2014-11-12 Planning Board PacketMEETING AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
November 12, 2014
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Reading / Approval of Minutes: October 22, 2014
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments: (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
5. Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
6. Public Hearings: (Public participation is welcome)
a. Public Hearing on Amending Chapter 17.35 of the Edmonds Community Development Code to
remove requirements about the keeping of domesticated animals from that chapter and consolidating
them with Chapter 5.05, Animal Control, of the Edmonds City Code.
7. Unfinished Business: (No public participation)
a. Recommendation of Draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
b. Continued discussion of Draft Comprehensive Plan General Introduction Section & Land Use Element
8. New Business: (No public participation)
9. Administrative Reports: Review Extended Agenda
10. Planning Board Chair Comments:
11. Planning Board Member Comments:
12. Adjournment
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations)
AI-7268
2.
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 11/12/2014
Reading / Approval of Minutes: October 22, 2014
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Reading / Approval of Minutes: October 22, 2014
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Board review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
PB Draft minutes 10.22.14
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 22, 2014
Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5d' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Daniel Robles
Careen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
Mike Nelson
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIERCTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cloutier referred the Board to the written Director's Report. Mr. Chave noted that, since the report was written, the
City Council agreed to support the Draft Shoreline Master Update, and the document will come back for final approval on
their consent agenda in mid -November. He also noted that the City Council is scheduled to potentially take action on the
Westgate Plan at their November 3rd meeting.
DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
Mr. Chave referred to the draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update. He advised that the majority of the proposed
changes in the first half of the element are intended to update data and integrate material from the Alliance for Affordable
Housing (AAH) report that was previously presented to the Board. The "Strategies" section (starting on Page 11) was also
updated to incorporate a goal found in the Countywide Planning Policies that talks about jurisdictions having strategies in
place to address housing affordability. In addition, formatting changes have been proposed in the "Goals and Policies"
section (beginning on Page 14) to make the format of the Housing Element consistent with the format used for the adopted
Sustainability Element and other recently updated elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is for all of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan to have consistent formatting.
Mr. Chave advised that a new "Implementation Actions and Performance Measures" section was added at the end of the
Housing Element. He reminded the Board of the City's goal to incorporate implementation actions and at least one
performance measure into each of the Comprehensive Plan Elements as they are updated. Staff is proposing the following
Implementation Action and Performance Measure:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure: Number of residential units permitted each year.
Mr. Chave explained that the City does not currently have a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing.
However, having a strategy in place is one of the policies established by the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing
Affordability (AHA). The goal is to collaborate countywide to address the problem, and the idea of the proposed action is to
work with the AHA to figure out the best way to implement the policy locally. This could entail zoning requirements and/or
incentives for affordable housing that are triggered at a certain level of development. However, Edmonds does not have an
administrative mechanism in place to enforce, monitor and track affordable housing, and City staff does not have the ability
to take on this task. Working collaboratively with the AHA could provide an opportunity for the City to contract with the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County for this service. In addition to discussing zoning requirements and incentives for
affordable housing, the strategy could address other housing options, as well as an implementation mechanism.
Mr. Chave said the proposed performance measure would involve identifying the number of residential units permitted each
year. This can be easily tracked and would enable the City to identify whether or not it is providing more housing in general.
The intent of the performance measure is to identify increases in the housing supply, but also potentially measure the City's
success at meeting other housing goals such as maintaining capacity for growth within the City.
Mr. Chave invited the Board to provide feedback regarding the Housing Element so the document can be updated before the
Board's next meeting in November. He noted that both he and Ms. Hope worked on the draft language, with assistance from
a planner working on contract with the City.
Board Member Lovell observed that the changes proposed in the first several pages represent a statistical update. It basically
compares statistics from last time the element was updated with the new data, but it does not provide a lot of commentary as
to whether the City is better or worse off than it was ten years ago. For example, the average household size in Edmonds
decreased by nearly half a person and is at near 2 people per household. He asked if this is considered better or worse. Mr.
Chave said some of the statistical changes are consistent with national trends, and others are county and local trends. It is
difficult to place a judgment on the changes in data, most of which came from the AHA report.
Board Member Lovell referred to Page 8, which makes references to the need for local jurisdictions to have a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan in place in order to obtain federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). He asked if Edmonds has a program in place or encourages the use HUD funding for
projects in the City. Mr. Chave answered that the City does not have its own HUD program. However, they are currently in
a consortium with Snohomish County, which serves as the agency for community development programs for federal HUD
grants. The Snohomish County agency drafted and regularly updates the required Consolidated Housing and Community
Development Plan; and every few years, there is a competitive process for funding allocations to jurisdictions in Snohomish
County. With the exception of Everett, all other jurisdictions in the County participate in the joint program.
Board Member Lovell requested information about the process for applying for HUD grant funding for projects in Edmonds.
Mr. Chave explained that, typically, HUD projects are aimed at low income people; and as a general rule, the City does not
have the right demographics to qualify for HUD funding. However, there are opportunities for block grants to fund social
projects, many related to seniors. For example, the City successfully obtained block grant funding for American's with
Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk ramps. Many of the social programs are based in Everett, but they serve a countywide
population.
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 2
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes how the Housing Element is laid out, and it is clear that the City is endeavoring to
meet the local, regional and federal goals for housing. She asked if it would be possible to provide a chart to illustrate the
relationship between the City's goals and the regional and federal goals. She expressed her belief that the regional and
federal goals tend to shape the local policy. Mr. Chave agreed to consider the best way to provide this information.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that various agencies and groups influence local policies on housing, and the
vocabularies used can be very different. She said she would like the terms to be as consistent as possible throughout the
Housing Element. For example, the various documents use terms such as "disabled", "physically challenged" and
"handicapped person." She noted that "handicapped person" is no longer an acceptable term and should be thrown out, and
the Housing Element should consistently use either "physically challenged" or "disabled." Also, there is reference to both
"seniors" and "elderly," and she would prefer to use the term "seniors." She questioned what population is being referenced
by the term "special needs population." Also, the terms "economically challenged" versus "low income." She noted that a
person may not be considered "low-income," but could be "economically challenged" when it comes to finding affordable
housing in Edmonds. Lastly, she asked where "mentally and emotionally challenged" individuals would fit into the housing
goals. She questioned if "housing for the disadvantaged" would cover all of the situations listed above. She summarized that
the terms need to be clarified and consistent so it is clear who the City is trying to assist in meeting housing goals.
Board Member Stewart commended staff for preparing updates to a comprehensive document. She referred to the third
bulleted item from the bottom on Page 9, which talks about increasing the incidence of home ownership. She said she
assumes this strategy is aimed at people who want to own their homes. However, the City must recognize that the current
trend is towards rentals. She expressed the need for the strategy to address all housing needs, both owned and rental. Mr.
Chave said the language was taken directly from the AHA Report.
Board Member Stewart referred to the "Housing Needs" section, starting on Page 10. She noted that the need to provide
healthy indoor air quality is missing from the language. This can be addressed through the types of materials used in
construction and by making sure no mold is occurring in the units. She suggested that the need for healthy living should be
addressed somewhere in the Housing Element.
Board Member Stewart said she supports using the concept of "designed infill," but she questioned how the City would
ensure that infill development is designed in a way that is consistent with existing development in the neighborhood. She
suggested that perhaps the City could require design review for infill residential development. She observed that a lot of
indiscriminate infill development has occurred that is neither consistent nor in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the concept of requiring design review for infill residential development to
ensure that it is keeping with the neighborhood character, but design review should not apply citywide to all single-family
residential development.
Mr. Chave explained that "designed infill" was intended to be a general conceptual term used when the Comprehensive Plan
was initially adopted in 1995 as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The principal intent of the "designed
infill" concept is to encourage development to occur within the overall fabric of the City without doing wholesale zoning
changes that allow multi -family residential uses to creep into single-family residential neighborhoods. It was never the intent
of the City's decision makers to require design review for single-family residential homes, and it is not currently required.
The City regulates single-family residential development via the bulk standards, and it would be very difficult to come up
with design guidelines that identify the character of each neighborhood on a street -by -street basis. It is very rare to find a
citywide single-family design review requirement in any jurisdiction. However, there are exemptions for "historic districts"
and "planned developments" where the City has an opportunity to require a specific style and/or design.
Chair Cloutier agreed that "designed infill" is a conceptual term. The idea was rather than expanding the commercial and/or
multi -family residential boundaries, the City would target the codes to encourage infill development in residential zones and
higher -density redevelopment on Highway 99, at Westgate, etc. Regardless of what alternatives the City chooses to use, it
must accommodate its allocated growth targets. He noted that jurisdictions in the region have used a number of approaches
for accomplishing this goal such as skinny houses and cottage homes that intensify the density in residential zones. Many
also have liberal requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that essentially allow a second dwelling on a residential
lot.
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 3
Board Member Stewart questioned why the City should have a policy for encouraging infill development to be consistent
with the neighborhood and community character if there is no way to implement it. She commented that developers tend to
do whatever they can to build the largest structures possible on the available land, and they do not necessarily care if it is
keeping with the neighborhood character. Mr. Chave said developers are not necessarily more likely to build homes that do
not fit in with the neighborhood. The City also receives permit applications from individual property owners who are
proposing designs that do not fit in with the existing pattern.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendments would eliminate the concept of "cottage housing"
altogether. She felt it should be put back in, perhaps on Page 15 under the goals and policies, as a potential affordable
housing option, especially for people who own larger lots and do not want to subdivide and redevelop their property with
larger homes. She said she would like to build a cottage on her property, but it is not allowed under the current code. Mr.
Chave explained that, at the time the current Housing Element was written, the City was exploring the option of cottage
housing. The intent of this section is to summarize what the City is actually doing and what has been done. Because the City
is no longer exploring the concept, staff is recommending that it be removed. However, the goals and policies section could
specifically mention the need to explore the concept of cottage housing.
Vice Chair Tibbott suggested that Board Member Stewart is describing an ADU or guest house as opposed to a cottage
development. Mr. Chave pointed out that the current code only allows guest houses on large lot, and accessory dwelling
units must be attached to the main structure. However, the City of Seattle allows detached ADU's that are set back on the lot
so the property appears as a single-family residence home from the street. Board Member Stewart expressed her desire for
the City to reevaluate its ADU regulations and make them more flexible.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that cottage housing projects typically consist of a number of units on a few acres of land.
Board Member Stewart agreed and suggested this is an attractive option for the City to consider because it allows developers
to position buildings in a way that protects the existing natural features. Mr. Chave recalled that some jurisdictions have
experimented with the concept in recent years, but many no longer allow the use. In Edmonds, the Council specifically
decided against implementing the option. However, the City offers the "planned residential development" concept as a way
to cluster lots and homes to protect existing natural features without increasing the overall density of the property. Cottage
housing, on the other hand, allows smaller homes on smaller lots, and a density bonus is traditionally offered. If the Board
wants to study the concept further, they could add it into the policy section of the element.
Board Member Lovell noted that the second bulleted item under "Low —Cost Housing Types" on Page 13 indicates that
mixed -use zoning has been applied in the Westgate Corridor. Other places in the Housing Element mentions pursuing
revised development regulations to allow more opportunities for affordable housing at Westgate. The language is written in
the context that the Westgate Plan has already been adopted, but that is not yet the case. Mr. Chave said the language
anticipates that the plan will be adopted, and it is scheduled on the City Council's extended agenda for action on November
3`d. The Housing Element will not be adopted until sometime after that, and any changes related to the City Council's action
can be incorporated.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item 1.2 on Page 17 and suggested that the specific "activity centers" be called out in
the paragraph. Mr. Chave noted that the activity centers are called out specifically in the Land -Use Element, with a large
section talking about each one. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Land -Use Map specifically identifies the activity
centers (Medical Use/Highway 99 and Downtown). The intent is that a person would read the Comprehensive Plan as an
entire document, and it would be a little out of context if you look only at the Housing Element. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested it would help the reader understand the areas referred to as "activity centers" if they are specifically identified in
the Housing Element. Mr. Chave suggested that a footnote could be added to direct the reader to the Land -Use Element for
more information about activity centers.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Stewart's comments about ADUs and cottage housing fall
within the spectrum of affordable housing options that seem to be under discussed. Allowing detached cottages or ADUs
could benefit groups such as seniors who want to stay in their homes, seniors who need assisted living, children who return to
live at home, etc. She expressed her belief that residential property owners should be given the same wherewithal as
developers to develop their properties. She suggested that the ADU concept needs more than a mere mention; perhaps it
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 4
could be an additional category. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed Implementation Action on Page 17, which calls for
developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. ADUs could be
part of this discussion as one option for providing affordable housing. Ideally, a housing strategy will identify a number of
different options, and not just low-income housing.
Board Member Lovell observed that, for years, it has been discussed that Edmonds is largely a residential community that is
95% built out. However, he questioned if the community, and particularly the City Council, would support a policy for
allowing people to hold on to their lots by building ADUs or cottages or subdividing their properties into two lots for smaller
units. He did not believe this concept would be supported, given the current demographics of the City, which is largely
single-family residential homeowners with higher incomes. Board Member Stewart pointed out that older residents cannot
always afford to keep their larger homes, and allowing ADUs and cottages could be a desirable option for these people.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that, as per the AHA Report, the City of Edmonds (36%) has a higher percentage of people
living in multi -family housing compared to the rest of the County (31%). However, the report does not provide a breakdown
of how much of the 36% is owner -occupied. Conceivably, as they continue on the path they are on where they are looking at
available land as the place for multi -family housing, the ratio would continue to increase in the City. This causes him to
wonder what direction they may be setting in motion by not considering ADUs and other options for infill development in the
single-family zones.
Chair Cloutier referred to the proposed implementation action and performance measure. Given that the City has a goal to
increase affordable housing and their action is to increase the supply of affordable housing, the performance measure should
relate specific to affordable housing rather than just number of units. For example, the performance measure could be
attached to the census or when information from other agencies is available. Mr. Chave advised that the goal is to report on
the performance measures on a yearly basis, and it would not be possible to obtain information related specifically to
affordable housing that frequently. Chair Cloutier suggested that perhaps there are other, indirect indicators that would help
the City find the needed information.
Chair Cloutier commented that using a performance measure that is based on the number of units would be good, but the
Board discussed trying to identify the total number of bedrooms available in the City. He acknowledged that this data would
be difficult to find, but it is available through the census and in the County's records. Board Member Lovell expressed his
belief that it would be virtually impossible to establish how many bedrooms there are in the City. It would also be difficult to
equate the number of bedrooms with the number of people. No matter how many bedrooms are identified on a title, many of
them are overbooked and others are not used at all. Chair Cloutier commented that the performance measure is supposed to
be related to how much available room the City has, and identifying the number of units is less direct. If the number doesn't
tell you what you need to know, there is no purpose for the measurement. He suggested that both numbers should be
considered.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that the proposed performance measure would measure new housing stock, and not existing
bedrooms or units. Information regarding the number of bedrooms could be found on the construction plans. Mr. Chave
agreed that the City could measure the number of new bedrooms that are constructed in the City. Chair Cloutier felt it would
be appropriate to measure both the number of new units and the number of new bedrooms each year to evaluate whether or
not the City is moving in a healthy direction.
Mr. Chave questioned whether tracking the number of additional bedrooms would really tell the City anything. The better
data would be changes in the number of units and the size of the average household. While the number of new units could be
collected on an annual basis, the data related to the average household size would only be available every few years. Based
on building permit data, the City can report details about the types of housing constructed, the number of bedrooms, and the
value of the units.
Board Member Lovell stressed that the most visible strategy the City needs to achieve is creating more opportunities for
multi -family residential development in the City. If they are doing that, the City, as a whole, is striving to accommodate
increased population. He cautioned against adding affordable housing, size of the units and number of bedrooms to the
equation, since these are unpredictable and outside of the City's control. He said he supports the vernacular that says the City
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 5
is doing certain things to increase opportunities for mixed -use development and encourage multi -family housing. They need
to continue strategies that support this goal.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the section related to "Assisted Housing Availability" on Page 10, and suggested that
this paragraph is very important to address when considering potential performance measures. She questioned if the Housing
Element, as currently proposed, would adequately encourage more senior housing, more assisted living, and more affordable
housing. Mr. Chave clarified that assisted care is very different than assisted housing. This paragraph is intended to report
information on different kinds of housing that receives some type of assistance, whether through Section 8 or another type of
subsidy. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the language adequately addressees whether the City needs more assisted
housing capacity. Mr. Chave referred to the note just prior to the paragraph, which indicates that City staff is in the process
of updating this section. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the language should clarify how assisted housing fits
into the diagram of affordable housing. Board Member Lovell said Board Member Rubenkonig appears to be asking if this
section would include a provision for the City to pursue more government assisted housing. Board Member Rubenkonig
agreed that she is interested in increasing the capacity over what currently exists. Mr. Chave said the AHA Report identifies
the City's current needs, and this data can be added to the section. However, it is important to note that the City does not
have control over HUD, but it can provide information about what currently exists and what the needs are. The future
housing strategy could discuss how the City could work with HUD to address its needs.
Board Member Robles commented that if the City were to take a lot of possibilities out of the extra legal sector so someone
could report current situations such as accessory dwelling units, mother-in-law apartments, etc. as permitted uses without the
threat of being shut down, the City would be able to obtain a more accurate count of the number of bedrooms and units
available in the City.
INTRODUCTION OF COMPRHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LAND USE ELEMENT
Mr. Chave advised that the General Introduction and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented to
the Board for feedback, but changes have not yet been drafted. At this time, the City's contract planner, Mr. Shipley, is
pouring through reports and finding data to update the Land Use Element, which contains a substantial amount of
background information and numbers.
Mr. Chave reviewed that, as part of the update, the City is required to update its capacity numbers. The overall planned
capacity they must address moves from 2025 in the current plan to 2035 in the new plan. Snohomish County, working with
jurisdictions through Snohomish County Tomorrow, has established initial planning targets for this time frame, including
both population and employment. Consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council's 2040 Plan, the population numbers
must be translated into number of units. The City must match up the existing capacity with existing zoning to figure out if
they have enough future capacity to meet the population and job targets of if zoning changes are needed.
Mr. Chave commented that the City is in a better place than many jurisdictions. For example, a tremendous amount of
growth is targeted in Everett, and they have nowhere near the capacity. Lynnwood and Bothell are having capacity issues, as
well. Because the City of Edmonds is designated as a "large city," its growth projections are more moderate, but they do
have to analyze and show their work in terms of capacity. While Highway 99 may have more capacity than has been
considered in the past, not a lot of residential development has occurred in the area to justify the higher capacity number. If
the City indicates that more population going forward will be handled along Highway 99, it must provide justification for this
increased capacity. One example is the Planning Board's recent recommendation on zoning changes along Highway 99 to
open more of the General Commercial zoning for residential development. This could be a significant factor when looking at
capacity.
Mr. Chave advised that, from a quick preliminary look, it appears the capacity numbers the County counts in the Buildable
Lands Report consider that residential development would occur at Harbor Square. Because the City Council took action that
eliminated this potential, the City's capacity to accommodate growth decreased. By the same token, the Building Lands
report did not take into account additional capacity for residential uses at Westgate. He summarized that he does not believe
that wholesale policy changes will be needed at this point. The updates to the Land Use Element will be primarily related to
updating the data.
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 6
Board Member Lovell said it appears the intent behind updating the Land Use element is to investigate and measure the
City's projections into the future to ascertain whether it can meet the GMA goals. Mr. Chave concurred. If the City finds
through its analysis that it cannot meet its projected capacity, it would be obliged to make changes in policy or zoning to
show how capacity can be increased to meet GMA requirements. Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Chave where he believes
the City will be. Mr. Chave answered that if the City Council adopts the Westgate Plan and proposed amendments to
Highway 99 zoning, the City should be close to meeting capacity.
Vice Chair Tibbott referred to Figure 9 on Page 40 and said it appears that somewhere around the year 2025, the City will
max out its capacity. Mr. Chave explained that the capacity comes from the Buildable Lands Report that is updated regularly
by the County, and it is not a fixed number. It identifies how much land is actually available for development at a given
point in time, and the number can change. There are assumptions that only a certain percentage of the available land within a
jurisdictions is available and on the market at any given time.
Vice Chair Tibbott said he is guessing the County made some assumptions about the possibility of infill when creating the
capacity chart. Mr. Chave said the County actually did an analysis using GIS looking at different parcel sizes. This analysis
was matched with data from the County Assessor for value. If the value of improvements is less than a certain percentage
relative to the value of the land, the property is determined to be developable because it is essentially underutilized. Vice
Chair Tibbott noted that the green box within the chart would actually increase in size if land use on Highway 99 permitted
more residential construction along the corridor. The same would be true for Westgate. Mr. Chave agreed that the capacity
would increase as a result of these two actions. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that the height of the bars (population growth)
would continue to increase, and would extend beyond the box (existing capacity) by the year 2025. Mr. Chave agreed that
the bars would get higher because the City would have more population to accommodate. It is important to increase the size
of the box (capacity) to contain the bars (population growth).
Board Member Ellis referred to Figure 8 on Page 38 and requested more information about the various categories illustrated
on the pie chart. Mr. Chave clarified that "single-family resource" refers to the RS-12 and RS-20 zones, "single-family
urban" refers to the RS-6 and RS-8 zones, ROW refers to rights -of -way, and "corridor development" refers to all corridors in
the City except Edmonds Way. . He noted that rights -of -way make up a significant portion of the City's total land area, and
that is why a "complete streets" program is important to make the most use of this land.
Vice Chair Tibbott observed that 36% of Edmonds' population lives in multi -family housing, but only 3.3% of the City's
total land area is zoned for multi -family residential development. Mr. Chave said the complicating factor is that multi -family
residential development is also allowed in the mixed use zones such as the downtown commercial area, Highway 99, etc.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to add "mixed -use" as another category on the pie chart. Mr. Chave
agreed that would be a better description since all of the commercial zones allow for mixed -use development, with the
exception of Harbor Square. He agreed to come up with some clearer terminology as part of the draft update.
Board Member Ellis asked why the RS-12 and RS-20 zones are called "single family resource." Mr. Chave explained that
these larger zones are unique and tied to the presence of critical areas, steep slopes, and other constraints on why they cannot
be smaller lots. This was done during the period of time when the Growth Hearings Board put out a rule that urban
residential zones must allow at least four units per acre. The distinction of single-family resource is tied to resource
protection and was added to the Comprehensive Plan to justify the need to maintain the larger lots. The rule has since been
struck down by courts, so the single-family resource category is arguably less important.
Board Member Stewart inquired about the best way for her to submit her minor changes to the Land Use Element. Chair
Cloutier suggested that the minor changes could be submitted to staff via email for inclusion in the draft that is presented for
Commission review and discussion on November 12'h. However, he encouraged the Commissioners to raise their more
significant concerns and comments now. Mr. Chave requested feedback as to whether the figures and tables provided in the
current draft are helpful and if there are additional items the Commission would like added. Chair Cloutier summarized that
the Board appreciates the graphics provided in the Land Use Element, but they would like staff to make sure that clear
definitions are provided for the terminology. They agreed that consistent terminology should be used throughout the
element.
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 7
Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that a section would be added at the end of the Land Use Element to identify an
implementation action and performance measure. He suggested it might be helpful to identify these two elements first and
then create graphs and charts that are consistent. For example, if they are looking to increase percentage of land in the City
that is available for multi -family residential development, this should be called out in all of the graphs and charts.
Vice Chair Tibbott referred to the third paragraph on Page 49, which states that the largest, single factor affecting the
downtown waterfront area is the timing and construction of the Edmonds Crossing Project. He questioned whether including
this statement might lead developers and/or City leaders to think they cannot get anything done until this questions has been
settled. Mr. Chave agreed they need to be careful how this language is phrased, recognizing that the City cannot unilaterally
say that the project will never happen. They need to be mindful of it as a possibility, but reflect it in its proper place.
H -1 Bit I Bilkwe] all WA Y 01►111 0117Te10I0 17.1
Mr. Chave advised that the Comprehensive Plan Update schedule is currently in fluctuation, given the Council's recent
decision to hold a public hearing on each of the elements. Staff will present a revised schedule at the November 12th meeting,
at which time the Board will continue its review of the Land Use Element and Housing Element. Also on November 12th, the
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director is scheduled to provide a quarterly report.
Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council would conduct their public hearings on each of the Comprehensive Plan
elements before, during or after the Board's work. Mr. Chave answered that after the Board has reviewed and created a draft
update of an element, it will be presented to the City Council, as well. The City Council would like to have a public hearing
before there is extensive discussion on each of the elements. Board Member Lovell pointed out that this change will make it
difficult for the City to meet its target for completing the Comprehensive Plan update in 2015.
19WR: I►II►Lei :117.1;71Z41I/1IW' 4113uIuIofeII[:
Chair Cloutier welcomed Mike Nelson as the newest member of the Planning Board. He also thanked the Board Members
for their positive approach to moving the Comprehensive Plan elements forward.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
At the request of the Board, Board Member Nelson shared some of his background, noting that he is originally from
California, but moved to Edmonds four years ago with his family. He initially became interested in planning when he
received a letter from the City's Planning Division asking him to share his opinions regarding the location of a sidewalk in
his neighborhood. He talked with members of the Planning Board and became interested in becoming a part of the group.
Board Member Stewart announced that the Edmonds Marsh and Shoreline Salmon Recovery Tour on October 41h was well
attended, with representatives from a number of groups, including the Planning Board, City Council, Sustainable Edmonds
and Staff. Several students from Edmonds Woodway High School were also present. The entire tour was recorded and can
be viewed via myedmondsnews.com. She said she was very pleased with the outcome.
Board Member Stewart reported that she is spearheading an Edmonds Woodway High School group called Students Saving
Salmon. She briefly reviewed some of the activities and projects the students have been involved in, as well as those that are
currently being planned. She said she offered participants in her group an opportunity to become student representatives on
the Planning Board, and a few have submitted applications. She invited Board Members to assist her in interviewing and
selecting a student to fill this position. She hopes to have the student representative in place by the first meeting in
November. Board Member Rubenkonig and Chair Cloutier agreed to provide assistance.
Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the October 15th meeting of the Citizens Economic Development
Commission (CEDC) where Dave Jaffe, CEO of Edmonds Swedish Hospital spent nearly an hour discussing the new
addition that is currently underway at the hospital. Board Member Lovell shared highlights of the project, and noted that the
intent is to complete the project by February 2016. The remainder of the CEDC meeting was spent talking about the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). They specifically focused on the concept of providing a
public restroom facility in the downtown retail district. He reminded the Board that their recommendation to the Council
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 8
regarding the CIP and CFP also included a request that the City Council consider funding for a restroom facility. A private
citizen made this request at the last City Council meeting, as well.
Board Member Rubenkonig requested technical assistance from City Staff regarding access to her City email account. Mr.
Chave indicated she should contact Ms. Cunningham for assistance.
Board Member Ellis announced that Friends of the Edmonds Library will hold its annual donated book sale on October 24`h
and 25`h. This is a wonderful opportunity to get reading material for the winter, and he encouraged Board Members to attend
the event.
Board Member Robles said he recently had an opportunity to work with the Building Department and the City's public
records. It was a very pleasant experience that was well in line with what Ms. Hope had presented to the Board the week
prior. He commended City staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 9
AI-7267
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 11/12/2014
Public Hearing on consolidating animal regulations in Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code.
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
6. a.
Public Hearing on Amending Chapter 17.35 of the Edmonds Community Development Code to remove
requirements about the keeping of domesticated animals from that chapter and consolidating them with Chapter
5.05, Animal Control, of the Edmonds City Code.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council for final approval (Attachment 1).
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
To better coordinate and consolidate the regulations regarding animals, a draft ordinance has been prepared which
will move portions of the zoning code that reference animals into Chapter 5.05 of the City Code. This will
consolidate all animal regulations in a single place, which will help in the understanding, interpretation, and
enforcement of the regulations. The development of the draft ordinance has been coordinated with the Police
Department, which includes an animal control program.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Draft ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE
CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO
CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS
DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05,
TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION
5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) regards animal control; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.30.130(A) of the Edmonds City Code regards public disturbance
noises made by animals; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16.20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards
Single Family Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards
Multiple Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.35 of the Edmonds City Code regards animals in the context of
general zoning regulations, including the keeping of animals in residential zones; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that all Edmonds City Code sections
regarding animals must be consolidated into one chapter, and has determined to repeal and
recodify chapters to integrate all animal control provisions into Chapter 5.05; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined to repeal Section 5.30.130(A) of the
Edmonds City Code and amend the animal noise provision of Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds
City Code to consolidate these chapters most efficiently; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds
City Code requires further specificity about what constitutes animal noises that can disturb
neighbors to an unreasonable degree; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the penalties for violations of
Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code should be assessed in a tiered system, allowing for
both civil infractions and criminal misdemeanors for repeated violations;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 5.30.130 of the ECC, entitled "Public disturbance noises," is
hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
5.30.130 Public disturbance noises.
It is unlawful for any person knowingly to cause or make, or for any person in possession
of property knowingly to allow to originate from the property, unreasonable noise which disturbs
another, and to refuse or intentionally fail to cease the unreasonable noise when ordered to do so
by a police officer. Public disturbance noises shall include, but shall not be limited to, the
following sounds or combinations of sounds:
HA. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any horn or siren
attached to a motor vehicle except such sounds that are made to warn of danger or that are
specifically permitted or required by law.
EB. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made in connection with the
starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, race vehicle,
off -highway vehicle or internal combustion engine.
-PC. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the use of
a musical instrument or instruments or other device capable of producing sound when struck by
an object, of a whistle, or of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing, amplifying
or reproducing sounds.
ED. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the
unamplified human voice or voices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
FE. Sounds made for any duration or frequency from the starting and/or running of the
engine of a race vehicle.
Section 2. Section 17.35.030 of the ECC, entitled "Keeping of domesticated animals
in residential zones," is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in s4ile thr-etigh):
17n-35.030 5.05.015 Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones.
For each residential dwelling unit, regardless of the number of occupants residing within
each dwelling unit, the following maximum number of domestic animals may be kept or owned
within the dwelling unit upon the lot or premises associated with such dwelling unit:
A. Household pets in numbers normally and commonly associated with the primary
residential use of the dwelling unit. "Household pets" are animals commonly or normally kept or
owned in association with a residential dwelling unit and which are generally kept or housed
within the interior of the dwelling unit, including such animals as hamsters, mice, gerbils, guinea
pigs, nonvenomous snakes, parakeets, canaries, finches, other songbirds, small nonvenomous
reptiles and amphibians, and fish;
B. Five or fewer domestic animals;
C. One unweaned litter produced by any domestic animal permitted to be kept by this
chapter; provided, that the total number of domestic animals kept shall not exceed that number
provided in subsection B of this section more than 180 days following the birth of the litter;
1. UZI I I I
JIM
. �00101`
Section 3. Section 5.05.115 of the ECC, entitled "Nuisances defined," is hereby
amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ke-
5.05.115 Nuisances defined.
A. All violations of this ehapteP-section are detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare and are declared to be public nuisances.
alleys;
B. Nuisances are hereby defined to include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Any animal which chases, runs after or jumps at vehicles using public streets and
2. Any animal which habitually snaps, growls, snarls, jumps upon or otherwise threatens
persons lawfully using the public sidewalks, streets, alleys or other public ways;
3. Any animal which has exhibited vicious propensities and which constitutes a danger to
the safety of persons or property off his premises or lawfully on his premises;
4. A vicious animal or animal with vicious propensities which runs at large at any time,
or such an animal off the owner's premises not securely leashed on a line or confined and in the
control of a person of suitable age and discretion to control or restrain such animal;
5. Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks or makes any noises in such a manner
as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, taken to be continuous noise
for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty 20)
or more minutes in one (1) hour, except that such sounds made indoors in animal shelters or in
commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt;
6. Animals kept, harbored or maintained and known to have a contagious disease, unless
under the treatment of a licensed veterinarian;
7. Animals running in packs;
8. Any dog running at large within the city;
9. A female animal, whether licensed or not, while in season, accessible to other animals
for purposes other than controlled and planned breeding;
10. Any animal which causes damage to property other than the property of the animal's
owner or person having physical charge and control of the animal; or
11. Any animal maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter.
C. All nuisances under this ehapter-section shall be abated as provided in this chapter. In
addition, any owner or person having charge of any animal who fails to abate such nuisance shall
���i�.�ii•o�7��ii.R.ei. W;.Oia:.ii�:
subject to the followings penalties:
1. Anyperson violating any provision of this section shall be "ilty of a civil infraction,
which shall be punishable by a fine of $100.
2. Any person committing a second violation of aU provision of this chapter within one
calendar year shall be �Yuiljy of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250.
3. Any person committing a third violation of anyprovision of this chapter within one
calendar year shall be ug_ilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a
fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail.
Section 4. Section 17.35.040 of the ECC, entitled "Keeping of poultry and covered
animals in residential zones," is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is
shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strip):
17T-35.040 5.05.130.1 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones.
A. The keeping of poultry or covered animals within a residential dwelling unit, or upon
the premises connected therewith, shall be prohibited except as provided herein an
EGG 5.050 5(D) in this chapter.
B. Up to three domestic female chickens may be kept on a lots or premises associated
with a single-family residential dwelling unit. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an
accessory structure and subject to all requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling
unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens
that may be kept on a single-family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more
than one lot).
BC. Covered animals are permitted to be kept on residential property zoned for single-
family use (R zones) so long as they meet the requirements of ECC 5.05.130.
I�
II II, I 11II I'
�
II�I�
MY
-
I �DI
I 1 1. 1 1
1 1111,
1 I I I I I
"'M
MMMI
•
. ... ..........
I'
11
■_
11 i 11
lid
Section 6. Repealer. The following are hereby repealed:
A. Section 17.35.010 of the ECC, entitled "Purpose."
B. Section 17.35.020 of the ECC, entitled "Definitions."
Section 7. Section 16.20.010 of the ECDC, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to
read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thfo •g ):
4 6.20.04 0 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Single-family dwelling units;
2. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020;
3. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through
(R);
4. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital
improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
5. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an
adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Foster homes;
2. Home occupation, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC;
3. The renting of rooms without separate kitchens to one or more persons;
animals;
;
64. The following accessory buildings:
a. Fallout shelters,
b. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site,
c. Private stables,
d. Private parking for no more than five cars,
e. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities;
-75. Private residential docks or piers;
96. Family day-care in a residential home;
97. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in
conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally
permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase
the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject
the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in
subsection (D)(5) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located
upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075.
4-98. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(1).
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
2. Local public facilities that are not planned, designated, and sited in the capital
improvement plan, subject to ECDC 17.100.050;
3. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Preschools;
2. Guest house;
3. Amateur radio transmitting antennas;
4. Accessory dwelling units; and
5. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in
conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally
permitted in this zone.
6. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(2).
Section 8. Section 16.30.010 of the ECDC, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to
read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thr-etigh):
16.30.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Multiple dwellings;
2. Single-family dwellings;
3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities;
4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group
homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and
group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential
zone of the city;
5. Boarding houses and rooming houses;
6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 20.25 ECDC;
7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020;
8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through
(R);
9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital
improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an
adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-
family dwelling;
2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC;
43. The following accessory uses:
a. Private parking,
b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities,
c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in
total;
-54. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in
conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally
permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase
the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject
the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in
subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located
upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075.
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Offices, other than local public facilities;
2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital
improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children;
4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living
facilities;
5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033;
6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and
drug abusers;
7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate,
nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted
structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof;
2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in
conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally
permitted in this zone.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take
effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
IM
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE
CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO
CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS
DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER
5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION
OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE
SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
13
AI-7273
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 11/12/2014
Recommendation of Draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Staff Lead/Author: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Department:
Initiated By:
Planning
City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Recommendation of Draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Staff Recommendation
Forward to the City Council for review.
The Board will hold a public hearing at a later date on all of the 2015 comprehensive plan amendments.
Previous Board Action
The Board reviewed the Housing Element on September 10 and 24, 2014, and on October 22, 2014.
Narrative
7. a.
Attached are the current drafts of the proposed 2015 revisions to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan (one "clean" version and the second showing edits from the current adopted Housing Element).
There are some changes from the last version reviewed by the Board, such as:
-- Further updates of the background data.
-- Updated material on housing needs.
-- Updates in some terminology (such as replacing references to "elderly" with "senior" housing).
-- Some attempts to include broader housing issues, "healthy living," in the discussion.
-- Deleted the section on the County's "Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy," which is out of date and not
usable in its current form. The Edmonds -specific section on "Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing" is of
course retained.
-- We should have an actual number of housing units per year for the performance measure; we will have this at the
Planning Board meeting.
Please review the minutes from the October 22nd meeting along with the current draft(s) in preparation for this
discussion.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Draft Housina Element - clean version
Attachment 2: Draft Housing Element - showing edits
Housing Element
Introduction
This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds. Part of this
process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide the
necessary information to anticipate housing needs.
General Background
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), an estimated 18,378 housing units were
within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5% in the city's housing stock
since 2000, when there were 17,508 dwelling units (2000 Census). In comparison, over the period
1990 — 2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2%, or approximately 3.5% per year. This increase can
largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the south and southwest portions of
the city. Table 8 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds.
Table 8
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing Increase
Percentage
Average
Units
Increase
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980
10,702
1990
12,945 2,243
21.0%
1.9%
2000
17,508 4,563
35.2%
3.1%
2010
18,378 870
5.0%
0.5%
Growth Target: 2035
21,168 2,790
15.2%
0.6%
Source: US Census; OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.6%) were single-family units, 6,664 (36.3%) were
multi -family units, and 29 (0.2%) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared to Snohomish County as
a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively)
and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi -family homes
(36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively).
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main
Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle
metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County.
Housing
Figure 14: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County
50ofo
40%
30%
20%
10ofo
0% . I
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or
Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
At the time of the 2010 Census, the total number of occupied homes in the City of Edmonds was
17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the
persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household
size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish County
Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that
will be in demand (fig. 15). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of
Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years,
compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3
years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds
residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category (fig. 16). A natural increase in
population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These
trends are consistent with national trends.
Housing 2
Figure 15: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
90 +
85 - 89
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65-69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40-44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
2,00(
Male I I �I Female
1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
■ 2010 2000
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Figure 16: Population Growth, Children 14 Years of Age and Younger
15.0%
0
N
10.0%
0
r
c
5.0%
N
0LA
E
0.0%
O
L
v
-5.0%
ao
s -10.0%
v
-15.0%
U
L
a -20.0%
-
Ages 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
LAEdmonds N Snohomish ■ Washington State
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Housing 3
Household income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 2000 household income in Edmonds was $53,552, nearly
equivalent to the county's median level of $53,060 for the same period. By the 2010 Census,
Edmonds' median household income had increased to $73,072, nearly 7% higher than the County
median income of $68,338 (Edmonds was 36.5% higher). This is in contrast to per capita income,
which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($43,598 vs. $31,310,
respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1% of the housing units within the city were
owner -occupied and 31.9% were renter -occupied. This represented an increase in owner -occupancy
from the 65.3% reported in the 1990 Census. By 2010, this trend had reversed, with 65.3% of the
City's housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for
Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly higher in 2010, at
67%.
Housing Values: According to the 2012 ACS 3 year data, the median value of owner -occupied
housing had increased to $394,400 in Edmonds and $311,600 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds
approximately 26.6% higher than the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing values
vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront,
while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this
document uses the median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA)
instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI will be
used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -
Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than Snohomish County's 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012
median household income for Edmonds is $73,072.
AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
oo Extremely low income: <30% AMI
oo Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI
oo Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI
oo Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
oo Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
Figure 17 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect
to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units.
Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the
home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on
average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an
annual income of $67,160.
Housing 4
Fig.17: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$
33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$
35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$
43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$
67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$
101,800
$
1,947
$
4,347
5 Bedroom
1 $
2,844
$
54.69
$
113,760
$
2,276
1 $
3,771
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Figure 18 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle -
Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA
AMI.
Figure 18: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level
Studio
1
2
3
4+
Extremely Low
No
No
No 1F
No
No
Very Low
Limited
limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes w
Limited
Middle
U&
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of
interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would
require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.
Figure 19 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Housing 5
Figure 19: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Housing Needs:
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035. This translates to
an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County
indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily
properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs,
such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living.
Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds' housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in figure 21 is based on
household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds
will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets.
Figure 21: Projected Housing Need, City of Edmonds
Under 30%
30-50% AM
Total Housing
50-80% AM
Jurisdiction
Unit Growth
AMI Housing
Housing
HousingNeed
Need (11% of
Need (11% of
Need
(17% of otal)
Total)
Total)
Edmonds
2,790
307
307
474
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County," 2014
Housing
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County
at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide (2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation
started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest growing age
group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to "age in
place." In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable
communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their
independence.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled
by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care
living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage
strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated
approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and
vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and
visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public
and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of
historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient
sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are
supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and
affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion
of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family
housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations,
including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting;
implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below).
Housing
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
oo Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square
foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per
acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multifamily development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit
(e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor).
oo Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
oo Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
oo Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
oo Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
oo Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established an historic preservation program
intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially
in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the
Downtown Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses
move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An
example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an
exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
oo Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
Housing 8
timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days,
less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform
act.
oo Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing
process.
oo Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of
financing.
Development Standards
oo Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
oo Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
oo Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' policy. Street
standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies
whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city's codes is underway.
oo Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
oo Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multifamily development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit.
oo Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low -Cost Housing Types
oo Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
Housing 9
oo Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in in the Hospital/Highway
99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
oo Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
oo Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
oo Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium
of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county.
oo For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
oo State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current
affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new
development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own.
However, it is hoped that Edmonds' participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such
as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
Housing 10
GOALS AND POLICIES
Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the
community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability, or economic circumstances.
Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions
pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations — such as low income, disabled or senior
residents — to have a decent home in a suitable living environment, including through the
following policies:
C.1 Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special
needs populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents.
C.2 Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
C.2.a Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
C.2.c Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special
needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all
forms of individual and group housing within the community.
Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and
rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies:
D.1 Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with
low income or senior householders.
D.2 Enforce building codes, as appropriate to conserve healthy neighborhoods and
encourage rehabilitation of housing that show signs of deterioration.
D.3 Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
DA Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized„ if need be) for special
needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents, through the
following policies:
E.1 Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low
income, and other special needs populations, while also recognizing that units
should blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area
and create pride for inhabitants.
E.2 Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
Housing 11
Housing Goal F: Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the
community.
F.1 Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F. L a Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is
targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in
the land use element.
F.2 Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
F2.a Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
F2. b Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address
the needs of extended families and encourage housing affordability.
F3.c Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as
non -conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
Housing Goal G: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers' consistent with the land
use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.1 Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers'
economic activities and transit service.
G. L a Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G.Lb Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.1. c Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers
to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available
transit service.
Housing Goal H: Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that
they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of
housing.
H.1 Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government
permitting processes.
'Activity Centers are defined in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Housing 12
H. La Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and
efficiency, including such ideas as:
-establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
-implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre -application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2 Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of
government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they
are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new
challenges.
Housing Goal I: Increase affordable housing opportunities in coordination with programs that
seek to achieve other community goals as well.
I.1 Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
I.2 Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated
with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
Housing Goal J: Recognize that,in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an
important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with
its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1 Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
J La Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the
character of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J Lb Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures.
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress
toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified
here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or
measures that may be used by the City.
Housing 13
Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of
reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year.
Housing 14
Housing Element
Introduction
This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds. Part of this
process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide the
necessary information to anticipate housingneeds.
eeds.
General Background
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), an estimated 18,378 housing units were
within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5% in the city's housing.. stoc
since 2000, when there were 17,508 dwelling. u�2000 Census). In comparison, over the period
1990 — 2000, the city's housingstock 35.2%, or approximately 3.5% per year. This increase can
largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the south and southwest portions of
the city. Table 8 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds.
Table 8
City
of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing Increase
Percentage
Average
Units
Increase
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980
10,702
1990
12,945 2,243
21.0%
1.9%
2000
17,508 4,563
35.2%
3.1%
2010
18,378 870
5.0%
0.5%
Growth Target: 2035
21,168 2,790
15.2%
0.6%
Source: US Census: OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow
•PORI
Ely,
• _
1 ,
••.
••�
•.
Nil 11 ON •••
MR.••� ••�
•
••A to
Housing
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.6%) were single-family units, 6,664 (36.3%) were
multi -family units, and 29 (0.2%) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared to Snohomish Coun , as
a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively)
and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi -family homes
Table v
City of Edmonds Housing GFOWth
F4ettsing lease image Average
units lnerease Aafmal
hqerease
4#W 10,702
4#W 12,945 2,243 2'% 4
2000 47,508 4�3 35 2% 3-�
2025 2n� 3�9 4''� 877%
(36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively).
Much of the existinghousing ousing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main
Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle
metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County_
Housing 2
Figure 145: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish
County
5Mo —
40%
30%
20%
1T10
0% •,
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or
Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
At the time of the 2010 Census. the total number of occupied homes in the Citv of Edmonds was
17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the
persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household
size within the citv is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish Countv
Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insightplannin housing ousing hypes that
will be in demand (fig. 15). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of
Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years,
compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3
years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds
residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category(fig. 16). A natural increase in
population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These
trends are consistent with national trends.
• • •WMMIII
W.e:W11 :e:�:�r.
IS_
• ••.
••�
...
... INffil
_
Housing
0.
•Oil
...
i
�i
Figure 15-5: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
90 +
85 - 89 Mae Female
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65-69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40-44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
■ 2010 2000
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Housing 4
Figure 166: Population Growth, Children T T�14 Years of Age and Younger
Source: US Census Bureau. 2000 and 2010
Household income: In ,general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 2000 household income in Edmonds was $53,552, nearly
equivalent to the county's median level of $53,060 for the same period. By the 2010 Census,
Edmonds' median household income had increased to $73,072, nearly 7% higher than the County
median income of $68,338 (Edmonds was 36.5% higher). This is in contrast to per capita income,
which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish Coun1y_($43,598 vs. $31,310,
respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household sizes.
i_I
Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 2000 Census, 6543 8.1-pereent% of the housing units
within the city were owner -occupied and 3-2-431.9 per-ee4were% were renter -occupied. This
represented an decline -increase in owner -occupancy from the 6-7-.4 65.3per-eent % reported in the
1980 1990 Census. By 2GGQ010, this trend had reversed, with 68465.3-pereent-W o of the City's
housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for
Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly higher in
49W2010, at 66-670/opefeen4. I Iit i Edmonds, , er-sh p pattems vai=y sigaifieat4ly between
1990, e a with vojust ever- 50 p0 0 f4 east of lfigl,..,a, nn Irn„
Housing Values: According to the the 1990 rocs„s housing values , o eensider-ably higher- i the
City ef Edmends than in Snohomish Gounty as a whole. In 1990, the median vaitte of owner -
Housing
w,o,a:.,,, of e, 7,200. u., 20002012 ACS 3 year data, the median value of owner -occupied housing
had increased to $ 00$394,400 in Edmonds and $196,,500$311,600 in Snohomish County, with
Edmonds approximately -226.6% peFee*t-higher than the countywide median. I[A2]Within Edmonds,
median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods;- the highest valued homes are
found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east
of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability:
whie-h is dir-eeted tewar-d developing a* adequate a -ad affer-dp le supply of housing for- all eeefiemie
segments of the population. The Aet establishes an affer-dable hettsing advisory beaf-d tha4, togethef
with the State Depaftment of Gomn:mnity Trade and Eeeaemie DevelepffleR4 (DGT-ED), is require
prepare a five year- housing advisory plan. The plan must doeument the need for- affordable housin
in !he sia4e; iden�ify Oie extent to whieh the needs afe being met dffettgh publie a -Ed private programs-,
faeifita4e develepmet4 ef plans to meet aff-erdable housing needs; and develop strategies an
aeeesser-y tmits in r-esidefitial zones. The Aet also r-equir-es that eemffmaities treat speeial needs
populations in the same manner- as othef households living in single family units. Edmonds has
tipdated its development regulations to comply with both of these For the purposes of
calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this document uses the median income for the
Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) instead of the Snohomish County Area
Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI will be used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of
Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than
Snohomish County's 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012 median household income for Edmonds is
$73,072.
AMI is an important calculation used by agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
oo Extremely low income: <30% AMI
oo Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI
oo Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI
oo Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
oo Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
Figureprovides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect
to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units.
Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the
Housing
home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on
average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an
annual income of $67.160.
Fig 17-7: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$
33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$
35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$
43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$
67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$
101,800
$
1,947
$
4,347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
1 $
54.69
$
113,760
1 $
2,276
$
3,771
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Figure 189 shows the distribution of rent affordabilitv at different income levels using the Seattle -
Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for Dersons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA
AMI.
Figure 189: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level
Studio
1
2
3
4+
Extremely Low
No
No
No
No
No
Very Low
Limited
limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Middle
Yes&
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012. 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using age rates of
interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the
monthly pUment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would
require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.
Housing
Figure 19-9 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has change
between 2008 and 2012.
Figure 199: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
100%
90%
80%
70 %
60%
50%
40 %
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
■_ ■_
■ON
IMM.—
■
ORION—
u
■
w.w
ft7; .. g`
1)-Pr-evide deeepl*mine
Ge assisting homeless per -sons to obtain affordable hettsing;
Ge increasing the avaiiability of permanent housing that is affordable and availabl-e
with tit disefimination; an
2 ide a suitable livi ors 1,,, ing
�'
Ge improving the safety and livabili., of neighbor -hoods;
Housing
tn
oppet4ttaities and 0 fig0
afeliteet ,ral, ofiesthetie reasons; an
'Ile
........ . .....
� Mj
W_w
Housing
99 SuppeA pr-egfams thM pr-evide for- the well being of you4h by providing set=viees sue
as 0 fnafiag0 0 ng,ear-0 and 0
Housing Needs:
Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035. This translates to
an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County
indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily
properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the Citv of Edmonds does not construct housine itself. the housine targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing. needs,
such as ad
justin zoning oning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housingthrough hrough progressive building codes and programs for health, ling_.
Forecastine future housine needs for specific populations and income ranees is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds' housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in figure 21 is based on
household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds
will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets.
Housing 10
Figure 21: Projected Housing Need, City of Edmonds
Jurisdiction
Total Housing
Under 30%
AMI Housing
Need (11% of
Total)
30-50% AM
50-80%AMI
Housing Need
Housing
Need (11% of
Unit Growth
Need
(17% of Total)
Total
Edmonds
2,790
307
307
474
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County," 2014
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish Court
at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation
started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest rowing age
groLip over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to "age in
place." In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developinghy, walkable
communities with nearbv retail and transit options will help an aeiniz population retain their
independence.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, e'�senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than
doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted
care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals a -ad pekt-iesand policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan
encourage availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for
necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities; ;reservation of light
(including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and
freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age
groups. Land Use policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that
achieve a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals;
and encourage a more active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents,
downtown commercial activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and
maintenance of significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and
maintenance and preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage
identification and reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for special needs populations, such as e'�senior, disabled and low-income households. These
goals are supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing
Housing 11
costs and affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging
expansion of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-
family housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development
regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating
permitting; implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication
hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below).
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
oo Upzoning. The City l�upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+
square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling
units per acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multifamily development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit
(e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor^
a+alfi fiamily zening in designated eon4dor- afeas to pr-a-,4de more housing units 4 r-edueed
^st to ,
oo Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
oo Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
oo Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also Abe used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
oo Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
Housing 12
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
oo Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established an historic preservation
program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings,
especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and
regulations for the Downtown Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that
can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or
mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic
character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
oo Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing some an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 2011 was 39
36 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory
Reform act.
oo Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
wallowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing
Examiner hearing process.
oo Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of
financing.
Development Standards
oo Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
oo Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
oo Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' policy.Street
standards are reviewed and updated on a eensistent basi periodically, taking advantage of
new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city's
codes is underway.
Housing 13
oo Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
oo Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multifamily development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducinghusing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit. The City also simplified and stFe ,. liftea *�
paf-king r-equir-emen4s for- the deva4ev�% mixed use area, ther-eb!" housing
Zn
oo Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low -Cost Housing Types
oo Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
oo Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in ar b�� rnr
„min the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
oo Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
oo Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housine Affordabilitv (AHA) in Snohomish Countv. which is a consortium
of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county.
oo For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to
Housing 14
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housingstrategies trategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
oo State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Jurisdictions face challen eg s in There will be 494e+' meeting affordability goals or significantly
reducing the current affordable housing deficit. The&yEdmonds is a mature communi , with
limited opportunities for new development ne^rly is ao.,��and has limited powers and
resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, it is hoped that Edmonds'
participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable
Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
these impaets.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Housing Goal A. Housing 1 P xser-if inatien cmdFair Housing Goal 1. There hould
beEncourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community
regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability, or economic circumstances.
Housing Goal B. Housing 1 Diserimia4ieri and Fair- Housing Goal 2. Insure Ensure
that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public
accommodation and fair housin-. in accor-da-mee with the following pelie�-
G-. Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations — such as low
Ineemeincome, Eelde -ly and Ddisabled or senior residents — Housing. -Ato have a decent home in
a suitable living environment, includingthrough for- each household in accord anee wi he
following policies:
C.1 Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special
needs populations, such as the -low income, e'ae�disabled, or senior
residentseitizens.
C.2 The City shotild work Work with the Alliance for
Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
C.2.a Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
Housing 15
C.2.c Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special
needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all
forms of individual and group housing within the community.
D-. Housing Goal D. Housing lll Housing Rehabilita-ti-en. Maintain a valuable housing
resource by encouraging Prese vepreservation and row rehabilitation of *he-steek-arthe
older housingstock in the community eraer to maititainavaluable''�
rthrough the following policies:
D.1 Support programs that offers assistance
. low eost f home .r tea r e Ir A 3]seFviee to households in need, such as
to -units with low income; or senior e'�householders or- han ;,..,ppe per -sons.
D.2 Enforce building codes, as appropriate
utilize to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of those
housing that show signs of deterioration.
D.3 Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
DA Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized,, if need be)
for eldeA special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, aad-low income, and senior
residents, through the following
policies:
E.1 The City shouk Aggressively pur-sue-support efforts to funds to -the construction
of housing for eldeA Fseniors, disabled income, and other special needs
populations, while also recognizing that- uUnits should blend into the
neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create pride for
inhabitants. ,
E.2 Aim for city zoning regulations shoul to expand, not limit, housing
opportunities for all special needs populations.
Hog9p Goal F: Provide for a variety of housing for h" t I[A4iofthe—that is-eensisten
and h0 fnpat�[A5]-*ithrespects the established character of the community.
F.1 Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F. La Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is
targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in
the land use element.
F.2 Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Housing 16
F.2.a Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
F.2.b Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods Ito
addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing
affordability.
F.3. c Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as
non -conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
Housin& Goal G: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers' consistent with the land
use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.1 Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers'
economic activities and transit service.
G. La Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G.Lb Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.1. c Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers
to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available
transit service.
Housin& Goal H: Gove,...m ent shotA r-Review and monitory permitting processes and
regulatorystfue systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the
extent possible, adding to the cost of housing.
H.1 Provide the maximum amount of ^ [A6]efficiency and predictability in
government permitting processes.
H. La Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve Mis
objee predictability and efficiency, including such ideas as:
..establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
_implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre -application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2 Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a Monitoring programs should review the types and
effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess
whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted
to meet new challenges.
'Activity Centers are defined in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Housing 17
Housing Goal I: Increase n....,,,.f3—;1:;eS for- g the affordability 0r affordable housing
opportunities in coordination with
programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. l easing affordability shett
r-eseafehed a -ad programs developed thM address multiple Compr-ehensive Plan geals an
ebeetivesi[A7]
1.1 Research housiniz affordabili , and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
1.2 Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated
with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
Housing Goal J: Recognize tha�fAsl.4in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is
an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible
with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1 Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
J La Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the
character of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J 1. b Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures.
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress
toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified
here are specifically called out as being imnortant, but are not intended to be the onlv actions or
measures that may be used by the Ci
Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasingthe of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of
reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year.
Housing 18
AI-7275
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 11/12/2014
Continued discussion of Draft Comprehensive Plan General Introduction Section & Land Use Element
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Continued discussion of Draft Comprehensive Plan General Introduction Section & Land Use Element
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Previous Board Action
The Board previously reviewed the Land Use Element on October 22, 2014.
Narrative
7. b.
The intent of the update of the Land Use Element is to update planning data and improve the overall organization of
the element while not changing the general policy direction.
Staff has been working on assembling updated data for the Land Use Element. Some of the updated data can be
seen in Attachment 2. In addition, we have been looking at an updated organization for the Element; an outline of
how the 2015 version of the Land Use Element would be organized can be seen in Attachment 1. The
reorganization would re -order the information and provide a logical flow but would not change the policy direction.
For reference, the current Land Use Element is included as Attachment 3. Val Stewart provided suggestions and
they are included as Attachment 4.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Proposed land use element outline
Attachment 2: Examples of updated data
Attachment 3: Current adopted land use element
Attachment 4: Stewart comments 10.30.14
Proposed Outline of updated Land Use Element
Items in red are new or relocated sections, or in some cases just re -formatted material. For example,
while the Introduction is a new section, much of that text will be taken from other narrative text that
exists in the current Land Use Element. As another example, the various goals/policies are being re-
formatted to follow the system used in the Sustainability Element with the intent that all elements of
the Comprehensive Plan will ultimately formatted in a similar way.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Introduction (new)
Add brief historical look at Edmonds' land use pattern. To include general details
about community character, neighborhoods, housing profile, economy, and issues to
be addressed in the Land Use Element.
Land Use Map (name change from "Scope")
Land Use Concepts (new): Overview of fundamental goal of the Land Use Element
Plan Map Designations (table)
Reference to Plan Map
Land Capacity
Background
Current Capacity
Relationship to 2035 Population and Employment Targets
Activity Centers (name change from "Land Use Concepts")
Introduction (moved copy from current "Land Use Concepts" to introduction)
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center (changed to subsection and all mentions of
Downtown Waterfront area to Downtown/Waterfront area)
(Remove lettering format from all the subsections except for goals and policies)
Plan Context
Downtown Vision
Goals for Downtown/Waterfront Area
Transportation
Edmonds Crossing
Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy
Implementation Strategy
Short Term Actions
Long Term Actions
Downtown/Waterfront Plan Policies
(Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Downtown/Waterfront Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Downtown Waterfront Districts
Retail Core
Arts Center Corridor
Downtown Mixed Commercial
Downtown Mixed Residential
Downtown Master Plan
Shoreline Commercial
Master Plan Development
Downtown Convenience Commercial
Planned Residential -Office
Downtown Design Objectives (Moved from Land Use to Urban Design Element)
1. SITE DESIGN
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor (Changed to Subsection)
Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
(Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Medical/HWY 99 Activity Center Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goals for the Highway 99 Corridor
(Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Highway 99 Corridor Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Master Planned Development
A. Edmonds-Woodway High School, Stevens Hospital, City Park, Pine Ridge Park, Southwest
County Park, Edmonds Crossing
Residential Development
(Remove lettering format from all the subsections except for goals and policies)
Introduction
Goals: High Quality Residential (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Residential Development Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goal: Protect residential from incompatible land uses. (Change format to follow updated
Sustainability section)
Ex. Residential Development Goal B
81. Policy
82. Policy
Goal: Planned Residential Development (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Residential Development Goal C
Cl. Policy
C2. Policy
Goal: Multiple (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Residential Development Goal D
D1. Policy
D2. Policy
Commercial Land Use
(Remove lettering format from all the subsections except for goals and policies)
General.
Goals for Commercial Development. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Commercial Development Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goals for Community Commercial Area. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Community Commercial Area Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. (Change format to follow updated
Sustainability section)
Ex. Neighborhood Commercial Area Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Five Corners
Firdale Village
Goals for the Westgate Corridor. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Westgate Corridor Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goals for Edmonds Way Corridor. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Edmonds Way Corridor Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goals for Sexually Oriented Businesses. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Sexually Oriented Business Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Industrial Land Use
General.
Goal. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Industrial Land Use Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Open Space
General.
Goal: Open space as essential element. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Open Space Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goal: Preservation of open space. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Open Space Goal 8
81. Policy
82. Policy
Goal: Accessible waterfront. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Open Space Goal C
Cl. Policy
C2. Policy
Soils and Topography
General.
Goal. Future development must preserve natural site (Change format to follow updated
Sustainability section)
Ex. Soils and Topography Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goal. Future development must preserve natural site (Change format to follow updated
Sustainability section)
Grading and Filing.
Ex. Soils and Topography Goal e
81. Policy
82. Policy
Building Construction.
Ex. Soils and Topography Goal C
Cl. Policy
C2. Policy
Erosion Control.
Ex. Soils and Topography Goal D
D1. Policy
D2. Policy
Water Resources and Drainage Management
General.
Goal. Upgrade public storm drainage system. (Change format to follow updated
Sustainability section)
Ex. Water Resources and Drain Management Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Vegetation and Wildlife
General.
Goal: Preservation of woodlands, marshes, and other natural areas Goal. Upgrade public storm
drainage system. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Goal: Preservation of woodlands, marshes, and other natural areas Goal. Upgrade public storm
drainage system. (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal B
B1. Policy
B2. Policy
Air Pollution
General.
Goal. Protection of clean air (Change format to follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Air Pollution Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
Noise Pollution
General
Goal. Preserve quiet residential environment (Change format to follow updated Sustainability
section)
Ex. Noise Pollution Goal A
Al. Policy
Urban Growth Areas
General.
Goal. Plan for logical extension of services and development within UGA . (Change format to
follow updated Sustainability section)
Ex. Urban Growth Area Goal A
Al. Policy
A2. Policy
City of Edmonds UGA map
Table 5 City of Edmonds Land Supply (Gross Acres)
Land Use
Total Acres
Developed Acres Vacant Acres
Residential
Single -Family
3272.3
Multi -Family
181.0
Retirement/Special Needs
16.9
,
�
Business
Commercial
209.7
Industrial
32.2
Medical
40.8
\
O
�
Mixed Use
39.3
•
♦�
Public Facilities
ova
Government
14.0
Schools
171.5
Parks & Open Space
375.4
Religious
41.6
Streets/Parking/Driveways
1093.9
Utilities
13.8
Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, Nov-2014
Table 6 Development and Capacity of Vacant Land, 2014
Existing Development
Vacant Development
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Zoning
Employment
Units
Units
Units
IRS - Single Family Residential
RM - Multiple Residential
BD - Downtown Business
BN - Neighborhood Business
BC Community Business
��C_
BP - Planned Business
1\
CW - Commercial Waterfront
�0
CG - General Commercial
•N♦��
a
MU - Medical Use
MP - Master Planned Hillside Mixed -Use
OR - Office -Residential
Firdale Village Mixed -Use
Tota I
Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, Nov-2014
Figure
General Use Categories by Percent of City Land
Vacant Cammercigd Mni-Family
f'arks+RearealiorJ� q.0°� 8.89`a
u
Open Space 3 1% Schools
6.5% 1 r3-0
Wi Id Iifea+Critiaa I Areas
1.4%
I ndu 0-6% l
-696
FRtireme*Special
Needs 0-3%
Govemment 0.2%
EL
Utihlies 0.2%
Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, 2014
Figure
Edmonds Growth Targets v. Historical Growth
50
V 46
40
35
0
30
3
25
a
�
20
15
10
5
0
1940
1956 19fi0
1. 1.. 1 i I.. I - -
1970 1980 19W 2000 2010 2020
� Papu lalinn
—4—Grawth Targat
r
2025
2035-
Source: Census 2010, Buildable Lands Report 2012
Table 7
City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth
2000
2010
2035 (Plan Target)
Population
39,515
39,709
45,550
Nominal Change
8,771
194
5,841
% Change
28.50%
0.49%
14.71 %
Annual % Change
2.50%
0.05%
0.55%
Housing Units
17,508
18,378
21,168
Nominal Change
4,563
870
2,790
% Change
35.20%
4.97%
15.18%
Avg HH Size
2.32
2.26
2.2
Avg Persons/Unit
2.26
2.16
2.15
Gross Density 1
3.1
3.16
3.64
Source: Census 2010, Buildable Lands Report 2012
Land Use Element
Scope
Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows:
Plan Map Designation
Land Use Type
Compatible Zoning
Density
Classifications
Units/Acre
Activity Center
Mix of uses; refer to specific
See appropriate category below; also
plan designations within activity
refer to specific activity center
center
discussion in plan
Corridor Development
Mixed use development
See appropriate category below; also
corridor; refer to specific plan
refer to specific corridor discussion
designations within corridor
in plan
Designated Park or School Site
Public Facility
P-zone or appropriate R-zone
compatible with neighborhood.
Single Family, Resource
Single family
RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20
< 4
Single Family, Urban 3
RS-10
< 4.4
Single Family, Urban 2
RS-8
< 5.5
Single Family, Urban 1
RS-6, RS-8
5-8
Multi Family - High Density
Multi family
RM-1.5, RM-2.4
18-30
Multi Family — Medium Density
RM-2.4, RM-3.0
< 18
Mixed Use Commercial
Commercial
Mixed Use Commercial or mixture
of zones
Community Commercial
BC, BN, or equivalent
Neighborhood Commercial
BN or equivalent based on
neighborhood plan
Highway 99 Corridor
CG, CG2; transitional zones as
appropriate
Edmonds Way Corridor
BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial
zone; RM zones
Westgate Corridor (Planned
BP, BN
Business)
Hospital / Medical
Special Use District
Hospital or Medical zone
Master Plan Development
Master Plan
Master Plan Overlay or equivalent
classification
Public Use or Park/Open Space
Public or Parks
P, OS, or equivalent classification
34
Land
Use
Comprehensive Plan Map
(The adopted Comprehensive Plan Map is filed with the City Clerk. Copies can be obtained from
the Edmonds Planning Division, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, 425-771-0220.
A reduced version of the official map is contained in an envelope at the back of this book)
Land Use 35
Land Capacity
Background
The City was required to estimate the ability of land within the City of Edmonds to accommodate
targeted population and employment growth under each of the land use alternatives considered at the
time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995.
Table 5 summarizes available data on land supply in Edmonds as it existed in 1994. Data on
residential and commercial development in 1994 are shown in Table 6.
Table 5
City of Edmonds Land Supply — 1994
(Gross Acres)
Total
Developed
Vacant
Land Use
Acres
Acres
Acres
Residential
Single -Family
2,773.7
2,608.8
164.9
Multi -Family
202.0
193.5
8.5
Business
Commercial
296.9
284.7
12.2
Industrial
58.4
11.6
46.8
Public Facilities
Government
35.3
35.3
—
Schools
131.8
131.8
—
Parks & Open Space 349.2
349.2
—
Religious
29.0
29.0
—
Streets
867.0
867.0
—
Total
4,743.3
4,510.9
232.4
Source: City of Edmonds Planning Department, 1994
Overall, approximately 95 percent of the city was developed in 1994. Approximately 75 percent of
the remaining undeveloped land (approximately 173 acres) was designated for residential use: 71
percent for single-family residences and 4 percent for multi -family residences. The remaining 25
percent of undeveloped land was designated for commercial and industrial uses.
Capacity estimates were developed for vacant and under -developed parcels. In general, vacant land
included parcels that currently have no structures; residential parcels were considered under-
36 Land Use
developed if they contained less than 50 percent of the allowable density under existing zoning (for
example, a single-family house on a five -acre parcel that is zoned for four units per acre). The
analysis measured the build -out capacity of vacant and under -developed parcels.
As indicated in Table 6, when the city's first GMA-mandated comprehensive plan was adopted in
1995, development of currently vacant parcels was expected to provide capacity for approximately
762 additional residential units and an additional 1.35 million square feet of commercial space.
Table 6
Development and Capacity of Vacant Land — 1994
Existing Development
Vacant/Development Capacity
Residential Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Units Square Feet
Units
Square Feet
Downtown
1,571 943,206
17
506,996
HS Activity
1,914 1,158,633
232
656,407
Center
Highway 99
337 558,912
48
187,930
South
76th and 196th
545
39
RS-6
1,615
65
RS-8
3,659
73
RS-12
2,719
224
RSW-12
51
—
RS-20
362
64
Total
12,773 2,660,751
762
1,351,333
Source: City of Edmonds
Planning Department, 1994.
Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, capacity estimates were not calculated
strictly on the amount of vacant buildable land, but also on increased densities and intensity of
development within various areas of the city. Two methods of development were targeted to provide
additional residential capacity: accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and mixed use development.
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) were also targeted as a way of assuring maximum
buildout of single -family -zoned areas while
Following adoption of the 1995 comprehensive plan, the city embarked on an implementation
program to achieve the goals identified in the plan. Many of these implementation measures are
described in the Housing Element under the discussion of "reasonable measures." These measures
were taken by the city to address issues related to both capacity and affordable housing.
A key feature of Edmonds' comprehensive plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which
includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a
mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the
Land Use 37
second floor and offices, shops or other commercial uses on the ground floor. Edmonds is unique in
relying to a significant degree on mixed use development as a land use pattern designed to address
potential capacity. Mixed use development is allowed in both of the city's Activity Centers, and in
the Corridor development areas. In the 1995 comprehensive plan, mixed use development was to be
allowed under all the alternatives considered, but would only be encouraged under the adopted
"Designed Infill" alternative. The encouragement of mixed use development continues as a basic
assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan. The importance of mixed use in the city's
land use pattern can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 8
General Use Categories by % of City Land Area
Open Space
Master Plan 5.0% piihlir
eighborhood Commercial
0.4%
lanned-Neighborhood
0.2%
owntown Districts
1.2%
ommunity Commercial
0.4%
Edmonds Way Corridor
0.6%
Mixed Use Commercial
2.4%
Corridor Development
3.6%
Sing.-
40.5% v v4 Single Family Resource
21.1 %
Current Capacity
An updated county -wide capacity analysis was completed as part of the Buildable Lands Report for
Snohomish County, completed in November 2002. This analysis showed a population capacity for
Edmonds of 45,337 and an employment capacity of 12,041. These capacity figures
indicate that with an estimated 2004 population of 39,460, Edmonds can accommodate an additional
5,877 people and 1,887 jobs. However, the jobs capacity does not take into account any new
implementation actions proposed in the Highway 99 area.
Discussions of land capacity methodology generally acknowledge that an oversupply of land is
needed in growth management systems using urban/rural growth boundaries (DCD, 1992). Reasons
are generally related to operation of urban land markets, changes in availability over time, and a need
38 Land Use
to avoid constraining land supply and causing increases in land cost. The amount of the oversupply
needed is not known with certainty. Too little urban land relative to targeted needs could increase
land cost and housing prices and shift growth pressure to adjacent areas or jurisdictions.
In order to ensure adequate availability of urban land at all times, some growth management planning
systems have provided for a "safety factor" of land in addition to projected urban area land
requirements. Factors of 1.25 to 2.5 have been used in some growth management systems (Whatcom
County/Bellingham Planning Departments, 1993; Beaton, 1982; Department of Community
Development (DCD), 1992). For the 2002 capacity analysis, reduction factors were applied to
provide a "safety factor" for estimated future capacity. A 15% market availability reduction factor
was applied to vacant land, and at a 30% market availability reduction factor was used for partially -
used and redevelopable land. In addition, an additional 5% reduction was made for uncertainty
related to future infrastructure needs (roads, drainage facilities, etc.).
One adjustment to the capacity analysis completed in 2002 is necessary. Development plans for the
large master -planned multi family development (developed by Triad) at Point Edwards indicate that
nearly 300 dwelling units will be built there, adding approximately 80 dwelling units to the capacity
estimate at that location (the initial capacity estimate was for 220 units).
The specific studies undertaken by the city to update the plans for the Downtown Waterfront Activity
Center and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and related Highway 99 Corridor have been
targeted at clarifying and improving implementation rather than increasing capacity in those areas.
Relationship to 2025 Population and Employment Targets
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and
employment forecasts for the next 20 years within the Urban Growth Area. Snohomish County and
its cities have worked together with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to arrive at forecasts
that each city will use to accommodate its fair share of regional growth. The City of Edmonds' share
of regional growth by the year 2025 is 5,420 additional residents (approximately 3,079 residential
units). By 2025, total population is expected to reach 44,880 residents. A comparison of additional
population capacity and the 2025 population target is presented in Figure 8 and Table 6. The city is
able to consider a planning target within a range (shown as the "high" vs. "low" growth lines in
Figure 8). Based on historical trends, the "low" target appears to be the most reasonable for Edmonds
— particularly in light of the relatively high land values in the city. The land capacity analysis,
combined with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan, indicates that both the projected
targets for population and employment can be accommodated by the city through 2025.
The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to
maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure.
The land capacity analysis indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate forecasted
residential and employment growth under the Proposed Action and each of the land use alternatives.
Given the extent to which future land use policies, regulations, demographics and market forces
could affect land capacity estimates, however, it is important that development trends and remaining
land supply within the city is regularly monitored in order to ensure the continued supply of adequate
urban land throughout the 20-year GMA planning horizon. Implementation strategies should include
development of a long-term program to monitor the city's progress towards goals contained in the
Land Use 39
Comprehensive Plan. As part of the monitoring process, the city should work with the public,
environmental and business leaders, interest groups, cities and other agencies to develop detailed
monitoring criteria or "benchmarks" that could be used to measure progress and identify the need for
corrective action.
Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development.
For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if
successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures
that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs — at least on a
case -by -case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards;
density bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review
that lower financial development risks.
50,000
Figure 9
Edmonds Growth Targets vs. Historical Growth
Buildable Lands Capacity (45,207)
45,000
40,000
r
35,000
C
p
30,000
�
r
25,000
Q.
d
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2025`
Buildable Lands Capacity o Low Growth Target Historical Growth 4 High Growth Target
40 Land Use
Table 7
City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth
1990
2000 2025 (Plan Target)
Population
30,744
39,515
44,880
Nominal Change
3,065
8,771
5,365
% Change
11.1%
28.5%
13.6%
Annual % Change
1.1%
2.5%
0.5%
Housing Units
12,945
17,508
20,587
Nominal Change
2,243
4,563
3,079
% Change
21.0%
35.2%
17.6%
Avg HH Size
2.41
2.32
2.26
Avg Persons/Unit
2.37
2.26
2.18
Gross Density'
2.7
3.1
3.6
Net Density 2
4.9
5.4
6.3
1 Gross Density = number of households per gross acre of land, city-wide. Note that this includes non-residential
land, so the density per gross residential acre is significantly higher.
2 Net Density = number of households per net acre of land, after critical areas and rights -of -way are deducted.
Note that this is includes non-residential land, so the density per net residential acre is significantly higher.
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, and Edmonds Planning Division, 2004.
Land Use 41
Land Use Concepts
The VISION 2020 regional plan establishes a strategy for the Puget Sound region of central places
framed by open space and linked by efficient, high capacity transit. While the history and character
of development in Edmonds does not support its designation as one of these regional centers, the
concepts developed in VISION 2020 are supported in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The
approach proposed in Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers
based on the "Activity Clusters" described in VISION 2020:
"These central places are smaller than the subregional and metropolitan centers
and are not necessarily located on, or directly served by, the regional rapid transit
system. They are not designated to receive a major share of the region's employment
growth, although they will certainly continue to see some new employment and
residential development. Transit service will focus on connecting these places to the
regional rapid transit system and to the adjacent metropolitan or subregional
centers. In contrast with the subregional centers, the growth in employment in an
activity cluster is for services oriented to serving the local residential community. In
contrast with the small towns, activity clusters are part of the urban/suburban
landscape; they are not separated from other areas by open space, agricultural
lands or water. " [Vision 2020, October 1990, page 24]
Activity Centers in Edmonds are intended to address the following goals:
A. Provide a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial
activity.
B. Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and
residential opportunities, including both multi -family and small -lot single family
development.
C. Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes
with views, and the waterfront.
D. Encourage transit service and access.
E. Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and
coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals.
F. Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors.
G. Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring
a consistent and coherent character of development.
42 Land Use
H. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of
historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
A. Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and
these will have a profound impact on the future of the city's downtown waterfront area. Some of
these ongoing activities include:
• Transportation planning and the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which will move
the existing ferry terminal at the base of Main Street to a new multimodal transportation
center at Pt. Edwards.
• Continued development of the city's waterfront parks and walkways into an
interconnected necklace of public spaces.
• The South County Senior Center is undertaking strategic planning to look at its facilities,
programs, and services.
• Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in
the Port of Edmonds' plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art.
Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the
vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high
priority.
• Arts plans continue to be implemented throughout the downtown, including such
projects as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Artworks facility, and the continued
expansion of downtown festivals and events.
• Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through new
initiatives with the Edmonds Floral Conference Center and is working with the Edmonds
Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations.
B. Downtown Vision. Taken together, the goals and policies for the Downtown Waterfront Activity
Center present a vision for Edmonds downtown waterfront. By actively pursuing the ferry terminal's
relocation, the City has set upon an ambitious and exciting course. It is a course that holds promise
for the downtown waterfront, but it is one that will require concerted action by the entire community,
including local, state and federal public officials, business groups and citizens. While the challenges
presented in this effort are substantial, the possible rewards are even greater, for with its existing
physical assets, future opportunities and the energy of its citizens, Edmonds has the potential to
create one of the region's most attractive and vital city centers.
Components of the overall vision for the downtown waterfront area include:
• The Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center provides convenient
transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes
Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal
Land Use 43
reduces negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while still providing a link between the
terminal and downtown Edmonds. The project provides the community with varied
transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community.
• Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed -use
development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding
lanes and SR-104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocates to Point Edwards.
• The shoreline features a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, marina
facilities, and supporting uses.
• There is a more efficient transportation system featuring commuter and passenger trains,
increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking
areas.
• There is a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses supported by both nearby residents and the larger Edmonds
community, and that attracts visitors from throughout the region.
• The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multi family
development with new mixed -use development types. Single family neighborhoods are a
part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of housing and character of
downtown.
• Opportunities for new development and redevelopment reinforce Edmonds' attractive,
small town pedestrian -oriented character. Pedestrian -scale building height limits are an
important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect.
• Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of
historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
• Auto traffic is rerouted to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods.
C. Goals for the Downtown Waterfront Area. To achieve this vision, goals for the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center include:
• Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
Continue to plan for and implement the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation
center at Pt. Edwards — pursuing the design, permitting, land acquisition and
development of the project. The completion of Edmonds Crossing will help address the
competing needs of three regional facilities (transportation, parks and open space —
including the Edmonds Marsh, and the Port of Edmonds) while providing opportunities
for redevelopment and linkage between downtown Edmonds and its waterfront.
44 Land Use
• Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's
identity.
• Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at
downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and
residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links
between the retail core and these supporting areas.
• Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses.
• Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes
(e.g. convenience shopping, community activities).
• Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically
encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses.
D. Transportation. Primary goals of the City's Downtown Waterfront Plan include integrating the
downtown core with the waterfront, improving pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and
encouraging mixed -use development. Current conditions limit the city's ability to achieve these plan
goals by making it difficult to move between the two areas, thereby minimizing the value of the
shoreline as a public resource and amenity while adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment.
A number of studies and public involvement projects have been completed to determine how to meet
the variety of transportation needs that converge within Downtown Edmonds. Following an initial
1992 Ferry Relocation Feasibility Study and a visioning focus group convened by Edmonds' Mayor
in April 1992, the importance of the conflicting transportation needs culminated in the City of
Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, and Community Transit signing a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in November 1993. The MOU called for the cooperative development of
solutions to the conflicts between the City's growth plans and ferry traffic in particular. In response
to that agreement, preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of alternatives began in late
1993.
In 1994, the Edmonds City Council held public hearings on the possibility of relocating the existing
ferry terminal and incorporating a new terminal within a larger multimodal project. As a result of the
hearings, the Council expressed support for a regional multimodal facility. The Council also
approved the 1994 Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan which specifically supported the facility's
location at Pt. Edwards.
Further environmental review and facility definition resulted in a recommendation that an alternative
site (other than the existing Main Street location) should be developed as a multimodal facility
serving ferry, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel needs.
Several alternative sites for the relocated ferry terminal and the proposed multimodal center were
evaluated as part of the early environmental screening process. During this screening process,
federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies —including affected Tribes— provided input
regarding issues that could impact selecting reasonable alternatives.
Land Use 45
Based on this extensive screening process, two alternatives were recommended for further analysis in
the Environmental Impact Statement process. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
issued on February 25, 1998, and the Final EIS was issued on November 10, 2004. Pt. Edwards is
the preferred alternative for a multimodal terminal site.
In addition to the transportation benefits of moving the existing ferry terminal, a number of
redevelopment opportunities will result within the downtown waterfront area. These range from park
and public access improvements to opportunities for significant redevelopment and connections
between the waterfront and downtown.
P U G e r
rare SQUNJP
PW
Concrete Pier
(Part of Existing
Braekett's Ferry Pier)
p„k Landing
Park (South)
Braciwtt'si s Park
Landing
Park [North]
rnrrorr `
Irian
Con ians� - Q , . r Com�,ed
Park
hod �
Figure 10.
Integration of the
remaining ferry pier
structure into
surrounding parks will
be a key public benefit
and opportunity.
Edmonds Crossing. Edmonds Crossing is a multimodal transportation center proposed to be
constructed at Point Edwards, the former UNOCAL oil storage facility south of the Edmonds
Marina. This multimodal transportation center will provide the capacity to respond to growth while
providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel, including rail, ferry, bus,
bicycle, walking and ridesharing.
The project is supported by local, regional, and state plans, including the Puget Sound Regional
Council's Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation and VISION 2020 plan; Washington State
Ferries' (WSF) System Plan for 1999-2018; Snohomish County's countywide Transportation Plan;
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan; and the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan.
Edmonds Crossing will provide:
• Intersection improvements at Pine Street and SR-104;
• Interconnection of Amtrak service to Chicago and Vancouver, B.C., Sounder commuter
rail service between Everett and Seattle, and other regional transportation modes;
• Connections to the regional transit system with direct bus service to communities
throughout the urban growth area;
46 Land Use
• Enhanced ability for people to rideshare, bicycle and walk to connect with travel
opportunities at the multimodal center;
• Improved safety and travel on Edmonds local streets and along SR-104 between the ferry
terminal and 1-5.
• Linkage between Navy facilities at Everett and on the Kitsap peninsula.
Edmonds
Crossing
preferred
alternative "
from the
2004 FEIS.
Land Use 47
The project includes:
• A ferry terminal;
• A train station;
• A transit center for bus and regional transit, as well as the opportunity for riders to
connect to downtown businesses via a local circulator service;
• The flexibility to operate the facility to respond to changing travel demands;
• Safety features including grade separation of train traffic from other modes of travel,
designated vehicle parking and holding areas, and improved passenger waiting areas.
While the Edmonds Crossing project will directly benefit the transportation system, the project will
also provide significant benefits to downtown Edmonds. Completion of the project provides an
opportunity to redevelop the existing ferry terminal facilities and the related holding lanes in the
downtown area. Providing a connection from the new multimodal terminal to downtown Edmonds
will potentially bring more visibility and visitors to the downtown area.
S Duwnrox�r
Public Pier C,a►eNm: h
Redevvloptnent
Downtown Ped srrian Ho
1 Priva
Design Visitor Moorage Conn. tions to 4 onds
center
doA r1147r ['Ur'e for the _
Arts
Concepts Vie it! Corridors &
� Srackett's '
FerryTerar+irrat ` Landm pedestrian connections
Waterfront F.-splanade EJo to "fTrstorrr.• C. enter ". .
`s s •
•
Downtown • it6:" i o ; • • —
Conimuter Rai( & • ■ - FWmwds
.- 0,0 Public
LE
Bus I ransir Station
NewMullinrodal
Terminal
(ferry, train, hus,
commuter rail)
. y
NN
ids '
C.
• • City '0 Safety
❑lympic BeH . • + • -
� �•••••
■h�,� 'r� CF nces
■ ■ ■I �••••■iStil • �! of • ■ ■ CE
• Edmunds
Wastewater ,
Harbor Treatment r .'Historic C'etner
Square Plant V1eWCczrrrdnrs € pedeserian-scale
design
to Puget Sound
• its Corridor - i -
■■ Waterfront. Connection r
• / �.;� y _ _ View Corridor &
• f pedestrian connection
Part oVilmonds to "Historic C.anrer"
Edmonds Marsh
Master !'lint multihimil ti'
-� redeve(npmettt n/ "upper yard "
City Park
48 Land Use
E. Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy. The vision and goals for Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center are designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. To
implement this vision, a series of policies and an implementation strategy are intended to guide
future public and private actions.
Implementation Strategy. Key issues tied to the viability and health of the downtown waterfront
area include using the Edmonds Crossing project to help resolve transportation issues, linking
downtown with the waterfront, and taking advantage of redevelopment opportunities arising from
emerging trends and public investments.
The largest single factor affecting the downtown waterfront area is the timing and construction of the
Edmonds Crossing project. Because of this, a two -phased downtown waterfront redevelopment
strategy is envisioned. The first phase includes actions taken before the existing ferry terminal is
relocated to the Pt. Edwards site, and is intended to include actions taken to support ongoing
redevelopment and arts -related improvements downtown. This phase will also set the framework for
subsequent redevelopment after the terminal's relocation. The second phase is aimed at
comprehensive redevelopment to link the downtown with the waterfront, better utilize shoreline
resources, increase economic viability and provide the setting for a broad range of community
functions.
Short Term Actions. Short term actions are those actions that can take place prior to construction of
the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 5-7 years.
1. Plan for the Edmonds Crossing project at Pt. Edwards which includes relocation of the existing
ferry terminal. Planning should also include reuse of the current ferry terminal and related holding
area.
2. Improve the existing downtown rail station between Dayton and Main Streets in order to better
accommodate inter -city passenger and commuter rail service, including provisions for bus and
commuter traffic as well as pedestrian connections to the waterfront and downtown. During the short
term planning period, evaluate the feasibility of retaining a commuter rail presence downtown after
the construction of Edmonds Crossing..
3. Plan for future joint public/private development of the area between SR-104 and the railroad
tracks. Planning activities could potentially include infrastructure planning, property acquisition,
parking management, development incentives and guidelines or modifications to land use regulations
(such as zoning or master planning). Although Amtrak and commuter rail service will be included as
a part of the Edmonds Crossing project, the City and transit service providers should examine
whether a commuter rail stop can be retained between Dayton and Main Streets in order to provide
improved service and stimulate potential redevelopment of the surrounding area.
4. Upgrade secondary downtown streets for pedestrians. Implement the city's public urban design
plan and street tree plan while expanding public amenities and streetscape improvements in areas
where these do not already exist. These improvements are particularly needed along Main and
Dayton Streets in the area between downtown and the waterfront in order to improve pedestrian
connections between downtown and the waterfront area. Pedestrian improvements should be
combined with traffic improvement projects where applicable.
Land Use 49
5. Continue to promote shoreline management and public access to the city's beaches, parks, and
walkways.
6. Continue implementing a continuous shoreline walkway (boardwalk/esplanade) from Brackett's
Landing North to Point Edwards. Work with the Port of Edmonds to integrate recreation and marina
functions into the long term plan.
7. Work with the Senior Center to plan for long term needs for the senior center facilities and
programs.
8. Encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and redevelopment
of downtown properties. Housing should be provided to serve a diverse community, including single
family homes, multi family apartments and condominiums, housing as part of mixed use
developments, and housing connected with live/work developments that could also encourage an
arts -oriented community in the downtown area. A special focus for arts -supporting live/work
arrangements could be in the corridor and nearby residential areas linking downtown with the
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
9. Begin improvements to mitigate ferry terminal traffic (and other traffic) increases, as envisioned
in the Edmonds Crossing project and the transportation element of the comprehensive plan.
10. Develop "gateways" at key entrances to the downtown area which enhance the identity and sense
of place for downtown. Gateways should signal that visitors are entering downtown Edmonds, and
should include elements such as public art, landscaping, signage and directional ("way -finding")
aids.
Long Term Actions. Long term actions are those actions that can take place during or after
construction of the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 7-20 years.
Complete a multi modal transportation center at Point Edwards for:
• Rail (inter -city and commuter)
• Ferry
• Park & Ride/Auto
• Bus
• Pedestrian and shuttle connections to other features and amenities.
2. Complete redevelopment of the Point Edwards site consistent with an overall master plan that
provides for commercial or mixed use development compatible with the Edmonds Crossing project.
3. Coordinate circulation and public parking with Port development.
4. Continue to protect and enhance existing wetlands and continue to develop supporting non -
intrusive interpretive trails and exhibits.
5. Continue development of a "necklace" of shoreline parks with improvements, focusing on
missing links in the park and walkway system. Retain and expand existing parks, providing linkages
whenever property acquisitions or easements become available for public use.
50 Land Use
6. Encourage the development of centralized parking facilities as part of redevelopment projects.
Under the right circumstances, these types of facilities can provide an efficient mechanism for
consolidating expensive parking improvements while freeing up land for more intensive and
desirable uses that support local housing, commercial, and pedestrian activities. Public/private
partnerships should be explored when the opportunity arises, both in private and public projects (e.g.
the commuter rail station downtown). Centralized parking facilities could be built as part of a master -
planned mixed -use development.
7. Redevelop the existing ferry terminal site at the base of Main Street according to a master plan
after the existing ferry terminal has been relocated to Point Edwards. This is a unique location,
situated in the midst of a continuous park and beach setting, and provides opportunities for
public/private partnerships. Ideas to be pursued include public "festival" entertainment or activity
space, visitor moorage, park and public walkways, and other uses that would encourage this as to
become a destination drawing people from south along the waterfront and eastward up into
downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances
the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas.
8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to
Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity
for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian
crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity
should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian
activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets
should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers
and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art
integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment
of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding
lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed.
9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior
center. These plans should reinforce the center's place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to
the walkways and parks along the shoreline.
10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to
meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various "districts" described for the downtown
area.
Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for
the downtown waterfront area:
E.1.Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key
identity element for the Edmonds community.
E.2.Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design
of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master
plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline.
Land Use 51
E.3.Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a
multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the
regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit
is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically
separate downtown from the waterfront.
E.4.Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient
transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes
Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be
planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds — such as grade separation/safety
concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities — while providing the community with unique
transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community.
E.5.Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use
development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found
in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area.
Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to
Point Edwards.
EAEnhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development,
enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th
and Main" core.
E.7.Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core.
EXImprove and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local
businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of
particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the
Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented
destination.
E.9.Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings,
natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the
shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline.
The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master
Program requirements placed on private development.
E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian
and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas.
E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown
commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
52 Land Use
E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the
downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and
visitors to downtown.
E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce
Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage
adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these
resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and
it's economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an
important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and
design guidelines.
E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown,
especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population.
E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas.
E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown
waterfront area, including such things as:
0 Weather protection,
• Street trees and flower baskets,
• Street furniture,
• Public art and art integrated into private developments,
• Pocket parks,
• Signage and other way -finding devices,
• Restrooms.
E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible.
E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging
signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive
and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities.
E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort,
security, and aesthetic beauty.
E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with
pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards
to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area.
Land Use 53
Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown
waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown
waterfront area. These districts are described below.
Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along
Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights
shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage
a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to
accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are
encouraged to be retail -compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service — e.g. art galleries,
restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items
for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front fagades of buildings
must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection
along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features,
differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings
situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated
pedestrian area.
Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds
Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be
designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses,
with commercial entries being located at street level. Building design and height shall be
compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing
incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial
buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for
pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the
building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so
that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access
directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees,
landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should
also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still
exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the
house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the
arts center should be encouraged — such as restaurants, cafes, galleries, live/work use
arrangements, and B&Bs.
Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be
designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses.,
with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building
heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first
floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design
guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower,
commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces
must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided
with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of
a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind
commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes
still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where
the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses.
54 Land Use
Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required
(i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between).
Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed
Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian -
friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from
upper building levels.
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor
Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter
Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location
between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the
waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl," could enable a design that
provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area
should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially
along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of
the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad
passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design
should be used throughout any redevelopment project.
Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches
and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this
area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water -oriented and
water -dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian
scale development while providing incentives to encourage public view corridors. Roof and
building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of
its high sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular,
landmark buildings of high quality design which take advantage of the visibility and physical
environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront.
Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public
walkways and street fronts.
Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of
Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master
plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in
an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's
Shoreline Master Program, as it applies.
Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut.
Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto -oriented uses would be permitted
in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces
should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and
commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail
core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings
shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a
property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind the
commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use.
Planned Residential -Office. Several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset
Ave between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for small-
scale development which provides for a mix of limited office and residential uses which provide
Land Use 55
a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential
uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial
development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single-
family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building
design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and
single-family character.
Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design
objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to
encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area
that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds.
1. SITE DESIGN
The development ofparking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral
part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and
site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential
negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a
district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment.
Vehicular Access and Parking
a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto
safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are
the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there
is no reasonable alternative available.
b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians' comfort and ease of access in mind.
c. Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the
pedestrian streetscape.
d. In the Retail Core, adopt a "park and walk" policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and ease of
access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no
requirement to provide on -site parking.
e. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles
and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetscape.
f. Provide safe routes for disabled people.
Pedestrian Access and Connections
a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general
commercial, and residential areas.
b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and
pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be
accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments.
c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to buildings should be
maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at street level to be directly accessed from
the sidewalk.
d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas.
56 Land Use
Building Entry Location
a. Create an active, safe and lively street -edge.
b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment.
c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses.
d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to
the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade.
Building Setbacks
a. Provide for a human, pedestrian -friendly scale for downtown buildings.
b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition
to tie each site to its neighbor.
c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe
pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot.
d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the
development and encourage outdoor interaction.
Building/Site Identity
a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and
massing in large mixed use or commercial projects.
b. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, color,
materials and individuality of buildings.
c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of
similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements.
d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in
downtown.
Weather Protection
a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians
traveling along public sidewalks in
downtown.
b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain
or snow.
c. Provide a covered waiting area and
walkway for pedestrians entering a building,
coming from parking spaces and the public
sidewalk.
Lighting
a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries,
walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of
security.
b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and
support nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians.
c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off -site.
d. Create a sense of welcome and activity.
Land Use 57
Signage
a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered.
b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements.
c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and
to improve orientation and way -finding downtown.
d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters.
e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display
lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the
face of the sign.
f. Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist
citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services.
g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Site Utilities, Storage,
Trash and Mechanical
a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and
composting.
b. Minimize noise and odor.
c. Minimize visual intrusion.
d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas
Art and Public Spaces
a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be
provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be
continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape.
b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with
incentives provided to encourage these elements.
c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater
design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design.
2. BUILDING FORM
Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms,
minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance
with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building
entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of
Edmonds character and urban form.
Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds.
b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions
are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two
stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, incentives or design standards
may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which
allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian -scale
appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on
pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors.
58 Land Use
c. Preserve public view corridors along east -west downtown streets — such as Main Street and
Dayton Street — that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west.
Massing
a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large
building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale
streetscape elements found along downtown's pedestrian streets.
b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the
pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building.
c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of
different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into
smaller elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building
mass, these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian -friendly result.
Roof Modulation
a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural
detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form.
b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building.
c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building.
d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building.
e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features
such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to
improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape.
Wall Modulation
a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds.
b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a
facade.
c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades.
d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment.
e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building.
3. BUILDING FACADE
Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings that
defines the character and visual appearance of a place, is of high quality and demonstrates the
strong sense ofplace and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds.
Facade Requirements
a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating
the pedestrian -oriented street level of buildings from upper floors.
b. Ensure diversity in design.
c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds.
d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a
pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas.
e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds.
f. Create individual identity in buildings.
Land Use 59
Window Variety and Articulation
a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the
retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be
dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and
encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space.
b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall
design to encourage rhythm and accents in the facade.
Building FaVade Materials
A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also
help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in
the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a
variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows
the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. It is particularly important to
differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the
pedestrian's line of sight.
Accents/Colors/Trim
A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and
colors applied to a facade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds
on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and
appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to
the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective
is to encourage new development that provides:
• Compatibility with the surrounding environment,
• Visual interest and variety in building forms,
• Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses,
• Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood.
60 Land Use
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor
The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian
and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and
Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high -intensity development corridor along Highway
99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense
uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the
overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed
use, pedestrian -friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by
centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park -like
atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity
center is intended to achieve the following goals:
A. Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
• To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing
incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
• Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting
of a mixed use, pedestrian -friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and
landscaped surroundings and inter -connected development;
• Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development
character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access
patterns on local streets;
• Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to
pedestrians;
• To provide a buffer between the high -intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR
99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West;
• To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a
cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood
conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mix of single
family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with
public facilities;
• To provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets
and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into
the City of Edmonds;
• To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects
within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school,
the hospital, and transit services and facilities.
Land Use 61
Within the activity center, policies to achieve these goals include the following:
A.1. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and
support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by
pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert
with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher -intensity mixed
use development to nearby single family residential areas.
A.2. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service,
pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas.
Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of
links to future high -capacity transit that develops along corridors such as
Highway 99.
A.3. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access.
AA Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service
businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the
region.
A.5. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods.
Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between
more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping
and visual buffering, and pedestrian -scale streetscape design.
AA Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of
mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density.
However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center — and
adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor— should still be provided
in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit.
A.7. In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial
uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential
uses.
62 Land Use
B. Goals for the Highway 99 Corridor.
Highway 99 occupies a narrow strip of retail and commercial uses bounded by
residential neighborhoods. Historically, the corridor has developed in a patchwork of
uses, without a clear focus or direction. To improve planning for the future of the
corridor, the City established a task force in 2003-2004, resulting in the Highway 99
Enhancement Report and a related economic analysis. During this process, local
residents were contacted and asked to participate in two focus groups to identify current
problems and future aspirations for the corridor. After this preliminary survey with the
residents, the City invited business owners to participate in two charrette meetings to
brainstorm ideas and evaluate possible ways to induce redevelopment in the area. After
concepts were developed, Berk & Associates, an economics consultant, performed a
market assessment of the enhancement strategy. The following diagram summarizes the
general approach that resulted from this work: a series of focus areas providing identity
and a clustering of activity along the corridor, providing opportunities for improved
economic development while also improving linkages between the corridor and
surrounding residential areas.
Focus Areas along the Corridor
Four themes and four areas cIncr,,cd
as particularly interesting along the
corridor. Each one of these areas
represents a sub system with
specific traffic, access and
pedestrian characteristics as well as
development goals and character.
From the north to the south we
recognize the following areas:
• The Hospital Community and
Family Retail Center;
• The "International District"
area;
• The Residential Area
Retail Center:
• The Commercial
RedevclopmcntlH otcls
huprowment Area.
Hospital Community
and Family Retail
Center
'International District"
234" 5t
236"' St
238'" St
24ah St
Commercial
Re developmen tlHotels
Improvement Area
Land Use 63
With this background in mind, specific goals for the Highway 99 Corridor include:
• Improve access and circulation. Access to businesses for both pedestrians and
automobiles is difficult along major portions of the corridor. The inability of pedestrians
to cross the street and for automobiles to make safe turns is a critical limitation on
enhanced development of the corridor into a stronger economic area. Better pedestrian
crossings are also needed to support transit use, especially as Highway 99 becomes the
focus of future high capacity transit initiatives.
The City should consider the different sections along the corridor and emphasize their
unique opportunities rather than view the corridor as an undifferentiated continuum.
Street improvements and, in some cases regulatory measures can encourage these efforts.
Focus on specific nodes or segments within the corridor. Identity elements such as
signage should indicate that the corridor is within the City of Edmonds, and show how
connections can be made to downtown and other Edmonds locations.
• Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. During the
City's Highway 99 Task Force work, residents noted that they needed a number of
services that are not presently provided along the corridor. This can provide an
opportunity that might be part of a larger business strategy. At the same time, new
development should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is
appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a
tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of
the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital
employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City
should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur.
Within the Highway 99 corridor, policies to achieve these goals include the following:
B.1. Provide a system of "focus areas" along the corridor which provide opportunities
for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus
points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long
Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an
Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus
areas identified on the previous page include the following:
64 Land Use
The "Hosoital Coanuinity and Fan ly Retail
Center" would be positioned to take
advantage of its proxInIty to the many
hospital and related medical services in the
area and it would be easily reachable from
the Interurban trail.
The idea of an "International District' is
organized around the international flavor of
development in the area combined with the
concepts of visibility and internal
connection. Access to the "District' is
marked by specific gateways, and the rrany
focal points for acti vity in the area (and the
new development in between) are connected
with a strong pedestrian corridor.
The " Rag dential Area Retail Center"
concept allows for mixed use development
while providing access and services to
adjacent residential neighborhoods
9milar mixed use development, finked to
surrounding neighborhoods, could occur in
the "Commercial Red'evefoprrent/Hotels
Inprove,7'x�,VArea . " In addition, this area
has the potential to provide large sites
suitable for larger commercial or mixed use
development, such as hotels or large retail
conplexes Internal circulation between sites
is a kev to develoom nt.
Land Use
NF1Y W&ED US2
RES NTTALfR TA&
DELFLOVMENr3
�a
RFSf�FN TTAl
COIeF[FX �
NEW rPAFPC
e car war.
REoucE 6PfE0. '
AYPROHF rRAFFrc -
Aeeess �
ro 'UsffAa S.'
ANO PFTY AM
FH Y]RONAIENi �
r-Al
RE6�ErrlL14
C4+�LEk'
ARE" MTH
ANFROYPO r"FF7G
ANO PEDES N
ACCF$$FRVM
FURR WRPWG
Af3JbEH7 LLAREAS
h.F J•�•
23814 St
r
IN,
240th St
XL flv Wyj
w
r
65
B.2. Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas,
while coordinating with high -capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor.
B.3. Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate
pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity
along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these
issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts
of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization
and other measures.
BA New development should be high -quality and varied — not generic — and include
amenities for pedestrians and patrons.
B.S. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community.
Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to
connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses.
B.6. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest
extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided
contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense
development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers,
landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to
minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties.
B.7. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian -friendly (e.g., add trees and
landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and — when
available — public investment.
B.B. Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development
while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
B.9. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor.
Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area
which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and
distraction to the public.
B.10. The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high
economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these
types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are
proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should
also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area.
B.11. Within the Corridor, highrise nodes should be located to provide for maximum
economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be:
B.11.a. Supported by adequate services and facilities;
66 Land Use
B.11.b. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of
distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive
landscaping, and similar techniques.
B.11. c. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including
automobile, transit and pedestrian access.
B.11.d. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and
residential neighborhoods.
Master Planned Development
Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for
a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a
special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits
with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and
relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses,
access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be
consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center,
development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for
the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference:
A. Edmonds-Woodway High School
B. Stevens Hospital
C. City Park
D. Pine Ridge Park
E. Southwest County Park
F. The Edmonds Crossing project, as identified in the Final EIS for Edmonds Crossing
issued on November 10, 2004.
In addition to the master plans listed above, master plans can also be implemented through zoning
contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the plan. In these
cases, the master plan must still be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies for the
area.
Land Use 67
Residential Development
A. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington state. Located on the shores
of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town,
quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of
Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the
years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked
between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for
annexation and development is limited.
Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development
potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future
development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens.
Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It
becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves
conditions for all citizens.
When the City's first comprehensive plan completed under the State Growth
Management Act was adopted in 1995, the City adopted plan designations for single
family areas that were based in large measure on historical development patterns, which
often recognized development limitations due to environmentally sensitive areas (slopes,
landslide hazards, streams, etc.).
In the years since the first GMA comprehensive plans were approved by local
jurisdictions, there have been a number of cases brought before the State's GMA
Hearings Boards. The direction provided by the GMA and these subsequent
"elaborations" via the Hearings Board challenges can be summarized as:
1. The GMA requires 4 dwelling units per acre as the minimum urban residential
density in urban areas such as Edmonds.
2. All land within the urban area must be designated at appropriate urban densities.
Calculating average density across an entire subarea or city does not meet this test — for
example you cannot use higher -density multi family areas in one part of a city to justify
lower -density single family areas elsewhere in the city.
The GMA Hearings Board decision in Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB
Case #495-3-0039c (Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995, p.35) includes this
statement:
The Board instead adopts as a general rule a "bright line " at four net dwelling
units per acre. Any residential pattern at that density, or higher, is clearly
compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by
the Act. Any larger urban lots will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board
to determine if the number, locations, configurations and rationale for such lot
68 Land Use
sizes complies with the goals and requirements of the Act, and the jurisdiction's
ability to meet its obligations to accept any allocated share of county -wide
population. Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less
dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl,
and is prohibited. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, I- or
2.5-acre lots may be appropriate in an urban setting in order to avoid excessive
development pressures on or near environmentally sensitive areas. However,
this circumstance can be expected to be infrequent within the UGA and must not
constitute a pattern over large areas.
With this as background, the City's review and update of its comprehensive plan has
attempted to combine an assessment of its large lot zoning (RS-12, RSW-12 and RS-20)
with an update of its critical areas inventories and regulations. The inventories, based on
data available from City and other sources, were not available to the City when the 1995
comprehensive plan was adopted. These inventories provide information necessary to
refine the City's single family plan designations and comprehensive plan map.
In preparing its updated comprehensive plan map, an overlay was done of the 2004
critical areas inventory with currently designated large lot single family areas. City staff
analyzed the pattern of critical areas compared with land use designations, and applied
the following logic to identify areas that could and could not be justified for continuing
to be designated for large lot single family development.
1. Staff used the city's GIS system to overlay the preliminary critical areas
inventory with existing zoning (which is consistent with the current
comprehensive plan).
2. In reviewing the existing large -lot plan and zoning designations (plan
designations of "Single Family — Large Lot" equate to RS-12, RSW-12, or RS-20
zoning), the location of large -lot designations was compared to patterns of
critical areas.
3. Patterns of critical areas — i.e. where combinations of critical areas were present
(e.g. slopes and habitat, or streams and wetlands, etc.) or where extensive areas
were covered by critical areas — were considered sufficient justification to
continue large -lot single family designations. Larger lot sizes provide more
opportunity to avoid disturbance of existing natural features — particularly
vegetative cover — and provide an opportunity to maintain linkages between
critical areas and habitat. Larger lots sizes in areas subject to landslide hazard
also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes, and also reduce
the probability that continued slide activity will harm people or residences. This
approach is consistent with the logic and analysis contained in the City's Best
Available Science Report (EDAW, November 2004) accompanying the adoption
of the City's updated critical areas regulations.
4. Small, isolated critical areas were not considered sufficient to justify continued
large -lot single family designations.
Land Use 69
5. Lots where the designation is to be changed are grouped by subdivision or
neighborhood segment, so that streets or changes in lot pattern define the
boundaries.
6. In at least a couple of situations, areas were included for re -designation when the
development pattern indicated that a substantial number of lots already existed
that were smaller than 12,000 sq. ft. in area.
7. Where patterns of critical areas exist, at least a tier of lots (using similar
groupings as those used in #5 above) is maintained bordering the critical areas.
This is based on the following logic:
As the Best Available Science Report and updated critical areas regulations
indicate, the City's intent is to take a conservative approach to protecting critical
areas. Relatively large buffers are proposed (consistent with the science), but
these are balanced by the ability of existing developed areas to continue infill
activity in exchange for enhancing critical areas buffers. The goal is to obtain
enhanced protection of resources within the city, while recognizing infill
development must continue to occur. However, a conservative approach to
resource protection implies that the City be cautious in making wholesale
changes in zoning that could result in more development impacts to critical
areas. This is particularly true since the buffers proposed in the new regulations
are substantial increases over previous regulations; without larger lot sizes in
areas that are substantially impacted by critical areas, there would be little or no
opportunity to mitigate critical areas impacts — especially when surrounding
areas have already been developed.
Caution is also needed considering that the mapped inventory is based on general
sources from other agencies and is likely to underestimate the amount of steep
slopes, for example.
Following this work, a map of proposed changes was prepared which identified single
family large lot zones that could not be justified based on the presence of critical areas.
These areas (comprising over 500 acres) have been re -designated as either Single Family
— Urban 3 or Single Family Master Plan in the updated comprehensive plan.
Current Plan Designation
Proposed Plan
Designation
Corresponding
Zoning
Single Family — Small Lot
Single Family — Urban 1
RS-6, RS-8
Single Family — Urban 2
RS-8
Single Family — Urban 3
RS-10*
Single Family — Large Lot
Single Family — Resource
RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20
Single Family Master Plan
Single Family Master Plan
* RS-10 would be anew zoning classification, providing for a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.
70 Land Use
The densities that correspond to these plan and zoning designations are summarized in
the following table:
Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Maximum Density
(Net Density)
Single Family — Urban 1
RS-6
7.3 DU/Acre
RS-8
5.5 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban 2
RS-8
5.5 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban 3
RS-10
4.4 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban
RS-6 or RS-8 with Master
5.5 or 7.3 DU/Acre
Master Plan
Plan overlay
Single Family — Resource
RS-12, RSW-12
3.7 DU/Acre
RS-20
2.2 DU/Acre
The "Single Family — Urban Master Plan" designation would only apply to the area lying
along the south side of SR-104 north of 228`h Street SW; properties seeking to develop
at the higher urban density lot pattern would need to be developed according to a master
plan (such as through a PRD) that clearly indicated access and lot configurations that
would not result in traffic problems for SR-104.
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle
of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the
City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically
in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do
not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever
it is economically feasible.
Land Use 71
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control
of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
B.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local
government.
B.5. b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be
discouraged.
B.5. c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land
use encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts
of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
BA Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the
following policies:
C.1. Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential
development solutions for residential subdivisions.
C.I.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where
significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees,
view, open space, etc).
CIA Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown
and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning.
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees,
topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit
residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
C.2.a. Location Policies.
C.2. a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets.
C.2.b. Compatibility Policies.
C.2.b.i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of
surrounding buildings, wherever feasible.
C. 2. b. ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family
residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height
permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing
vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially
screen one use from another.
72 Land Use
C.2.b. iii. The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones
should be similar to the design idiom of the single family
residence.
C.2.c. General Design Policies.
C.2.c.i. The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks,
lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements,
materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to
carry out a unified design concept.
C.2.c.ii. Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the
natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc) of the site
rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed
plan.
C.3. Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily
landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior.
Commercial Land Use
A. General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been
oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a
unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In
the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of
development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize
and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly
desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business,
citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various
requirements of the City's codes and policies.
The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which
adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to
Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas,
followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also
meet.
B. Goals for Commercial Development: Commercial development in Edmonds shall be
located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent
and compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood. All commercial
development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate
a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe,
convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies:
Land Use 73
B.1. A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be
identified and reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites
should be selected from parcels of land already identified in the comprehensive
plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such use.
B.2. Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are
now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by
additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses.
B.3. The proliferation of strip commercial areas along Edmonds streets and highways
and the development of commercial uses poorly related to surrounding land uses
should be strongly discouraged.
B.4. The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient
and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers.
B.5. All commercial developments should be carefully located and designed to
eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other
related problems on surrounding land uses.
B.6. Special consideration should be given to major land use decisions made in
relation to downtown Edmonds.
C. Goals for Community Commercial Areas. Community commercial areas are comprised
of commercial development serving a dual purpose: services and shopping for both local
residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial designation is to
recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use
development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character.
C.1. Permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both the local
neighborhood and regional through -traffic.
C.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate
automobile traffic.
C.3. Provide for the pedestrian -scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in
height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity.
CA. Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community
commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential neighborhoods.
D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are
intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and
housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should
provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99
74 Land Use
Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area.
Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as
classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls" with one- and two-story developments
primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood
commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as
appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development
that expands the uses and services available to local residents.
The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals:
D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial
intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through
traffic.
D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the
local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within
neighborhood commercial areas.
D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local
automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
DA. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and
sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide
for appealing gathering places.
D.5. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial
spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street -level
entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows.
D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character
of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as
neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional
specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity
they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are
detailed below.
D.6.a. Five Corners
D.6.a.i. In the Five Corners neighborhood commercial area,
development should be oriented to the street and respond to
the unique character of the intersection, including a planned
intersection improvement. Parking should be provided at the
rear of development, where possible, or underground.
Land Use 75
D.6.a.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and
the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of
buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying
rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix
of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial
space.
D.6.a.iii. At a minimum, commercial uses should be located on the
ground level of development. Commercial or residential uses
may occupy upper levels.
D.6.a.iv. As a major intersection, streetscape and way -finding design
should create an attractive `gateway" to the downtown and
other neighborhoods. (Link to streetscape plan update)
Intersection and street design should accommodate and
encourage pedestrian connections throughout the
neighborhood commercial area.
D.6.b. Firdale Village
D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should
include an attractive mix of uses that create a "neighborhood
village "pedestrian -oriented environment. Commercial spaces
shall be oriented toward the street in order to maximize
visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated
either behind or underneath structures.
D.6.b.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and
the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of
buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying
rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix
of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial
space.
E. Goals for the Westgate Corridor. The Westgate Corridor is generally located between the
100th Avenue W (9th Avenue S)/Edmonds Way intersection and where Edmonds Way
turns north to enter the downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves as
both a key transportation corridor and as an entry into the downtown. Long-established
neighborhoods lie near both sides of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to
recognize its multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale businesses
while promoting compatible development that will not intrude into established
neighborhoods.
E.1. Development within the Westgate Corridor should be designed to recognize its
role as part of an entryway into Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect
should be a corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median. The
landscaped median along SR-104 should remain as uninterrupted as possible in
order to promote traffic flow and provide an entry effect.
76 Land Use
E.2. Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily intended to serve the
local neighborhood while not contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
E.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
EA. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential
streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
E.5. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development.
F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions
of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This
corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between
Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor.
An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the
corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major
concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not
interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established
communities.
F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that
are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from
residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural
topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible.
Land Use 77
G. Goals for Sexually Oriented Businesses. These types of businesses are regulated by
specific licensing and operating provisions in the City Code. However, land use and
zoning regulations are also required to mitigate and reduce the adverse secondary effects
of these uses. These secondary effects are detailed in the findings adopted by Ordinance
No. 3117 on October 15, 1996. As commercial uses, sexually oriented businesses should
be limited to areas which can support the traffic and site requirements of these
businesses while also assuring that their adverse secondary effects are mitigated. The
following policies apply to sexually oriented businesses:
G.I. Provide for potential commercial locations within the City for sexually oriented
businesses which will provide at least a minimum separation and buffering
necessary to protect public health and safety.
G.2. Separate the location of sexually oriented businesses from uses that are
incompatible with the secondary effects associated with sexually oriented
businesses. These incompatible uses include residential uses and uses such as
public parks, public libraries, museums, public or private schools, community
centers, and religious facilities. They also include bars and taverns.
G.3. Adopt specific development regulations, such as lighting, parking and access
provisions, that are designed to reduce or mitigate the secondary effects of
sexually oriented businesses.
GA. Provide a mechanism to monitor, on an annual basis, the availability of potential
sites for the location of sexually oriented businesses.
Industrial Land Use
A. General. Interestingly, industrial development played a major role in the early
development of Edmonds. Sawmills, wharves, log ponds and other wood products
industries lined the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the twentieth century. However, as
time passed, Edmonds developed into a very attractive residential community and its
once thriving lumber industry faded into oblivion. Today, Edmonds still retains much of
its residential, small town charm despite the large amount of urban development which
has occurred in and around the City during the outward expansion of the Seattle
metropolitan area during the past twenty-five years.
Industrial development in the more traditional sense has not occurred in Edmonds to a
significant degree since its early Milltown days. Most new industry which has located in
the community since the 1950's has been largely of light manufacturing or service
industry nature. Some examples include furniture manufacturing, printing and
publishing, electronic components assembly and health care services.
Future industrial development should be carefully controlled in order to insure that it is
compatible with the residential character of Edmonds. Small scale, business -park
78 Land Use
oriented light industries and service related industries should be given preference over
more intensive large scale industries. Great care should be given to carefully siting and
designing all new industrial development in order to fully minimize or eliminate its
adverse off -site impacts.
B. Goal. A select number of industrial areas should be located and developed which are
reasonably attractive and contribute to the economic growth and stability of Edmonds
without degrading its natural or residential living environment, in accordance with the
following policies:
B.1. Light industrial uses should be given preference over heavy industrial uses.
B.2. The clustering of industrial uses in planned industrial parks should be required
when the site is adequate.
B.3. Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open
space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse
effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting
residential areas, parks and other public -institutional land uses.
BA. All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to
regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad
lines).
Open Space
A. Generally in urban areas a lack of open space has been one of the major causes of
residential blight. This lack has contributed to the movement of people from older
densely developed neighborhoods to peripheral areas still possessing open areas.
Open space must be reserved now for assurance that future settled areas are relieved by
significant open land, providing recreational opportunities as well as visual appeal.
Not all vacant land in the City should be considered desirable or valuable for open space
classification. Therefore, the following set of criteria -standards have been developed for
determining those areas most important for this classification.
B. Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and
quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with the following
policies.
B.1. Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and
appropriate areas designed as open space.
Land Use 79
B.l.a. No city -owned property should be relinquished until all possible
community uses have been explored.
B.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces:
B.2.a. Lands which have unique scientific or educational values.
B.2.b. Areas which have an abundance of wildlife particularly where there are
habitats of rare or endangered species.
B.2.c. Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the
priority to highways classified as scenic.
B.2.d. Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways,
particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents
as water sheds.
B.2.e. Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or
industrial development.
B.2.f. Bogs and wetlands.
B.2.g. Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and
adjacent uses.
B.2.h. Lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses
both passive and active.
B.2.i. Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation.
B.3. Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner
that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that
there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and
open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate
setback space and separation between structures.
C. Goal. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on Puget
Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and
waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following
policies:
C.1. Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special
consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs.
C.2. Provide wherever possible, vehicular or pedestrian access to public bodies of
water.
80 Land Use
Soils and Topography
A. General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental amenity of
the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on
hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These are
frequently areas where natural drainage ways exist and where the second growth forest is
still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for
urban development.
Based on soil and slope analysis for the city, several areas may be identified as
potentially hazardous for urban development. (See report to Environmental
Subcommittee on Soils and Topography, February 3, 1975.)
Some areas which are limited for development are desirable for public recreation, open
spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological
communities and protection of natural storm drainage system.
In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development,
grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water
pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property.
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD's, should be used in
these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills.
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the
natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1. Grading and Filling.
C. I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
CIA Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent
property.
C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15%slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved.
Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property.
CIA Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
Land Use 81
C.2. Building Construction.
C.2. a. Buildings on slopes of 1 S% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
C.2.b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they
should be small and should not support construction of improvements
which do not conform to the topography.
C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff
at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall betaken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or
other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways.
Water Resources and Drainage Management
A. General. The environmental amenity of the City of Edmonds is greatly enhanced by the
numerous year round streams and the location of the City on Puget Sound. Lake
Ballinger, besides being a well-known landmark, is an important environmental area
because of its ecological benefits and open space quality.
The storm drainage and stream systems in the Edmonds area are part of the Cedar River
Drainage Basin. There are two sub -basins in the area: McAleer Creek, which drains to
Lake Washington and the Upper Puget Sound sub -basin which drains to Puget Sound.
Urban development in the past has interfered with natural storm drainage systems and
greatly increased the area of impermeable surfaces. It has been necessary to install
culverts, underground drainage courses and other major structures to accommodate
runoff water. Because of climate, topography and soil conditions, severe erosion and
drainage to stream banks may occur with future development.
Urban runoff causes significant decreases in water quality because of the quantity of
pollutants in the runoff water.
The Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study conducted for the River Basin
Coordinating Committee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle indicates that future
development in the Puget Sound and McAleer sub -basins will overburden existing
systems. The water quality in Lake Ballinger is already an urgent and serious problem
because the lake is shallow, contains a high level of nutrients and has seasonal oxygen
deficiencies.
82 Land Use
The quality of water in Puget Sound is a less immediate problem but must be considered
in the long term. Both Edmonds and Lynnwood dispose of effluent in the Sound which
has received primary treatment only. Increased recreational use of the waterfront will
have water quality impacts also. Some streams in the City have supported fish runs from
the Sound in the past and many people in the community would like to see a restoration
of these fisheries.
The high costs both financially and environmentally of installation of structures and
alteration of natural systems is an important consideration in planning for environmental
management. Because environmental systems cross political boundaries a high degree of
interlocal cooperation will be necessary to fully utilize funds available through the Water
Pollution Control Act; however, the Act may provide substantial funds in the future for
planning and improvement of facilities.
B. Goal. The City should continue to upgrade the public storm drainage system in order to
protect the man-made and natural environment. In the management of storm drainage and
urban runoff, the City should utilize the natural drainage system where it is possible to
do so without significantly altering the natural drainage ways, in accordance with the
following policies:
B.1. The natural drainage system (i.e., streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be
filled or permanently culverted except where no other alternative exists.
Temporary culverting of streams shall be permitted during construction where
site conditions present no other alternative. The natural condition should be
restored immediately following construction.
B.2. Earthmoving equipment shall not cause siltation or deterioration of water
quality. Rechanneling of streams is permitted only when the stream bed location
renders the site undevelopable.
B.3. Imagination and care should be used in the design of retention ponds and other
drainage facilities so that they will blend into the natural environment rather than
detract from it.
B.4. Riprapping of stream banks and gravelling of stream beds is permitted when the
Engineering Department determines that stability or sediment retention is
necessary.
B.5. Decorative ponding, cascading, and building artificial waterfalls are permitted
except in those streams where it would present a barrier to the migration of fish.
B.6. Building foundation and footings shall be no closer than 15 feet to a stream bank
and shall be sited to create minimum disruption to the drainage system.
B.7. The quality and quantity of water leaving a site shall be the same as that entering
the site.
Land Use 83
B.B. Retention basins and other devices shall be used to encourage on -site runoff
absorption and prevent overloading of existing drainage systems except in those
areas where it is necessary to remove water from the site quickly due to unstable
soil conditions to prevent earth slides and subsequent danger to life and property.
B.9. Regional retention/detention is generally recognized as a more efficient and
practical method of runoff control and will be given first consideration before
individual on -site systems are allowed as part of development projects. [Ord.
2527, 1985.]
Vegetation and Wildlife
A. General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the natural vegetation has become increasingly
scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation
provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils
on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Natural vegetation provides
habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and
clean pollutants from the air.
The beauty of the natural growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one
development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for
nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities.
Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the aesthetic quality of
human life.
City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms.
"People pressure" continue to destroy many organisms and their habitats each year. The
number and species of organisms is diminishing yearly.
Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and
resident bird life.
Underdeveloped wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and
mammals.
Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas.
B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing
natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
84 Land Use
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on
steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should
be designed so that existing trees are preserved.
B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed.
BA. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside
these areas should be preserved.
C. Goal. The city should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife
heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats
(woodlands, marshes, streams and beaches) of the city's wildlife in accordance with the
following policies:
C.1. Establish and maintain a variety of educational and recreational programs and
activities for all age levels.
C.2. Erect and maintain an educational display that identifies some of the more
common plants and animals and the ecology of major habitats, (i.e., sand, rock,
piling and deepwater).
C.3. Establish and publicize regulations prohibiting removal of non-food organisms
from beach areas without collecting permit; permit for educational and research
use only.
CA. Encourage landscaping and site improvement on city -owned property which
recognizes the dependency of some species upon certain types of vegetation for
food and cover.
C.5. City park property which serves as a habitat for wildlife should be left natural
with minimum development for nature trail type of use.
Air Pollution
A. General. Air pollution is primarily a regional problem related to urbanization and
meteorological conditions in the Puget Sound Basin. It is the result of activities in which
most citizens participate. Air pollution can cause severe health effects and property
damage under certain conditions. (See Facts on Air Pollution - Regional and Local:
Report to Community Development Task Force.)
B. Goal. Clean air is a right to all citizens of the City of Edmonds and should be protected
and maintained in accordance with the following policies:
Land Use 85
B.1. Discourage expansion of arterials which will substantially increase line sources
of pollution.
B.2. Encourage arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary
automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses.
B.3. Support, through political action, strong enforcement policies and ordinances in
the regional pollution control agency.
BA. Support, by political action and financial participation, the establishment of
public transportation in the community as an alternative to dependence on
individual vehicles.
B.5. Encourage local referral center for car pooling.
Noise Pollution
A. General. Although no area of human activity is free of sound, the modern urban
environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in the form of noise.
The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where
levels of noise are very high and sustained. A less documented effect is stress from
physiological and psychological impact of noise. Noise generally contributes to a loss of
amenity and livability.
The Edmonds Community is free, to a large extent, from the worst kinds of noise
pollution and most residents believe that it is a quiet place to live. However, an
environmental noise survey taken by the Building Department in 1974 indicates that
there are some areas of concern.
The main problems come from vehicular noise, particularly motorcycles. Some point
source problems, refrigeration equipment in stores near residential areas, have also
occurred in the city. Impulsive, high -intensity noises which occur only periodically may
also be irritating in quiet suburban neighborhoods. Examples are airplanes, electronically
amplified music, sirens, etc.
Certain noise problems can be alleviated more easily than others. The noise of vehicular
traffic, particularly on arterial streets is difficult to control. Point sources can be more
easily regulated by requiring noise muffling equipment. Enforcement of noise standards
can be a problem because of the training and skill involved in taking noise
measurements. Cost of enforcement may be excessive if standards are too stringent.
The federal government has passed legislation to deal with major sources of noise in
commerce which require national conformity of treatment. The State Department of
Ecology has adopted Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards and Environmental
Noise Levels guidelines.
86 Land Use
B. Goal. Preserve the quiet residential environment of the city by limiting increases in noise
and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Studies should be made to determine the existing noise environment in order to
provide baseline data for assessment of the environmental impact of changes or
increases in noise.
B.2. The unique areas of quiet in the city should be identified and appropriate
measures taken to preserve the quiet environment.
B.3. The city should update the existing noise standards to meet State Standards in
modest stages in order to maintain flexibility and benefit from improvements in
technology and experience. Increases in manpower or training to enforce
standards should be cautiously made as experience is gained in enforcement.
B.4. Existing vehicular standards related to noise should be enforced to the greatest
degree possible without excessive increases in manpower.
B.5. The city should cooperate with adjacent cities in sharing the costs of expensive
noise equipment and training persons in the use of the equipment.
B.6. Future street and arterial projects should be assessed for noise impacts, and
structures such as berms, fences and other devices utilized wherever possible to
reduce the noise impacts.
B.7. Any ordinances adopted by the city should recognize the variety and quality of
noise environments. Excessive regulations should not be imposed on areas of the
city where higher noise levels are normal or necessary for essential activities and
do not create environmental problems.
B.8. It is the policy of the city to minimize noise created by the railroad.
Urban Growth Areas
A. General. The accompanying Urban Growth Areas map shows the City's urban growth
area, which encompasses unincorporated areas adjacent to the current city limits. In
general, development within the urban growth area is of interest to the City because the
area will be annexed to the City in the future and development in the area can be
expected to have an impact on the demand for and delivery of City services.
B. Goal. Plan for the logical extension of services and development within the City's urban
growth area.
Land Use 87
B.1. To provide for orderly transitions, adopt comparable zoning and comprehensive
plan designations for areas annexing into the City.
B.2. Adopted plans and policies for the urban growth area shall be consistent and
compatible with the general comprehensive plan goals and policies for the City.
88 Land Use
City of Edmonds
Urban Growth Area
Edmonds City Limits
Esperance UGA
Incorporated Cities
0 Unincorporated
Major Streets
N
W E
S
Map revision date: 2004.12.15
Edmonds
Esperance �
W,00dway
II
Norma Beach -
Picnic Point
Lynnwood
D
a �
Mountlake
Terrace
From:
Stewart. Valerie (Climate Protection)
To:
Hope. Shane
Cc:
Chave, Rob
Subject:
suggestions for housing element Comp Plan
Date:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:15:06 PM
Hi Shane and Rob,
As promised I thought I'd put forward some wording suggestions and comments to be considered
and potentially run by the rest of the board. I'll go in order:
Housing Element
p. 2 A majority of this potential will be in multi -family properties and nearly half of all potential is in
redevelopable parcels Do you really mean half of the buildings in this City will be taken down to meet
GMA requirements? Seems like we should target prime areas and not make this statement. There
ought to be some value in retaining existing buildings and then apply adapted reuse techniques where
appropriate. The next go around should at least use sustainable building practices so buildings last or
even "desian for deconstruction" (dfd).
p. 8 (2) provide a suitable living environment including add " provide healthy indoor quality"
somewhere (otherwise known as IEQ or indoor environmental quality)
p. 14-17 Goals and Policies add "Use sustainable design philosophy for all development and
redevelopment" and so on. I can help you flesh out objectives and work on acceptable wording (such
as "sustainable buildina Dractices" if Dreferred- could include a definition)
Land Use Element
p. 10 Historical Development "the earliest inhabitants of the area were likely nomadic bands of Native
Americans" This is the first sentence and I think it is somewhat derogatory. I know tribes would move
around depending on the seasons and what they were seeking for food and shelter, but that reference
doesn't do justice. In the history portion of the SMP I believe it has a better accounting of local tribes
living on the land. I can look it up if you'd like.
On p. 15 there is mention of participatory tribes for the Edmonds Crossing Project but that may not
reflect the true history of occupation back then.
p. 39 (towards the bottom)
The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to
maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure. Try this wording:
"The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure is utilized to maximize the
economic and environmental benefits of that infrastructure". I took out "facility" after infrastructure and
added "environmental". I suggest we not preclude natural systems in our mention of infrastructure so
that infrastructure would indeed also include green infrastructure. Maybe no need to mention "green
infrastructure" outright.
p. 69 4. (bottom) What constitutes "small"
p. 83 top first paragraph: Some streams in the City have supported fish runs from the Sound in the past
and many people in the community would like to see a restoration of these fisheries. Suggest omit
"many people in". Can't believe this wouldn't be a common goal.
B.6 -eliminate it- should be understood and elsewhere in code. Better not to mention.
p. 84 Vegetation and Wildlife A. second paragraph City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent
unique habitats for marine organisms...... I suggest saying "City beaches including the nearshore
environment represent unique habitats for marine organisms". Breakwaters and piling are not desirable
human artifacts for habitat purposes so I don't feel they should be called out. If anything there should
be a goal under "Vegetation and Wildlife" on shoreline stabilization with the encouragement of soft
shore stabilization techniques.
p. 86 Noise pollution is also a factor for wildlife and should be duly noted.
Not too lengthy but thought I'd run it through you folks and take it from here. Thanks so much for
your good work on this tedious task. Looking good!
Cheers,
Val