Loading...
20170731 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 31, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Carrie Hite, Parks, Ree. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS David Huneke, Edmonds, expressed frustration with the continued delay installing street lights on Pine Street. The lights were approved last year and scheduled to be install in the spring. The Council put the project on hold in May and three months later, the project is still on hold. The Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee discussed the lights and when no opposition was expressed, he anticipated the lights would be on the Council's agenda tonight. Continually delaying the lights puts the safety of pedestrians at risk. Beginning this week or next, Chevron will begin cleanup, 10-15 trucks will make 2-3 trips per day for 2 months. He hoped this issue would be addressed during committee reports including the reason for the delay. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he has been on athletic field boards for the State, King County, and Seattle. Seattle raised $198 million via a levy in the past for fields. He relayed past interest in movies at Civic Fields. Farrell Fleming, Edmonds, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, expressed appreciation for City workers' repair of the senior center's sewer issues. The senior center had to be evacuated and closed the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 1 afternoon of July 18 due to a blockage that caused a sewer backup. The center remained closed the next day and porta-potties were delivered for planned weekend events. The center has a combination of many old sewer lines, some cement, some cast iron and the blockage occurred where those join. The center was able to reopen with porta-potties and two operating restrooms. A City team arrived at 6 a.m. July 25, determined the problem by 9 a.m., were laying gravel by 2 p.m. and the system was again operational by the next morning, hopefully for an extended period or at least another year. He commended the effective, hardworking, good-natured City staff, particularly Facilities Manager Tom Sullivan, Facilities Maintenance Worker Patrick Cleveland, Sewer Lead Worker Tim Harris, Senior Sewer Maintenance Workers Jim Clemens, Don Crofton and Rick Wickers. He requested staff be recognized for their work. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RICHARD MILLER ($169.99). 4. ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE TIMING OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ANNUAL REPORT 5. HISTORIC INFORMATIONAL PANELS FOR YOST PARK AND WATERFRONT MILLS 6. SOCIAL WORKER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 6. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGHWAY 99 PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Anna Snyder Kelly, 3 Square Blocks, who worked on the environmental impact statement (EIS) as well as the Planned Action Ordinance. Ms. Snyder Kelly explained a Planned Action Ordinance regulates the projects covered by the environment analysis done in an EIS, deemed to be "planned actions" under the Planned Action Ordinance. A Planned Action Ordinance also regulates what must be done to mitigate the environmental impacts. The Planned Action Ordinance does not just permit developments because they are within the EIS; it requires environmental impacts created by a project to be mitigated. The benefit of a Planned Action Ordinance is it speeds up the SEPA process for developers which encourages the kind of growth and economic development the City has stated it desires, creating benefit for all parties. Ms. Snyder Kelly explained there are three basic steps in preparing a Planned Action Ordinance, 1) prepare an EIS that analyzes the environment impacts that various types of development might have on an area, 2) develop and adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, and 3) review individual development projects to determine if they are a planned action under the Planned Action Ordinance. She provided an analogy; if a development process is a trip on a plane, a Planned Action Ordinance is the equivalent of TSA precheck. A Planned Action Ordinance does not just let development occur because it happened to have been described in the EIS, but it speeds up the line and requires development to mitigate for the environmental impacts it has on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 2 an area. More specifically, a Planned Action Ordinance is procedural in the sense that it does not change the underlying codes and standards; each development considered under a Planned Action Ordinance still must follow the underlying plans and codes. The City determines if a project is a planned action and can be considered under the Planned Action Ordinance. Ms. Snyder Kelly explained the proposed Planned Action Ordinance outlines five thresholds used to determine if a project qualifies: 1. Land Use • Meets land uses allowed by the code and described in the EIS 2. Development threshold (for entire study area) • 3,325 dwelling units • 1,634,685 square feet of building area 3. Transportation • Not more than 2,755 new evening peak hour trips (for entire study area). 4. Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts • A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS would not qualify as a planned action 5. Changed Conditions • Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. Council President Mesaros asked how the thresholds were determined. Ms. Snyder Kelly responded the transportation thresholds were calculated based on level of service (LOS) in the City's code and requirements for concurrence. The development thresholds are also related to concurrency. Council President Mesaros relayed his understanding there was no change to those. Ms. Snyder Kelly agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this was the first time the City has considered a Planned Action Ordinance. Ms. Hope answered yes, this is the first time the City has undertaken a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS for a subarea. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the City wanted to speed up the SEPA process, observing SEPA is extremely important. Ms. Hope clarified the real value is not that it makes the SEPA process a few days faster; the value is having an EIS that has assessed the impacts of development which helps assure the community that impacts of development have been considered and the Planned Action Ordinance memorializes that. A SEPA Checklist is still required for each project. Councilmember Nelson asked how much time is saved. Ms. Hope answered for a developer it may be a few days or a couple weeks, it is not a huge amount of time unless a huge project is proposed which could potentially save a developer several weeks. Councilmember Nelson observed the time savings was also a cost savings. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the EIS had been published. Ms. Hope advised the draft EIS is available online and the final EIS will be posted tomorrow; there was little change between the two. Ms. Snyder Kelly advised the final EIS incorporates a number of public comments which were used to make a few tweaks such as incorporating things Community Transit is doing. Councilmember Johnson referred to G5 in the Planned Action Ordinance related to development agreements which states the City or an applicant may request consideration and execution of a development agreement as allowed in Chapter 20.08 ECDC for a Planned Action project. She recalled the Council had a robust discussion regarding development agreements 3-5 years ago but the discussion was never concluded. That discussion included types of incentives and tradeoffs for development agreements. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 3 asked the status of the development agreement process. Ms. Hope answered development agreements are allowed under the existing code; if a project doesn't meet certain aspect of the code but meets the intent, the Council can consider a development agreement that binds the developer to certain conditions. A development agreement requires a decision by the City Council. A number of cities allow for development agreements and Ms. Hope acknowledged there are pros and cons to their use but there are occasions when they are useful. She felt it was worthwhile to again consider the chapter related to development agreements, but that was a different process; this ordinance simply references the existing code regarding development agreements and does not change anything. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the Council would work with a developer on case-by- case basis. Ms. Hope answered yes. She was not expecting requests for a development agreement and she has not heard anything that would likely lead to a development agreement; the ordinance simply leaves that option open. Councilmember Johnson observed the Development Services Director or designee determines if an application is complete and that the decision of the SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification as a planned action shall be final. She asked who is the SEPA Responsible Official Ms. Hope advised the Planning Manager is the SEPA Responsible Official, currently Rob Chave. Councilmember Johnson observed there was no way to challenge that decision. Ms. Hope answered that is typically considered an administrative decision. Councilmember Johnson observed the Planned Action Ordinance would be reviewed in five years. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Johnson observed the ordinances takes effect 5 days after passage and asked whether the Planned Action Ordinance could be adopted prior to the Comprehensive Plan when it was related to the Hwy 99 subarea plan. Ms. Hope answered subarea plans can be adopted outside the normal Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Once the Council approves the Hwy 99 subarea plan, which is considered part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Action Ordinance could go forward. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that development could go forward unless there were significant impacts and asked for examples of impacts that would disallow development. Ms. Hope answered an obvious example would be the traffic proposed at an intersection would cause the intersection's LOS to fail; specific mitigation and additional study would be required. Councilmember Tibbott asked for other examples. Ms. Hope answered traffic would be the mostly likely as there are no wetlands in this area. Ms. Snyder Kelly pointed out if a project does not meet the qualifications to be considered a planned action, it automatically reverts to the original SEPA process. Councilmember Tibbott asked for an example of changed conditions. Ms. Hope answered the most likely would be if traffic patterns did not occur in the way the modeling indicates. Ms. Snyder Kelly answered another example would be an unexpected increase in population and the utilities no longer support the development that would allowed, the environmental impact of the project would need to be considered. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there were conditions that could require further study or deeper analysis. He asked who decides when the impact or changed conditions required further analysis. Ms. Hope answered that would typically be the SEPA official or it could be raised by others. Councilmember Tibbott concluded the involvement of the SEPA Official provides additional objectivity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the public hearing was being held tonight when the Council has not seen the EIS which should have been included in the packet and it had not been reviewed by the Planning Board. Ms. Hope clarified it did go through the Planning Board; the Planning Board held at least two meetings including a public hearing and recommended adoption. The Planning Board minutes were sent to Council today. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 4 Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Johnson's concern that the Council never completed its discussion about development agreements and according to the 20.08.050, the attorney does everything and the Council is not involved. Ms. Hope assured a development agreement requires Council approval. Mr. Taraday pointed out 20.08.040 states a development agreement is a Type V development project permit application which is a Council decision. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for Hwy 99 but she had not received all the documents necessary to fully understand. Ms. Hope said the development agreement reference is not essential to this Planned Action Ordinance; it simply references the existing chapter. If the Council chose not to include that provision, that would be okay. Mayor Earling opened the public participation of the public hearing. Seth Hale, Seattle, offered suggestions to enhance the goals of the proposed code language with regard to required parking and alternative transportation modes for transit oriented development (TOD) within 1/4 mile of BRT stations. Characteristics of TODs include multiple transportation choices and reduced parking. Studies have shown that increased transportation choices and reduced parking benefit the environment and reduce auto congestion. Incentivizing development to provide additional transportation choices in exchange for reduced parking only increases these benefits. Examples of incentives include charging stations. Incentivizing charging stations within TODs would provide a higher number of charging stations or capacity. For example, for every 4 additional charging stations or capacity, the number of standard vehicle stalls could be reduced by 1 stall, up to a maximum of 5% of required parking. This is a good trade with regard to cost, each charging station costs $4,000 to $6,000; structured parking stalls range from $10,000 to $30,000. Reducing one parking stall offsets the cost of an EV station. Under the proposed code, a charging station shall be installed to serve at least 10% of the required residential parking stalls. While Washington is a leader in the number of electrical vehicles they account for less than 1% of the registered vehicles. Mr. Hale relayed concern that as technology advances, charging stations will also likely advance and today's equipment may become obsolete. He suggested an initial lower percentage of functioning charging stations with a potential for increasing or exceeding capacity. Another example is car sharing; car sharing users tend to be millennials and there are significantly more renters under 30 than homeowners. He has seen car sharing used successfully in Seattle where car sharing spaces reduced the required parking by 3 stalls to a maximum of 15% of the required parking stalls. He acknowledged the cost to provide additional transportation modes such as bicycle parking charging stations, car sharing, subsidized transit passes, etc. adds to the overall project costs. A reduction in required parking stalls helps offset these costs and ensures TODs can compete with typical development to provide affordable housing with alternative transportation modes close to BRT stations. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to casinos in neighboring cities and adult entertainment in Shoreline that are used by Edmonds residents. As more businesses locate on Highway 99, the traffic increases. He questioned the existing zoning and the proposed zoning, recalling the reason development has not occurred in Edmonds is the cost. He provided a Seattle Times article from 1987 regarding the Council considering a topless -bar law. Mark Tekin and Dominic Rambes, Tekin & Associates, owners of the Denny's property on Highway 99, explained a year ago they got the space back as it was no longer financial feasible for Denny's. They have proposed a project with 4 tenants, 2 restaurants tenants and 2 retail tenants that would provide daytime and evening services to the community. They submitted a land use application which was approved on July 14, 2017. Five days after approval, they were informed by City staff it was no longer valid due to the new development guidelines under consideration. He relayed they spent a lot of time and energy on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 5 redevelopment project and although they had interest from fast food, they have proposed a nice, modern redevelopment with no drive throughs. Eric Nielsen, Arca Architecture, representing the project on 212th St SW & 72 Ave W, referred to the proposed increase in the building setback from 4 feet to 10 feet, relaying a preference for more flexibility in the code language to allow for site specific solutions as a blanket 10 -foot setback may not provide the desired solution on every site. He referred to images he provided the Council, first an example of a 4 -foot setback or other minimal dimension that allows the developer opportunity to setback the building higher up, essentially transition the building to the street level. He referred to sections in the images, an example of an elevation with a 10 -foot setback and a vertical building along the sidewalk. The second elevation provides a more pedestrian scale on the sidewalk with setback above and opportunity for landscaping above the street. He recommended the Council consider more flexible in the code with two options, 1) the 10 foot setback and 2) reduced setbacks as long as the building is setback above by 10 feet. With regard to the proposal to not allow parking within 20 feet of the building wall, he pointed out this pressures building owners to provide commercial and residential uses on the ground floor; however, not all sites are suitable for residential or commercial uses, potentially resulting in vacant space on the ground floor. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Ms. Hope to comment on the Denny's site. Ms. Hope said she would need to research the particulars of the site. It was her understanding if a building permit was approved, it would not be invalidated based on a code that was not yet adopted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed he was contacted by their attorney; the issue is they have approved design review but not an approved building permit so the project is not yet vested. The attorney's request was for the Council to consider a delayed effective date that would allow the applicant to submit a building permit application before the ordinance is effective. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the new code would prohibit the owners of the Denny's site from developing. Ms. Hope answered it was related to the specifics of development, not whether they could develop. For example, the setbacks may be different; basically, the design standards would change for the site and the building. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested if they were interested in developing with their original plan, they should apply for a permit sooner rather than later. Ms. Hope agreed, advising the other option, if City Council wanted to permit this project, specific language could be included in the code or the effective date could be changed. If a building permit is submitted as a complete application prior to a new code taking effect, the -project is vested. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas-observed that corner has had its challenges and it would be nice to see it redeveloped. Councilmember Johnson asked about the effective date of new ordinance. Ms. Hope said their concern was not related to the Planned Action Ordinance but rather the underlying development regulations. If the development regulations were adopted on August 15, they are effective 5 days after publication. If the Council chose to forward approval to the Consent Agenda, there would be a slight delay. Another option would be for her to research and provide more information at the Council's next meeting and determine if the Council wants to craft language related to that project given that a lot of work has been done it. 7. STUDY ITEMS REVIEW OF PROPOSED HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council last reviewed Highway 99 Area zone and code changes on July 18. At that time discussion included comparison with existing zone map and development code, review of proposed CG site & building design standards and specific questions and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 6 comments. The focus of tonight's meeting is next steps for draft plan, zone map and development code. She sought Council direction to proceed with draft ordinances for the August 15 Council meeting. She displayed an aerial view of the project area (Highway 99 corridor and surrounding area) and reviewed: • Planning process and timeline o Understanding existing conditions: March - April 2016 o Develop land use and transportation scenarios: April - June 2016 o SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment: April - November 2017 o Develop subarea Draft Plan: October - December 2016 o Final Subarea Plan: January - June 2017 • Community Values o Connectivity o Designations o Beautification o Safety o Walkability o Affordable housing o Healthy businesses • Distinct Subdistricts o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99 ■ International District - Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster ■ Health District - Swedish Hospital and medical offices ■ Gateway District - Identified by the community during workshop - Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds • Subarea Plan: implementation strategies, policy recommendations and actions o Zoning and development recommendations o Affordable housing recommendations o Signage and wayfinding recommendations o Transit recommendations o Transportation infrastructure recommendations ■ Map: Planned Transportation Improvements • Current Zoning Map o The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75') o Many current zones are remnants from the county's antiquated zoning o Some zones do not match with the parcel boundaries • Proposed Zoning Map o The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone o Incorporate design standards that will increase vitality and ensure transition into neighborhoods o More predictable outcomes for community • Zoning Map & Development Regulations - Goals o Vitality and livability o Sustainability o Consistency with subarea plan o Reasonable balance of requirements and options • Site development standards - General 16.60.020 o Pedestrian area - required adjacent to street ■ Composed of three zones: streetscape zone, pedestrian zone and activity zone ■ Comparison of pedestrian area requirements - Required in existing CG regulations? - no Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 7 - Required in proposed CG regulations? - yes o Comparison of dimensional requirements o Additional building stepback when adjacent to RS zones ■ Upper Stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height Site development standards - design standards 16.60.030.A. LE o Illustration of 15' setback with 10' landscape buffer o Additional building stepback with adjacent to RS zones o Illustration of upper stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height o Photo example of across -the -street transition illustrating streetscape zone separation provided by street and o Minimum 5 feet wide type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where parking lots abut the street o Access and vehicle parking ■ All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height ■ Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. Requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses ■ High parking requirements can impede development ■ Proposed regulations aimed to encourage transit -oriented development options - 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit less than 700 sq. ft. - 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit of 700-1100 sq. ft. - 1.75 parking spaces per residential units greater than 1100 sq. ft. - Guest parking: 1 space/per 20 units o Required electric vehicle charging stations ■ One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development that includes housing (to serve 10% of required parking spaces) Each electric vehicle charging station typically serves two vehicles ■ 1 station/ 10 required residential stalls plus planned capacity to double that amount in the future o Required bicycle storage spaces ■ Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or other specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents ■ 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet - With 50% reduction for bikes stored in common spaces if additional racks are available for guests o Paths within parking lots ■ Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands o Pedestrian and transit access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 8 Existing CG Chapter Proposed CG Chapter -Height 60-75' 75' max* Street setback 4' min. 5'/10' Side/rear setback 0/15 0/15 Stepback No additional stepback required for upper stories Additional stepback required for upper I stories adjacent to single family ­ o Additional building stepback when adjacent to RS zones ■ Upper Stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height Site development standards - design standards 16.60.030.A. LE o Illustration of 15' setback with 10' landscape buffer o Additional building stepback with adjacent to RS zones o Illustration of upper stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height o Photo example of across -the -street transition illustrating streetscape zone separation provided by street and o Minimum 5 feet wide type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where parking lots abut the street o Access and vehicle parking ■ All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height ■ Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. Requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses ■ High parking requirements can impede development ■ Proposed regulations aimed to encourage transit -oriented development options - 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit less than 700 sq. ft. - 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit of 700-1100 sq. ft. - 1.75 parking spaces per residential units greater than 1100 sq. ft. - Guest parking: 1 space/per 20 units o Required electric vehicle charging stations ■ One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development that includes housing (to serve 10% of required parking spaces) Each electric vehicle charging station typically serves two vehicles ■ 1 station/ 10 required residential stalls plus planned capacity to double that amount in the future o Required bicycle storage spaces ■ Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or other specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents ■ 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet - With 50% reduction for bikes stored in common spaces if additional racks are available for guests o Paths within parking lots ■ Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands o Pedestrian and transit access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 8 • Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required. • Pedestrians routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other Site Development Standards - Site Design and Layout 16.60.030.0 1) Pedestrian Oriented Design • At least 50% of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. • Building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage • Vehicle parking shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage, other than as allowed for vehicle sales use. 2) Alternative walkable design area option • For sites with unique constraints. ■ At least 50% of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line 3) Exceptions process for pedestrian and walkable design options • Exemptions may be allowed by hearing examiner to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under following criteria: - Property is located within 300 feet of highway interchange or has unique pedestrian access constraints - One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage - The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street frontage and likely to be active through the day/evening. - Not more than 50% of required parking within first 20 feet of property - At least 25% of required amenity space is located to connect building to the street - Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between buildings to allow shared use - One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of usable space o Amenity Space • An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity space. • If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5% of additional parking area. o Building Design and Massing - On the primary frontage, 50% of the building fagade between 2 and 10 feet in height shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent o New standard for vehicle parking within buildings • On primary frontage, no vehicle parking within first 20 feet of building facing street How do proposed regulations encourage sustainable development? o Examples: • Bicycle storage ■, Electric vehicle charging • Wider pedestrian areas • Not excessive vehicle parking (transit friendly) • Amenity space ■ Stormwater mgmt. ■ Compact development • Landscaping and street trees o Concept illustration of possible redevelopment Proposed change to sign code o Revision to 20.65.045 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 9 - Limit freestanding signs (such as monument signs) to maximum height of 14 feet in this district - Require freestanding signs to be counted as part of total maximum sign area for this district Ms. Hope relayed tonight was an opportunity for Council review and direction to proceed with draft ordinances and final presentation and adoption of the ordinances on August 15. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled public comment tonight about the code, not the Planned Action Ordinance. She asked if the public hearings had been completed. Ms. Hope explained several public meetings and hearings have been held and there were no plans for more. There will be another presentation on August 15 and opportunity for public comment during Audience Comments. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Planned Action Ordinance and the code had to be approved at the same time. Ms. Hope answered no, it would be ideal to approve the subarea plan and the code amendments at the same time. The Planned Action Ordinance can be adopted at the same time or a little later. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her interest in reviewing the Planning Board minutes and the EIS. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council also approved a resolution of intent to designate the Hwy 99 subarea as a Residential Targeted Area on July 18 and asked how that fit with these other regulations. Ms. Hope answered one of the recommendations in the subarea plan was to allow the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) in this area. The Council approved a resolution of intent to designate the Highway 99 Subarea as Residential Targeted Area for implementation of the MFTE program and will hold a public hearing on August 15. Councilmember Teitzel commended staff and the consultant on the Hwy 99 subarea plan, an excellent example of involving the public. He referred to Esperance on the west side of Hwy 99 which comprises approximately 10% of the Hwy 99 frontage and asked if Hwy 99 is rezoned to CG, will the zoning of Esperance be inconsistent if the City annexes it in the future. He asked if it would behoove the City to work with Snohomish County now to modify the zoning to be more consistent with the intent for that area. Ms. Hope answered staff has involved Snohomish County in the development of the plan and they have been very supportive. It may be some time before Esperance is annexed by the City but staff will continue working with Snohomish County. Councilmember Teitzel asked if Snohomish County was interested in CG -type zoning in that area. Ms. Hope said Snohomish County has had no objections but they would have to take action. Snohomish County has many unincorporated areas and have not looked at them individually; they expect cities to annex them and then it becomes a city issue. Councilmember Johnson referred to the new development on 196" in Lynnwood near the convention center, relaying her objection to the six -story flat wall. She hoped something more architecturally interesting and less oppressive for pedestrians would be built on Hwy 99. Ms. Hope said she would consider that and address it at the next meeting. Councilmember Johnson asked if there was a roadway or profile design beyond the pedestrian area. Ms. Hope said a detailed corridor design is planned using State funds. The $1 million allocated by the State has been delayed due to delays at the legislature in approving the capital budget. Councilmember Johnson said in her conversations with WSDOT, bicycles are not excluded from Hwy 99 or SR -104. She expressed interested in not necessarily a bicycle lane but an opportunity to protect bicycle riders. She recalled this was an issue of right-of-way width on SR -104 but Hwy 99 is wider. Ms. Hope answered Hwy 99 is 100 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson suggested future planning include how to accommodate bicycles. She relayed her continued concern that the bicycle route on 212" did not extend to the Interurban Trail. Councilmember Johnson suggested another issue she wants addressed in the Hwy 99 subarea plan is whether an urban interchange is needed for SR-104/Hwy 99 which is currently incomplete for all Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 10 movements. As this will be expensive, she suggested it be included in the plan so it can get on a list. That interchange would improve access to adjacent properties and improve movement on SR -104, a highway of statewide significance. She appreciated that the plan did not allow vehicle parking on the first level but pointed out the Everett Clinic has parking on the first and second levels that is visible from the street. She suggested consideration be given to how to better screen or eliminate visibility of parking. Ms. Hope agreed vehicle parking could occur on the second level, not just the first level, and the proposed code does not address that. Councilmember Johnson suggested consideration be given to expanding Park & Rides within the corridor. There are three Swift transit stations and it is assumed people will walk'/4 mile. She uses the Swift line but lives more than a'/4 mile away and typically parks in a Park & Ride lot. There is no parking for the Swift line, yet if Edmonds residents utilize it, they may need parking. Ms. Hope advised that was not in the current scope; Community Transit's policy is to not build Park & Ride lots on that valuable land. Councilmember Johnson suggested consideration be given to increasing size of existing Park & Ride lots or other options. To encourage people to ride the bus, the amount of parking is reduced; however, there is not a lot of on - street parking in the surrounding area. For example, she currently parks at Safeway but that extra parking may not exist in the future. Councilmember Tibbott recalled Ms. Hope stating two electrical vehicles could be charged in one parking space. Ms. Hope clarified each charging station has two outlets. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the requirement to provide future capacity for charging stations. Ms. Hope explained the wiring would be installed but not the stations themselves. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the percentage. Ms. Hope answered the requirement for future capacity is doubling the currently requirement. For example, if five stations are required, the developer would have to rough -in an additional five. Councilmember Tibbott was intrigued by parking for vehicle sharing or drop off zones. He asked what capacity could be added or provided in a residential development. Ms. Hope said that is identified in the code as one of the ways to offset some of the parking requirements; the developer would be required to demonstrate how that would be provided and the amount of parking it would offset. Councilmember Tibbott recognized not all future transportation forms could be anticipated and he was interested in providing some flexibility. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Hwy 99 has no bike lanes, not in Seattle, Shoreline or Lynnwood, likely because it was deemed to be unsafe. Ms. Hope said given that Hwy 99 is a highway as well as the amount of traffic, alternative parallel routes have been provided. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed there are often bikes on 76th Avenue and on the Interurban Trail. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Park & Ride lots, pointing out the purpose of TOD is to increase the number of people using transit but they do not need a Park & Ride lot. Ms. Hope agreed residents in new development on Hwy 99 could walk to transit and they have parking on site. People who do not live in the Hwy 99 area who want to use transit may want a Park & Ride lot; however, that is not related to the Hwy 99 plan. The Swift line is the highest performing line Community Transit has, even without a Park & Ride lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is only one Park & Ride lot on the corridor in Edmonds. She questioned where Swift riders park now. Ms. Hope said she could check with Community Transit. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ORDINANCE FORMAT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION ON AUGUST 15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 11 2. DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR ACTING ON BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Council President Mesaros explained with the new committee system, a question arose regarding whether committees needed to review recommendations from boards and commissions. He asked for the Council's input. Councilmember Buckshnis said boards and commissions did not report to committees in the past unless it was an issue like the Harbor Square master planning process. She acknowledged it would depend, but annual/quarterly reports never went through committee before. Items like the recent climate change resolution should go through committee. Council President Mesaros clarified that was not from a board or commission. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded there may be special circumstances but she preferred to have boards and commissions report to the full Council. Council President Mesaros agreed boards and commissions should report directly to the full Council. He recalled the code states the Planning Board reports to the City Council and he anticipated other boards/committees would prefer to report directly to the full Council. Councilmember Johnson commented typically nothing from planning goes through the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee but seems to go to the full Council. Council President Mesaros recalled Ms. Hope presented the change in the timing of the Hearing Examiner report to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee at their last meeting. Ms. Hope said her understanding and in reviewing past minutes and talking with staff who were here when the committees were in place previously, the Planning Board did not report to committees on items such as code amendments, those went to the entire Council. Nothing the Planning Board recommends to Council is a potential Consent Agenda item; Public Works projects can potentially be approved on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Nelson agreed in general, it makes sense for boards and commissions to present to the full Council. He did not see any benefit to having recommendations presented to committee before presenting to the full Council. Councilmember Tibbott agreed items the Planning Board reviews and forwards should be presented to the full Council. However, there may be topics other boards and commissions are working on at the request of Council -and they may want input from a_ committee before_making_a recommendation. Ms. Hope said if a board/commission wanted committee input, they could certainly seek it; the issue is whether the Council wants to require boards/commissions report to a committee first. In her experience, reports from the Economic Development Commission or Historic Preservation Commission typically go to full Council as any action is taken by the Council. Council President Mesaros agreed if a board/commission wanted input from a committee they could seek that but it would not be required. Councilmember Teitzel agreed an item that has been fully vetted by the Planning Board could/should come directly to full Council. However, two weeks ago a majority of Council opted to send the historic panels back to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee for review before approving it on the Consent Agenda tonight. That seems to be inconsistent with the direction Councilmembers are providing tonight. Council President Mesaros said that was what sparked this discussion. Council could still refer an item to committee for further discussion which was what happened with the historic panels. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the resolution regarding climate change was referred from the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. She recalled a variety of issues reviewed by the Planning Board went to the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee in the past. She asked if the intent was to codify this issue or establish a policy. Council President Mesaros anticipated a policy but he was looking for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 12 Council input on the process. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the committees can be used to expedite things and ask questions of committee members who are assigned to committees based on their level of expertise. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled boards and commissions products never went to committees in the past, they always went to full Council. She commented this was much ado about nothing; the Council can refer an issue wherever they wish. Councilmember Johnson said if the Council has a committee system, it is not a bad policy to send things to committees such as the climate protection resolution or historic panels. Council President Mesaros summarized the direction from Council seemed to be that that would be an option but on the whole, boards and commissions would report directly to Council. Councilmember Johnson suggested if an individual has an idea he/she wants to bring forward, it could be channeled through the committee process. Council President Mesaros commented that was a different topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was almost impossible to determine what goes to committee, it depends on who is the Council President, etc. Council President Mesaros asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether the Council could establish policy rather than codify it. Mr. Taraday answered many of the Council processes that are codified do not have to be. It is simply a matter of whether the Council wants everything codified so there is more visibility, etc. Council President Mesaros offered to confer with Mr. Taraday and determine if this needed to be codified so the policy can be found in the future. 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported agenda topics included: 1. 2018 Budget Internal Procedures — information only 2. Paid Internship from UW via federal grant — approved on Consent Agenda 3. Work Plan for Developing Policies — staff will provide matrix of policies Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Nelson reported agenda topics included: 1. FDI Fire Prevention Group introductions — information only 2. Social Worker Interlocal Agreement 67°/x/33% partnership between Lynnwood and Edmonds — approved on Consent Agenda Parks Planning & Public Warks Committee Councilmember Johnson reported agenda topics included: • Ordinance to Change the Timing of the Hearing Examiner's Annual Report — approved on Consent Agenda • Pine Street Lighting Discussion — further discussion at PPP Committee's August 8 meeting • Historic Informational Panels for Yost Park and Waterfront Mills — approved on Consent Agenda 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported tomorrow he will announce and issue a press release regarding the membership of a Housing Strategy Task Force, led by Shane Hope. There are many people interested in housing strategies and many different ideas. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 13 Mayor Earling reminded the public to vote by tomorrow, August 1. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas invited the Council and the public to a ribbon cutting tomorrow at the Edmonds Police Department at 1:30 p.m. for the drug takeback boxes that have been installed to deposit old medications, particular narcotics. She thanked Edmonds Family Medicine on 73`d and 212'" and the Edmond QFC pharmacy for also installing boxes in their pharmacies. She encouraged other pharmacies in Edmonds to install drug takeback boxes. Councilmember Johnson provided Councilmembers and the Mayor copies of a Homelessness & Housing Tool Kit for Cities developed by MSRC and AWC. She also has copies for the members of the new Housing Strategy Task Force. Councilmember Johnson was glad to learn there would be medical takeback boxes in Edmonds; she has used the box in the Lynwood Walgreens and it was full last time. She was glad people were turning in their drugs and that there were three more locations in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis reminded the public to be aware of their pets during the upcoming heat wave and to check on seniors. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.1100)(i) At 8:55 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Teitzel, Tibbott, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. The executive session concluded at 9:15 p.m. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:15 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE OVER THE SCOPE OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT THE CITY OWNS IN FRONT OF THE EBBTIDE CONDOMINIUMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 14 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. DAVID 0. EARLING, MAYOR S PASSEY, CITY CLER Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 15