there is currently a single-
family home on each of the lots. He also pointed out that Questions 6 and 7 at the end of the Environmental
Checklist (Attachment 5) were not answered. Mr. Clugston provided the following response to answer the
questions:
Question D.6 — How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities? The site is already served by adjacent existing utilities, and there is an existing
Community Transit bus stop adjacent to the site, as well. Because SR-104 is already a major arterial, staff
does not believe the additional traffic demands would be significant. In addition, the City's traffic engineer
indicated that based on the types of uses allowed in an RM-1.5 zone, he does not believe it likely that an
increased intensity of use would have a great impact on traffic in the area. Because the site is located on a
peninsula, it would likely have to use 228 b Street for access.
• Question D.7 — Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment. The site is currently zoned RS-8, which is in conflict
with the Edmonds Way Corridor land use designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the
property as proposed would make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Stewart questioned where the large trees on the site are located in relation to the gulch, which has a
slope of about 35%. Mr. Clugston answered that trees are scattered throughout the subject properties, but the
significant slope is actually located to the west. If and when a development proposal is submitted to the City, staff
would encourage the developer to retain as many of the existing trees and landscaping as possible.
Board Member Stewart referred to Question D.2 of the Environmental Checklist (Attachment 5) which asked how
the proposal would affect plants, animals, fish and marine life. The response states that it is assumed the site would
be cleared to allow for development. She cautioned against making this assumption outright. Instead, this decision
should not be made until a development proposal has been submitted to the City.
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 3
Board Member Johnson referred to Question A.8 of the Environmental Checklist (Attachment 5) which asks the
applicant to list any environmental information related to what has been or will be prepared. She asked staff to
elaborate on the multiple critical area evaluations for these properties. Mr. Clugston said that the critical areas
checklist was done last year. Based on the available information, staff identified a wetland on the site and retained
the services of Landau Associates to research the issue further. They discovered that the water on the site came
from an existing stormwater system on 228th Street; a stormwater pipe was dumping stormwater from 95th Place
West onto the site, and the site had been used as a detention pond for a number of years. This situation has been
changed, and the City has revised the critical areas designation. Board Member Stewart asked if the area dries out
in the summer. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and said the area no longer has the characteristics of a
wetland.
John Bissell, JBA Consultants, Edmonds, said he was present to represent the applicant. He commented that staff
did an excellent job with their staff report, and he did not have a lot to add. He pointed out that the site is tricky. It
is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor, which can accommodate a number of different
zones, but not the current RS-8 zoning designation. State law requires that zoning is compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan, and there is a range of choices. He pointed out that to the north of the BP -zoned properties is
a parking lot that exists with a conditional use permit for the Westgate Chapel. To the north of the subject site is
single-family residential zoning. He explained that the characteristics across the street are different. The applicant
believes that RM-1.5 zoning would have less impact on adjacent single-family properties than a commercial zone
would have. He observed that the multi -family residential development that has occurred on Edmonds Way to the
east is all RM-1.5. He summarized his belief that RM-1.5 would be compatible with the development characteristic
that have already been occurring in the area. RM-1.5 appears to be the most appropriate way to make a transition
from the intense locations on Edmonds Way and the single-family properties.
Mr. Bissell said he concurs with the comments provided in the Staff Report to explain why the proposed rezone
would meet all of the rezone criteria. He noted that the applicant's submittal (Attachment 7) also points out how the
rezone criteria would be satisfied. He felt his comments were very similar to those provided by staff.
Regarding questions related to the Environmental Checklist (Attachment 5) and the Critical Areas Ordinance, Mr.
Bissell explained that once the property is rezoned, the developer would have to apply for a development permit that
is consistent with the standards of the zone. That means the site could be cleared, which is the worst case scenario.
Any restrictions related to trees, clearing slopes, etc. would be addressed as part of a development permit review
and not as part of a rezone application. He briefly described the type of soil that currently exists on the subject
properties and pointed out that stormwater runoff flows into a drainage corridor that is located on Edmonds Way. If
the site is developed as RM-1.5, the applicant would be required to comply with the currently approved stormwater
manual. Because there is a large stormwater system on Edmonds Way, there is no shortage of ability to release the
stormwater appropriately. He said he does not foresee a problem complying with the stormwater requirements.
Mr. Bissell explained that several years ago the City had a flooding problem in the area due to the installation of
walkways on West 95th and West 961h Streets. They tried to solve the problem on an emergency basis by installing
an infiltration system in the public right-of-way that dispersed the flow onto the subject properties. This caused the
property to flood at certain times of the year. The City has since connected the stormwater to the Edmonds Way
system. As soon as the hydrology was removed, the site was no longer consistent with the characteristics of a
wetland. After additional analysis and review, the City has concluded that there is no wetland on the site.
Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that the City has three different multi -family residential densities: RM-
1.5, RM-2.4 and RM-3. She agreed with the applicant that most of the multi -family residential zoning along the
corridor is RM-1.5. However, it should be noted that most of these properties have access from SR-104, and they
are not typically located adjacent to single-family residential zones. She said the Staff Report indicates that an RM-
1.5 zoning designation would allow up to 16 units on the two parcels. She asked how many units would be allowed
if the properties were rezoned to RM-3 and RM-2.4. Mr. Bissell responded that RM-2.4 would allow a maximum
of about 11 units, and RM-3 would allow about 8.
Given the information provided in the Staff Report, Board Member Johnson raised questions about what multi-
family residential zoning would provide the best transition, given that access would come from 228th Street and that
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 4
single-family residential development is located directly across the street. Mr. Bissell observed that, in most
situations on Edmonds Way where multi -family residential zoning is located adjacent to single-family residential
zoning, the multi -family residential properties are located behind the single-family residential properties. When
residents have been asked if they prefer the multi -family residential zoning to be located across the street from
single-family residential zoning or abutting the rear property line, the response was approximately 50-50. He said
that he, personally, would rather have the higher -density zoning be located across the street so the street could serve
as an additional buffer.
Mr. Bissell said the applicant assumes the access to the subject properties would come from 228"' Street because it
would be a safer option, but there is also a bus stop on Edmonds Way. The City's Traffic Engineer believes there is
sufficient sight distance to provide an access on Edmonds Way, but the bus stop would have to be relocated.
Mr. Bissell explained that the International Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual counts fewer trips per unit as multi-
family units get smaller. If the property were rezoned to RM-3, the individual units would be larger, resulting in
more trips per unit. Increasing the density could actually reduce the traffic impact per unit because the units would
be smaller with fewer people living in them. Mr. Chave pointed out that the height, bulk and setback standard are
the same for all the City's multi -family residential zones. The only thing that varies is the number of units allowed
on the site. In most jurisdictions, higher density means larger buildings, but that is not necessarily the case in
Edmonds. He referred to the zoning map and pointed out that, in most cases, the multi -family residential zones
back up against the single-family residential zones. However, in this case, the multi -family residential zoning
would be located across the street from single-family residential.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, voiced support for the proposed rezone. He said the increased density would be
appropriate for this location given its close proximity to the Westgate shopping area and to transit service. Also, the
smaller units would create less traffic. He pointed out that the subject properties have never been developed
because the site is not suitable for either single-family residential or commercial uses. The proposed rezone is a
good solution. He said he believes there would be an adequate transition because the subject properties would be
separated from the single-family residential properties by a roadway. Another plus is that the smaller units would
be more affordable. He encouraged the applicant to work with adjacent property owners to create a single access
road that could serve multiple properties. He said his main concern with rezone application is traffic, and the
applicant should be able to satisfy this concern by accessing the property from 228th Street. He concluded that the
subject property is a good place for increased density because there would be no impact to adjoining properties. He
recommended the Board approve the rezone application as presented because it is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND
ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FILE NUMBER PLN-2011-0005, A REQUEST TO REZONE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5, AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Lovell commented that the rezone proposal is appropriate because smaller units would be more affordable and
might attract younger people to the City. The properties are located within walking distance of the shopping area,
and people could live on the property and never own a vehicle. Board Member Cloutier said the property could also
be developed as transitional housing for elderly people who want to downsize their living arrangements without
leaving the community.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) ZONE FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET. (FILE
NUMBER AMD-2011-0003)
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 5
Mr. Chave reviewed that staff presented a proposed interim zoning ordinance to the City Council on April 5 h, to
potentially amend the City's BN zones to reduce the required setbacks from the current 20 feet to a 5-foot
minimum. The City Council remanded the amendment to the Board for review and a recommendation as a potential
permanent amendment. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan policies and the design objectives
talks about wanting buildings to be oriented towards the street. The current BN zone setback requirements hearken
to a traditional model of strip mall type development, with buildings setback from the street and parking located
between the buildings and the sidewalks and street edges. This requires people to walk through the parking areas to
access the buildings from the sidewalks, which is a less than ideal situation if the City is trying to encourage
pedestrian activity and transit use.
Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment was prompted by a potential development at Westgate. While the
property owner has not submitted an application yet, their preliminary work indicates that in order to comply with
the 20-foot street setback, the building would be placed back into the site so there is adequate room for a drive aisle
between the building and the sidewalk. Since this property is located at a key intersection, this type of development
could be problematic because it would set precedence for future development in the area that is inconsistent with the
policies in the Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed amendment is adopted, the property owner would be allowed
to bring the building closer to the sidewalk and street edge. Because staff believes it is appropriate to maintain
some setback between the building and the street edge to accommodate the sidewalk and a landscaped area, they are
recommending a minimum setback of 5 feet. He summarized that a 5-foot setback would be more consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Chave provided photographs to illustrate the typical kind of development that occurs in the BN zones where
most have parking areas between the street/sidewalk and the building. He also provided an example to show how a
reduced setback would be better. He pointed out that as buildings are moved closer to the sidewalk, there are
opportunities to make connections between the sidewalk and the buildings. Parking can be placed either to the side
or behind the building. He explained that if the setback was reduced to 5 feet, there would still be enough space to
provide a 5-foot landscape strip and an 8 to 10-foot sidewalk. The landscape strip would provide separation
between the sidewalk and the street. He summarized that a 5-foot minimum setback requirement would allow
future development to at least meet the standard.
Mr. Chave explained that if the Board concurs with the idea of reducing street setbacks in BN zones, they have a
couple of options:
1. Have the 5-foot setback standard apply to all BN zones.
2. Have the 5-foot setback standard apply only to BN zones in the Westgate Community Business and Five
Corners Neighborhood Center as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Westgate and Five Corners plans are far enough along that it is clear most
people in these locations want the buildings focused towards the streets. This sentiment is also consistent with the
existing Comprehensive Plan policies and design objectives. He summarized that the current BN setback
requirements do not conform to the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Chave advised that at the City Council meeting, a third option was mentioned, which would be to have the
setback apply in conjunction with a development agreement. However, he cautioned that there would be no real
incentive for a developer to go through the lengthy development agreement process just to be able to set a building
closer to the street front.
Board Member Cloutier asked how the 5-foot minimum setback requirement would impact the City's ability to
widen the streets at some point in the future. Mr. Chave answered that the Transportation Plan and the Official
Street Map control the number of lanes needed, and there is nothing in either one that indicates that an additional
lane would be needed in the future. He said that in his experience the more lanes you build, the more you
encourage people to use them. He emphasized that setbacks are not "reservations of rights -of -way." The
Transportation Plan and Right -of -Way Map are intended to identify potential rights -of -way needs and how they will
be obtained. Setbacks are intended to provide unity in building location, orientation, etc.
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 6
Board Member Cloutier recalled staffs earlier comment that a 5-foot minimum setback requirement would mean a
building would be setback at least 15 feet from the street edge because of the right-of-way. Mr. Chave said that
would be the case for most, if not all, properties in the BN zones. Board Member Cloutier asked if staff has
sketched out the right-of-way depths to make sure buildings would not end up right on the sidewalk. Mr. Chave
said he does know the exact location of the sidewalks that are located on private properties, but most of them are
located within the right-of-way and do not take up all the right-of-way width. He summarized that it is not likely
the 5-foot minimum setback requirement would result in buildings right up against the sidewalk.
Board Member Tibbott asked if it is possible to have design guidelines that encourage landscape buffers along the
street rather the building. Mr. Chave said staff discussed this issue with the Engineering Department, and it was
pointed out that the street profiles on SR-104 call for a minimum 5-foot landscape buffer along the street. The
sidewalk would be located between the landscape buffer and the building. That means there would be 15-feet
between the building and the street. Currently, the sidewalks in this area are located directly next to the streets,
which results in an unpleasant walking environment. The City's goal is to encourage a safe, pedestrian -friendly
environment, and the current 20-foot minimum setback requirement does not accomplish this goal.
Board Member Tibbott asked if the bank is proposing to provide access directly from their facility to the sidewalk.
Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He added that there would also be access directly to the parking lot on the other
side of the building. Board Member Tibbott inquired how the City could ensure there is a connection between the
street front and the building. Mr. Chave noted that this is already a policy in the design objectives found in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Development Code amendment is intended to implement this policy.
Board Member Stewart expressed her support for the proposed amendment to reduce the minimum setback
requirement. However, she is not confident it should be applied to all BN zones at this time. Also, given the fact
that SR-104 is a heavily -traveled street, with fast-moving traffic, perhaps an 8-foot minimum setback requirement
would be more appropriate. This would allow room on the street side of the walkway for bioswales, rain gardens,
etc. to infiltrate rain water and offer protection for the pedestrians.
Board Member Ellis asked why staff is recommending a 5-foot minimum setback. Mr. Chave answered that staff
reviewed the location of the existing rights -of -way and sidewalks. They found that a 5-foot setback would allow a
developer to accommodate the 15-foot profile described earlier. He emphasized that 5 feet would be the minimum
setback, and developers would be encouraged to place their buildings closer to the street front. However, the
proposed amendment would not eliminate a developer's ability to set the building back further onto the site.
Board Member Ellis asked if there are any best management practices or other studies that indicate that a 5-foot
minimum setback requirement would be the best option. Mr. Chave explained that traffic volume is higher in
Westgate than in the other neighborhood business centers. In addition, the speed limit is 35 miles per hour, and
people do not always abide by the speed limit. He said an 8-foot minimum setback would also make sense to
acknowledge the higher volume of traffic and give more room for low -impact development.
Board Member Ellis noted there are three or four large BN zones, with smaller ones scattered throughout the City.
He asked if staff considered the affect the proposed amendment would have on the smaller areas. Mr. Chave
answered that while there are numerous situations associated with each of the BN zones, it is difficult to identify a
down side to applying the amendment to all. While some members of the audience have expressed concern about
unintended consequences, no one has identified a specific reason why buildings should continue to be setback onto
a site. Mr. Ellis pointed out that setting a building back further on the site would minimize potential sight distance
problems. In addition, parking lots that are visible from the street provide less opportunity for them to be used for
other activities. Mr. Chave pointed out that sight distance is addressed by the Engineering Department during their
review of development applications. The proposed amendment would not automatically allow a developer to place
a building closer to the street front if it would create a sight distance problem. Usually, the commercial areas are
located at controlled intersections, which limit the traffic flow. Regarding parking, Mr. Chave observed that most
commercial sites do not have all their parking located in front of the building. Some is provided on the sides and
rear, as well. He summarized that parking is typically configured in such a way that makes customers feel safe and
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 7
allows for good traffic circulation. He said he is not concerned that pushing the parking into the site would result in
future problems.
Board Member Johnson observed that approval of the proposed amendment would not prevent a developer from
placing a building in the center of the site. The bank's preliminary design shows a drive aisle around the SR-104
and 100th Avenue Sides of the bank, with three parking stalls. Eliminating this surrounding drive aisle would help
achieve the City's design objectives and allow more parking on the site. The designated setback would be the
minimum required. She noted that current practice for developers is to provide easy access and parking between the
street and building. For example, the Bartells across the street is setback with pedestrian/transit amenities plus two
row of parking and a drive aisle. She questioned if staff is proposing the correct amendment to achieve the desired
objective. She said it is obvious that a good relationship between the sidewalk/landscaping and the building is
important, but perhaps there is a better way to address the issue more directly. Mr. Chave explained that staff
envisions the proposed amendment to be a short-term change. They are anticipating that the Westgate and Five
Corners studies will identify the permanent changes that are needed. It is possible the outcome will suggest a
mandatory requirement that buildings be constructed at the property line. The proposed amendment is intended to
engage the applicant and encourage them to do more in keeping with what they want rather than continuing to
encourage what they know they do not want. They know they do not want a bank at this particular intersection set
back on the site with a drive aisle on the street front.
Once again, Board Member Johnson pointed out that merely changing the minimum setback requirement would not
necessarily resolve the problem. Mr. Chave said that using the design objectives already in the Comprehensive
Plan, staff would encourage applicants to bring the buildings closer to the street fronts. The current 20-foot setback
requirement does not allow staff to approach applicants with this option. He explained that staff is not suggesting
that a 5-foot setback be mandatory at this time, because they are not sure of the final outcome of the Westgate and
Five Corners studies. The amendment would allow staff to work with developers in the interim to encourage the
type of development that is desired by the City. He reminded the Board that one option is to recommend approval
of the proposed amendment, but only for the Westgate and Five Corners BN zones. The design objectives and
policy language would remain unchanged in the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Tibbott asked to what extent the interim proposal would encourage the possibility of other kinds of
development that would move buildings closer to the sidewalk in BN zones. He also asked if it would encourage
the new type of development at both Westgate and Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered that other changes would be
necessarily, as well. For example, the current BN zoning language does not allow true mixed -use development
because only one residential unit is allowed per site. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed amendment is
intended to deal with one obvious inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code related to
the BN zone. He expressed his belief that if the proposed amendment is not approved, they will likely have at least
one development that is counter to the Comprehensive Plan policies and the likely outcome of the two studies.
Board Member Johnson recalled that at their last joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission
(EDC), the University of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team presented two views for Westgate. She
asked if the team would provide a preferred recommendation at the joint meeting on May 12t''. Mr. Chave said the
team would provide an outline of what they have heard so far regarding the two concepts, but they would not
present more specific concepts. The team will provide a report to the City Council, indicating where they are in the
process and what the next steps will be.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked the Board to remember that BN stands for Neighborhood Business. He noted
there are a lot of BN zones in the City. He expressed concern that City staff is proposing an amendment that
implements what they envision the eventual plans will be. He said he would rather the Westgate area have its own
zoning designation because it is much more regional and transit -oriented than the other BN zones in the City. The
other BN zones could be left as they currently exist. He said he lives near an existing BN zone where the building
is set back more than would normally be required. That means there are no cars parked next to the residential
properties. Instead, the parking is located on the other side of the building. He expressed concern that if buildings
are located close to the street, with the parking behind, the garbage and storage areas would be visible from the
parking areas.
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 8
Mr. Hertrich expressed concern that placing the buildings right up to the street would restrict the future expansion
of SR-104, and he felt this would be poor planning. He explained that jurisdictions all have very large rights -of -
way to accommodate change. He voice concern that City staff cannot even identify the location and width of the
current rights -of -way. He summarized that the entire amendment came about because a bank proposed to develop a
building on property that used to be a gas station. He said he believes it is premature for the City to adopt the
change before the Westgate and Five Corners studies have been completed.
Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that the City Council did not approve the interim amendment. Instead, they
remanded it to the Board for review. He said he attended the Westgate and Five Corners public meetings, and he
did not interpret the public comments as wanting buildings right at the street. He expressed concern that locating
buildings right at the street could obstruct sight distance. He observed that Westgate is different than downtown.
Downtown is a pedestrian -friendly area, and it is important to have the buildings located next to the sidewalk. He
summarized that no matter what the City does to encourage pedestrian safety, SR-104 will remain a highly -traveled
roadway and buildings should not be placed close to the street.
John Bissell, Edmonds, announced that he was involved in the Bartells project, which is actually in a different
location than what was originally proposed. It had to be developed in its current location to provide adequate space
to meet the City's parking requirement. When the Bartells plan was presented to the Architectural Design Board
(ADB), the ADB indicated their desire for the building to be located on a lot to the west and close to the street.
Both the ADB and the developer would have preferred the alternative location and site plan, but the current setback
requirements left them little choice. He expressed his belief that the current street setback requirement is
inconsistent with the intent of the zone, which talks about bringing the buildings forward. The proposed
amendment would eliminate this conflict and allow developers to comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Bissell agreed with Mr. Hertrich that Westgate is different than the other BN zones, and perhaps a different
zoning designation would be appropriate. However, he agreed with Mr. Chave that the proposed amendment would
be appropriate on an interim basis so developers are not forced to make mistakes that are permanent. Mr. Bissell
explained that the Engineering Department reviews each development proposal to ensure there is adequate sight
distance. Projects that do not have adequate sight distance cannot be approved. He pointed out that downtown
Edmonds was developed with zero street front setbacks, and there is almost never an issue with the sight triangle
because there are sidewalks.
Mr. Bissell said comments were made that perhaps developers prefer to have parking located in front. He said that
while that was a true statement nearly 20 years ago, developers are now less interested in having parking in the
front. He expressed his belief that the ADB would work hard to make sure that buildings are not developed in the
middle of properties in the BN zone, with parking all around them. He said he would not bring a project forward to
the City for approval that would require him to fight too hard with the ADB. He summarized that the design
guidelines provide good criteria for the ADB to work with applicants to prevent these situations from occurring.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chair Lovell advised that Board Member Reed was unable to attend the hearing. He provided the following written
statement for the Board's consideration.
"I do not believe this section of the code should be permanently changed in this manner. The proposal is to make
this change to all BN zones. Each one is uniquely different (there are 8 or 9 total in the City). This is particularly
true of the two major BN zones currently under discussion - Westgate and Five Corners - as reflected by the variety
of alternatives that have been developed with the public and that are under discussion.
I also do not believe a specific BN zone can be called out if it is not separately identified in the Edmonds
Community Development Code — that would require a separate action to create new zones, which will undoubtedly
be part of the process currently ongoing by UW/Economic Development Commission. Recall that downtown is
divided into five subzones, each of which has different rules.
I question the assumption that a 5-foot setback from the property line is appropriate, particularly in the Westgate
Planning Board Minutes
May l 1, 2011 Page 9
area. Safety and traffic have been mentioned numerous times in the Westgate comments during the study. Westgate
(and possibly other BN zones as well) may require different treatment. We should not accept this assumption
without question.
I believe the Board should not act before the study that has been ongoing since last year is completed and a
recommendation comes down from Council on acting on the two major BN zones. Making a change in reaction to a
specific proposal to all zones of a particular designation could be a recipe for disaster - the term "unintended
consequences" comes to mind. If the City Attorney is at the meeting, perhaps he can comment on this process.
There are specific sections in the comprehensive plan - See Commercial Land Use, C. Goals for Community
Commercial Areas, D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas, D.6.a Five Corners, E. Goals for the Westgate
Corridor, F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor - that are not referred to in the staff memo of April 5, 2011. The
references in that memo are from Urban Design: General Objectives, which also covers numerous other
considerations and is not exclusive to the BN zones. Footnote 2 of the proposed changes also refers exclusively to
the Urban Design section to the exclusion of the other sections referred to above.
My recommendation is that the proposed changes be rejected and sent back Council with comments that they are
premature and no changes should be made at this time. They could also act on it as an interim ordinance as it was
originally intended. "
Mr. Chave clarified that the City would not be required to adopt new BN zoning in order for the 5-foot minimum
setback requirement to only be applicable at Westgate and Five Corners. This would require a simple amendment to
the BN Chapter stating that the minimum street setback is reduced from 20 to 5 feet for BN zones located within the
Westgate and Five Corners areas.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that they discussed the proposed amendment with the EDC, and they indicated
their desire that the Board move the amendment forward to the City Council with a recommendation of approval.
Board Member Clarke previously voiced his support for the proposed amendment, as well. He said he walked
through the Westgate area today and took photographs. He said he found the Bartells, Starbucks and Ivars
developments attractive and workable from a pedestrian standpoint. However, the pedestrian atmosphere was much
less appealing and comfortable where the sidewalk was surrounded by SR-104 on one side and a parking lot on the
other. He agreed that the situation at Westgate is a bit unusual because of the high traffic volume, but he does not
think that future development of the area would go forward without first addressing traffic and environmental
issues. He emphasized that redevelopment is desperately needed in the neighborhood areas. He said he is opposed
to waiting to do anything until the Westgate and Five Corners plans are done. They should move forward to make
the City the way they want it to be in the future.
Board Member Ellis commended the staff for taking the initiative to suggest the proposed amendment when the
potential development was brought forward. He emphasized there is no incentive for the staff to propose the
change. The development will take place; it is now a question of how it will take place in this location. The fact
that the staff recommended a change that might improve the area and lead the City down the path to the kind of
development they want in the future impressed him. He felt they did a great job of providing enough information to
move the amendment forward. He acknowledged there may be some unintended consequences, but none have
specifically been set forth. He emphasized that the proposed amendment would not actually require that the
building be placed within 5 feet of the property line, but only allow it. The proposed amendment leaves it up to the
design review procedure to address the potential unintended consequences.
Board Member Stewart suggested the Board consider an interim ordinance that applies to the Westgate activity
center only. She said she is uncomfortable with a minimum 5-foot setback. She felt it should be a little more.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD TABLE THEIR DECISION AND HAVE
FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THEIR NEXT MEETING.
Board Member Johnson said she has some concerns she would like to have resolved, and she does not think waiting
two weeks to get answers would be detrimental. She specifically said she needs assurance that there would be
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 10
sufficient right-of-way to allow for the design standard for SR-104, which requires a 5-foot buffer between the road
and a 10-foot wide sidewalk. They are talking about creating an environment that encourages pedestrian activity by
making walkers feel safe. She said she does not currently feel safe walking on the sidewalks in Westgate, and it is
difficult for her to envision a building located close to the sidewalk, with only a 5-foot setback to provide for safety.
Board Member Johnson said she did some research and found the right-of-way in the Westgate area is 80 feet, with
approximately 90 feet in front of Ivars to allow for the bus pullout. Her experience in working with King County
Metro is that they do not want bus pull outs because they deter from the schedule. They want to be able to stop
traffic and move forward. She suggested they need to look at the entire corridor, and not just this one property.
Board Member Johnson agreed that they need to consider Westgate as a special case, and there may be individual
differences in each of the BN locations. Even between Westgate and Five Corners there are different standards for
roads. What is appropriate for SR-104 may not be appropriate for 220th Street, Bowdoin Way, or Main Street. She
suggested they focus the amendment on just Westgate. She encouraged the Board Members to visit the site, looking
at the existing conditions to help them understand the situation better. She noted that, currently, the Shell station
has two driveways on SR-104. Adjoining the property to the south, Ivars also has two driveways. On 100th Avenue
there is a driveway/alley along the southern end of the Shell property that provides access to the Chopsticks
restaurant. Currently, it is also possible to access the adjacent properties via a network of parking lots and alleys
from Herfy's to Ivars.
Board Member Johnson referred to the Staff Report, which states that the developer prepared a plan that meets the
code. Staff saw their plan and agreed it did not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, which resulted in the
proposed interim zoning ordinance. The Council raised the question of a moratorium, and staff discussed and
rejected the option. Staff responded that they felt the only way to address the issue was via an interim zoning
ordinance. Board Member Johnson expressed her belief that there is always more than one solution to a problem.
She said she studied the proposed site plan dated February 23, 2011 and suggested the City and State could
encourage shared driveways on SR-104 to minimize the conflicts, provide a safer environment and reduce
accidents. The way the land is configured, there could be a shared driveway between Ivars, the Shell station and
Chopsticks. This would enable the property owners to rearrange the parking to meet the City's current
requirements.
CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 5-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER
JOHNSON VOTING IN FAVOR AND CHAIR LOVELL AND BOARD MEMBERS STEWART, ELLIS,
TIBBOTT AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Chair Lovell suggested the Board consider sending an interim ordinance to the City Council. This would allow
them to have more time to solidify the Westgate and Five Corners studies. He recommended the interim ordinance
only apply to Westgate and establish a 5-foot street front setback on 100th Avenue and an eight -foot street front
setback on SR-104. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than an interim ordinance, the Board could recommend a
sunset date for when the temporary amendment would expire. He explain that an interim ordinance is ruled on
directly by the City Council and is intended to allow the Planning Board and City Council more time to work
through the details to create a permanent ordinance. An interim ordinance would also require a public hearing
before the City Council, and then the issue would be remanded to the Board to consider a permanent ordinance
change.
Chair Lovell commented that the City is anticipating a final report from the University of Washington/Cascade
Land Conservancy team in July. Mr. Chave added that the report would be followed by an adoption process. He
suggested the sunset clause should be set for at least a year out.
Board Member Ellis questioned if it would be possible to create a zoning ordinance that changes setback
requirements depending on the street. Mr. Chave agreed that would be possible, but the language would need to be
very specific.
Board Member Tibbott questioned if it is possible to word the amendment to ensure there is always a 12 to 15-foot
buffer between the building and the street. Mr. Chave emphasized that the City is not without leverage. They have
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 11
a standard profile for the various streets. When reviewing a site plan, the expectation is that the developer would
provide the required buffer. A minimum 5-foot setback would be sufficient in all situations as far as staff can tell.
Board Member Ellis asked if it is possible to address the issue of shared driveways as part of the design review. Mr.
Chave answered that this could become awkward if only one property is being developed at a time. He emphasized
that the City cannot enforce shared driveways when the opportunity does not exist. However, shared driveways are
encouraged when a large stretch of property is developed at the same time. He said they also encourage connections
between properties, and the applicant is proposing an internal connection between the Shell property and the Ivars
Property. He summarized that the City cannot force private agreements for shared driveways. This must be
voluntary.
Board Member Ellis agreed that Board Member Johnson's ideas were good, but he felt they went beyond the scope
of what the Board is being asked to consider. Board Member Johnson recalled that a statement was made in the
Staff Report that the existing code requires them to place a drive aisle and parking between the street and their
building. Board Member Cloutier said that is not the way he understood the staff's comment. Instead, staff was
pointing out that the only way to meet the current parking and setback requirements is to put parking between the
sidewalk and the building. Staff stated that if the setbacks were reduced, not only could the developer achieve the
cities goal of moving the building closer to the street, but the on -site circulation would be much better, too. Once
again, Board Member Johnson pointed out that shared driveways would address the issue, as well. Mr. Chave
pointed out that a shared driveway would require a partnership agreement to assure future access. Board Member
Johnson clarified that she is not necessarily opposed to the proposed amendment, but she is not convinced that all
the details are in place to move it forward for approval.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FILE NUMBER AMD-2011-0003,
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECDC 16.45.020 TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
• ESTABLISH A SUNSET DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION
• THE AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE WESTGATE AREA.
• THE STREET FRONT SETBACKS WOULD BE REVISED TO 5 FEET ON 100TH AVENUE AND
8 FEET ON SR-104.
CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH CHAIR LOVELL
AND BOARD MEMBERS STEWART, CLOUTIER, ELLIS, AND TIBBOTT VOTING IN FAVOR AND
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the updated extended agenda and noted that a public hearing is scheduled for
May 25th regarding proposed adjustments to the downtown BD zones. He suggested the Board Members carefully
review the Staff Report so they can move through their deliberations more efficiently. He noted that the Parks
Department staff would provide a parks report on July 13`'.
Chair Lovell suggested the Board consider possible language to potentially implement development agreements for
the downtown/waterfront area. Mr. Chave explained that the Shoreline Master Program would likely require
extensive work by the Board over the next several months. They could also start their work to implement the Five
Corners and Westgate plans as early as July. He suggested that before the Board has any lengthy discussion about
the downtown/waterfront area, they should have a discussion with the City Council to make sure it is something
they want the Board to pursue. The City Council may want to provide specific direction to the Board before they
begin this process.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 12
Chair Lovell did not have any items to report during this portion of the meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 13
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart reported that she and Board Member Johnson took an inventory of the current uses in the
BD zone. They found 84 fronts (doors that go into buildings. About 23% of the fronts were eating establishments,
27% were retail uses, 13% were empty spaces, and 8% were medical and wellness related. About 11% were beauty
related, 6% were art related, and 10% were finance/real estate related. The theater and Christian Science reading
room were just 2% of the fronts. She noted that the large Old Mill Town empty space was counted as two, and they
did not count the family dental business because it is not technically in the BD1 zone. Board Member Johnson
added that there are also several parking areas that could be redeveloped as retail front so the buildings are
connected better.
Board Member Tibbott asked if the eating and art establishments were considered retail spaces. Board Member
Stewart said they were counted as separate categories. The Board agreed they could also be considered retail
spaces. Chair Lovell asked Board Members Stewart and Johnson to prepare a memorandum outlining their findings
that could be shared with the EDC at the joint meeting on May 12th. Chair Lovell recalled that at their last meeting,
the Board discussed the idea of prioritizing the desired uses in the BD zone with retail and food services being the
highest priority. He suggested the data collected by Board Members Stewart and Johnson would be useful in this
regard.
Board Member Stewart reported that she attended the Downtown Port Townsend Commercial Space Tour on April
29th. She said people were out on the street handing out flyers about where the vacant spaces were located, and
there was a central office where people were available to provide additional information about the spaces. People
who represented the vacant spaces were ready to make deals and some agreements were reached that day. She said
she reported on the event to Mr. Clifton, Edmonds Economic Development Director, and Frank Yamamoto, Chair
of the EDC. They brought the idea forward at the Downtown Edmonds Merchant's Association, and they are
considering a similar activity in downtown Edmonds. She noted that the Port Townsend event was coordinated
with guidance from the Main Street Program, of which Edmonds is an affiliate member.
"1o11] "WILVI I NO"
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
May 11, 2011 Page 14