2016-07-27 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JULY 27, 2016, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: June 22, 2016
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Director Report July, 22 2016
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Recognition of Parks & Recreation Month
B. Update on Civic Center Master Plan
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
13. GENERIC AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
July 27, 2016
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/27/2016
Approval of Draft Minutes: June 22, 2016
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB160622d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 22, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. N
N
04
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
3
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Brad Shipley, Planner
Todd Cloutier Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder y
Nathan Monroe Karin Noyes, Recorder
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart 2
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED o
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There was no
discussion relative to the report.
UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN PROJECT
Mr. Shipley advised that he was present to provide an overview of the presentation that was made at the May 191' open
house. He reviewed that the purpose of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan Project is to create a vision for the approximately two-
mile stretch of the corridor that is located within Edmonds. There are major local and regional destinations along the
highway, and the Edmonds portion has been divided into three distinct sub districts:
Packet Pg. 3
• The International District is currently developed with diverse restaurants, grocers and shops.
• The Health District is home to Swedish Edmonds Hospital and other medical offices.
• The Gateway District is a new district that was identified by the community during the February public open house.
The intent is that this district will provide a gateway and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds.
Mr. Shipley explained that the corridor is already developed as a horizontal mixed -use district with retail and business uses
along the highway and adjacent multi -family and single-family residential development. The goal is to integrate all of these
uses in a more cohesive pattern. He provided an Urban Form Heat Map that illustrates the walkability of the corridor. He
explained that there are three spots with reasonably good urban form (crossings, transit service, block size, and employment
activity), but there are opportunities to enhance these nodes further. He also provided maps to show areas where there are no
marked pedestrian crossings, particularly in the south. For example, there is a stretch between the International and Gateway
Districts where it is a 10-minute walk between crossings. This has been helped with the new 228"' Street crossing, which was
not included on the map, but there are still long segments of the highway without crossings. Most people will not walk 10 co
minutes out of their way to get to a crossing. N
csi
Chair Lovell asked if it would be possible for the consultant (Fregonese Associates) to delineate on the maps or give some N
indication of the area along Highway 99 that represents Esperance as opposed to Edmonds proper. Mr. Shipley pointed out
the location of the Esperance area and agreed to ask the consultant to make this distinction clearer.
Mr. Shipley advised that those in attendance at the March open house were divided into eight groups and asked to participate
in instant polling and mapping exercises to identify the types of improvements they would like to see along the highway. The
participants identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and infrastructure
upgrades. After the workshop the feedback was merged and digitized to reflect the participant's desires as follows:
• More housing development along the corridor, particularly in the south. o
• More mixed -use development, particularly in the south and central districts. R
• Greater pedestrian safety throughout the entire corridor. >
0
• Enhancement of landscape medians. Q.
• More mid -block pedestrian crossings throughout the corridor, particularly between 230th and 234th Streets near the Q
Community Health Center.
• Pedestrian refuge areas at mid -block crossing locations and key destinations.
• Traffic calming on the high-speed southern area, particularly at the Highway 99/11ighway 104 interchange and in the
220t' Street Neighborhood.
• Enhanced transit that provides better connection mid -corridor to future regional rail and better transfers at the south m
end. o
W
• Wayfinding signage to establish Edmonds' identity on Highway 99 and provide a sense of place. M
Mr. Shipley reported that participants in the March open house identified the following community values: connectivity,
destinations, beautification, safety, walkability, affordable housing and healthy businesses. With these community values in
mind, the consultant moved forward with scenario planning to identify plausible stories about the future of the highway. He
emphasized that scenario planning is not intended to represent potential master plans. The consultant started the scenario
planning by summarizing the existing conditions:
• Many sites are less than 25% covered with buildings.
• Most buildings are between 25 and 60 years old and there are few new buildings or historic buildings on the
corridor. Many buildings are reaching the end of their useful life.
• There are many low -to -moderate value buildings and few new, higher -value buildings, and this presents numerous
opportunities for new investment and development.
Mr. Shipley said the consultant then identified potential redevelopment of parcels based on both near and long-term
infrastructure improvements. The first two scenarios have a primarily residential focus, but an additional scenario is being
created that identifies more of an office focus. The consultant has conducted a pro forma on the Edmonds market to
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
determine the feasible building types that would likely work along the corridor in the near (infrastructure investment of
between $10 and $20 million) and long term (more extensive infrastructure investment). He pointed out that greater
infrastructure improvements will result in more intense development opportunities.
Chair Lovell voiced concern that many of the statistics provided thus far by the consultant are hypothetical and not specific to
Highway 99. Mr. Shipley agreed and explained that the project is in the scoping phase now, looking at different scenarios.
The next phase will include actual plans with refined action items for both the near and long-term. The maps provided earlier
are intended to represent what the consultant learned from the public at the first open house. Mr. Chave clarified that the
intent of the presentation is to provide an overview of the process before getting into more specifics as the project moves
forward.
Mr. Shipley described the scenarios as follows:
Scenario 1 represents near -term development opportunities, as well as a strategic, cost-effective transportation
improvement package. Maps were provided to illustrate properties where redevelopment with a mixture of 4-over-1 0
mixed -use buildings and 2 to 3-story apartment buildings would be feasible within the next 5 to 10 years. It is N
anticipated that this scenario could result in additional residential capacity of between 800 and 1,600 new units. N
Near -term transportation improvements include enhanced street crossings, improved pedestrian infrastructure, street
lighting, new bike route designations, and new Class II bicycle lanes. The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has indicated it might be possible to provide an additional crossing somewhere between
228'h and 236th Streets. aa)
• Scenario 2 represents long-term development opportunities and a higher -quality, costlier transportation
improvement package. Maps were provided to illustrate properties where redevelopment with a mixture of 5-over-1
mixed -use buildings and 3-story apartment building would be feasible within the next 10 to 20 years. It is
anticipated that this scenario would result in additional residential capacity of between 3,000 to 6,000 new units.
Long-term transportation improvements include landscaped medians, pedestrian refuge areas, enhanced streetscape,
and dedicated bike routes.
Board Member Robles asked if the bicycle and pedestrian improvements that are made along the corridor would tie in with Q
the Interurban Trail, which is located nearby. Mr. Shipley answered that this connection has been part of the discussion, but
it will not likely be feasible to add bicycle lanes along Highway 99. He acknowledged that there are some points where the 0
Interurban Trail comes close to Highway 99, particularly near 220th Street. Although the plan has not progressed to this
higher -level of detail, the relationship between the highway and the trail will be considered.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the discussion includes potential redevelopment in Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood,
which are located on the east side of the highway. Mr. Shipley answered that representatives from Mountlake Terrace and
Lynnwood have participated in meetings with the consultant team, and they have been invited to provide feedback
throughout the planning process. While there may be some coordinated design and investment, the plan has not reached this
level of specificity yet.
Chair Lovell recalled that when the Board was reviewing the Port of Edmonds' proposed Master Plan for Harbor Square,
they became intimately aware of the meaning of the 4-over-1 and 5-over-1 building concept, which is one level of concrete
structure below four or five levels of wood -frame structure. This type of construction has proven to be a feasible and
favorable design, but he reminded the Board that it does not accommodate more than five levels of wood -frame structure. He
asked if there has been any discussion about more substantial and long-standing types of construction. Mr. Shipley answered
that 4-over-1 and 5-over-1 is the type of construction that has generally penciled out for the corridor. The cost of
construction increases significantly for buildings that exceed that height level. Although the CG and CG2 zones allow for
high-rise development, it is not likely that this more substantial development would be supported in the next five to 10 years.
Greater infrastructure improvements and more people living in the area will be needed before anything of that scale would
pencil out for a developer.
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Chair Lovell asked if 5-over-1 development would primarily accommodate residential units, and Mr. Shipley answered that
both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 indicate a mixture of residential and retail uses. However, Scenario 3 would include more
office space as part of the mixture of uses, particularly in the north end within the Health District.
Board Member Monroe asked if any of the scenarios would accommodate the consolidation of lots to allow for big box stores
or car dealerships. Mr. Chave said that earlier market studies indicate that there is a saturation point for big box retail along
this section of Highway 99 because there are already a number of them in the area. He explained that the market area cannot
go very far west because of the water, so it is mostly an east -facing market. Many of the big box retailers are moving to
smaller formats so there might be some potential, but according to market studies, it does not look promising.
Board Member Monroe asked if the scenarios being created by the consultant would increase the tax base along the highway.
Mr. Shipley said that is the intent of Scenario 3, which would be more office oriented. Mr. Chave added that the tax base
includes two elements: property tax and sales tax. The corridor is currently developed as one-story commercial uses, and
none of the proposed development types would result in the elimination of retail space. The intent is to build the local market
by encouraging more intense redevelopment and infill, which would, in turn, raise property values. Board Member Monroe c
noted that the City receives significant tax revenue from car sales, and he felt it would be appropriate for the City to consider N
cNi
opportunities for properties to be aggregated for this purpose. 04
a�
c
Mr. Shipley reviewed the scenario performance indicators, which were developed using the platform "Envision Tomorrow,"
which was developed by Fregonese Associates, but is now an open source of public domain. He specifically noted the
following: m
• Lower investment in infrastructure improvements will result in fewer acres being redeveloped. It is estimated that
about 42% of properties along the corridor would be developed and/or redeveloped based on Scenario 1 (near -term)
and substantially more would be developed and/or redeveloped based on Scenario 2 (long-term) as a result of
substantially more infrastructure improvements.
• Scenario 1 would result in about $161,000 in property tax revenue per acre, and Scenario 2 would result in about
$221,000. Transit -oriented buildings would have a higher value per acre.
• The housing types in both scenarios would be primarily multi -family and there would be more opportunities for
affordable housing. c
• The corridor is already heavy in employment, and most of the new growth will likely be residential with some
supporting retail and neighborhood commercial -type businesses. Possible exceptions are the major office users and N
hospital expansion. More people living in the area and more neighborhood businesses along the corridor will mean c
more opportunities for walking trips versus driving trips. W
• Currently, the daily internal walk trips per unit is 1,918, and this number would increase to 3,479 with Scenario 1
and 6,662 with Scenario 2. With the increase of daily internal walking trips, the number of vehicle trips per
household would decrease. Safety improvements, additional housing and frequent transit service would complete
the corridor and greatly expand walking. As fewer people would need cars, transportation costs would also
decrease. Fewer auto trips and safety improvements would also reduce the number of traffic accidents per capita.
Mr. Shipley reviewed the next steps in the process, which will start with the consultant incorporating open house and agency
feedback and further refining the land use and transportation scenarios. The scenario phase will be followed by a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessment. It is anticipated
that a draft subarea plan will be available for the Board's review by early fall, and that final adoption will occur before the
end of 2016. He reminded the Board that more information (project updates, workshop results, upcoming events, etc.) can be
found at www.EdmondsHWY99.ore.
Chair Lovell recalled that when the consultant provided an initial orientation to the Board, he asked, and City Council
Members have subsequently suggested, that property owners along Highway 99 be included in the process as stakeholders.
Residential property owners near the highway should also be brought into the discussions. Mr. Shipley reported that he and
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
the Development Services Director have met on several occasions with property owners along the corridor, and many have
attended the open house events as active participants. The public appears to be excited about Highway 99 finally getting
some attention. Many have indicated they would like to see changes, and they are optimistic about what can happen. He
summarized that there has been good engagement so far via on-line surveys and public open houses, and the opportunities for
public involvement will continue throughout the process.
Chair Lovell said he was pleased to see that there is a strong desire for increased housing opportunities along the corridor, At
this time, there is significant economic diversity as far as the quality of the existing residential and commercial stock. He
asked if this factor has been considered, as well. Mr. Shipley said that a lot of diverse interests have emerged amongst the
business and residential property owners, but they all agree that it is important to improve the safety and overall feel of the
corridor.
Board Member Monroe asked if the numbers provided for property tax revenue take into account expected tax breaks that
will be given to developers in coming years. Mr. Shipley said he did not prepare the information, so he is not sure what it
includes in terms of affordable housing tax breaks. Board Member Monroe asked him to find out and address the issue in the c
next iteration. Mr. Chave pointed out that tax breaks would not be permanent. They are intended to get development in N
place and then the break would disappear over time. cN�
a�
c
Chair Lovell summarized that, going forward, he is primarily interested in what can realistically be done on the corridor and
when. He observed that without support from the residential and commercial property owners along the corridor, nothing
will happen. Mr. Shipley said the property owners he has talked to are very supportive and interested in moving forward. r
Mr. Chave added that, overall, the consultant and staff have been very pleased with the degree of interest. A diverse group of
people are participating in the process. s
RECOMMENDATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) REGARDING TEMPORARY (E.G. A -FRAME) SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO
ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the introductory memorandum with respect to the sign code amendments, which outlines
the Board's previous discussions related to the amendments. He reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board came fairly a
close to agreement in terms of a recommendation to the City Council. This direction is reflected in the draft Sign Code and Q
the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations that were attached to the Staff Report. c
Chair Lovell reviewed that, in addition to the proposed amendments relative to pedestrian signs in the downtown, the
proposal also includes a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. He asked if these other N
proposed amendments were brought forward by the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that a few definition changes were m
suggested by the consultant, but most of the proposed amendments address problems staff has run into over the years with W
things that were not clearly defined in the code or things that get in the way of what is reasonable. For example, an applicant op
approached the City with a request to place a sign on the mansard roof a building, and staff agreed that it was the only logical d
place for the sign. However, a provision in the sign code did not technically allow staff to approve the sign, as proposed. He
clarified that the changes suggested by staff are intended to be clarifications or updates rather than wholesale changes to how
signs are regulated. The overall signage allowed would remain unchanged. z
Mr. Chave said one issue that repeatedly came up in the public hearing was the need for businesses that are not located on the
main streets to get attention to let people know they exist. These types of signs are not necessarily permanent, but mostly
used during an initial period when businesses first open. If the proposed changes are forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation of approval, the Board's recommendation could call attention to this issue and recommend that the City
partner with the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID to develop a signage system that provides an avenue for
these businesses to get attention in certain ways. If a program of this type were instituted, businesses may be less likely to
feel a need for pedestrian signs. He summarized that the initial changes could be made now to address pedestrian signs in the
downtown, and then the City could pursue other options. The Board could revisit pedestrian signs again in three to five years
when the situation may be different.
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Chair Lovell referred to ECDC 20.60.080(2)(a), which allows attached signs to be used for temporary signage. Mr. Chave
said the intent is to allow retailers to put up temporary signs for 60 days to advertise business openings or other special
events. This is allowed in the current code, and no change has been proposed. The proposed amendment clarifies where
attached signs can be located. Board Member Robles observed that the means and methods by which people can
accommodate their specific interests are spread throughout the sign code. Although they may not be obvious, they are there.
Mr. Chave said the intent is to provide more flexibility to respond to what people want and need to do, but not change the
overall character of signage in the downtown.
Chair Lovell commented that the proposed amendment outlines how pedestrian signs would be managed in the downtown
area, but it does not recognize that there are other areas in Edmonds where pedestrian signs are, in theory, prohibited. The
question still exists in his mind to what degree will the sign code be enforced in other commercial zones in the City. If it is
enforced in all commercial areas, will business owners in other commercial areas complain because downtown business
owners are allowed to have pedestrian signs and they are not? Or if it is not enforced in all commercial areas, downtown
business owners may complain that they are being discriminated against. Mr. Chave explained that code enforcement is
generally complaint driven. To the extent there are more pedestrians in the downtown, it is likely that more complaints will c
be filed for that area. N
N
N
Chair Lovell recalled that, as requested by the Board, the proposed language provides flexibility that allows property owners
and business owners to work with staff or the Architectural Design Board to reach agreement on how to handle signage in
difficult situations. Board Member Robles asked if the agreement would be transferrable to future occupants or owners of a
building. If it is transferrable, he questioned if the City has a database to memorialize the special agreements for future r
reference. Mr. Chave responded that once a sign structure has been approved and placed on a building, the agreement would
be valid for any future business or property owner as long as no structural changes are proposed. Any structural changes
would require the property owner or business owner to obtain a new permit. If the sign does not comply with the current sign
code, a new exception agreement would be required. 1°
Mr. Chave reviewed that most of the special situations that the code previously talked about were related to site conditions.
The proposed amendment expands the language to acknowledge that, in addition to site conditions, the sign code provisions
may not quite fit for some buildings due to unique architectural features.
Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that incorporating additional pictures into the code would make the provisions a
easier for people to understand. For example, it would be helpful to provide examples of the types of pole signs that would c
be considered monument signs. Otherwise, the written language is a bit difficult to digest. Mr. Chave explained that the
existing code considers signs that are located on one or more exposed poles to be pole signs rather than monument signs, and
pole signs are not allowed. The additional sentence was added to clarify that pole signs with two poles that are not more than N
six feet in height would be considered monument signs and should be allowed. He agreed that pictures would be helpful in m
this section, as well as others, and staff plans to added them before the amendments are forwarded to the City Council for W
review. m
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the last sentence in the definition of "Pole
Sign" should be changed to remove the word "pole" before "signs."
Board Member Stewart suggested that pictures would be particularly helpful to clarify the difference between a stanchion
sign and a pole sign, as well as the difference between changeable message signs and reader board signs. She suggested that
perhaps there should be separate categories for reader board and changeable message signs. Mr. Chave explained that it is
very difficult to distinguish between reader board and changeable signs. For example, you could make the case that gas
station price signs are changeable rather than reader board signs, but the City hasn't prohibited them because they are
necessary. The intent was to write the language in such a way that allows a distinction to be made. The proposed language is
not ideal, but it is the best staff has come up with thus far. Again, Board Member Stewart suggested it might be helpful to
have separate categories for the two sign types.
Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 20.60.020(A)(2), and requested clarification about why individual letters that are
applied directly to a wall or structure are calculated individually instead of as a whole. Mr. Chave said that many sign codes
calculate sign area by drawing a box around the individual letters, but the City calculates the area of the individual letters if
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
they are applied individually to a building. This provision offers a powerful incentive for people to do this type of signage
because it allows for larger letters. This type of signage is considered more aesthetically attractive because the letters are
flush with the building rather than in a large cabinet sign.
Board Member Stewart said she would like the draft code to provide an illustration of a monument sign. Mr. Chave that this
example has already been provided in ECDC 20.60.020.
Board Member Stewart said she was amused to read about the signs that are prohibited because she anticipates someone will
come up with a clever sign that is not on the list. This will require an expensive process to get special approval to deviate
from the sign code. Mr. Chave explained that staff often has to issue interpretations when these situations come up. For
example, halo signs did not exist when the current code was written. Staff determined that the existing code provision related
to indirect lighting would apply to this sign type, as well. He summarized that when someone proposes a sign, staff tries to
identify the closest provisions that apply. Just because a sign is a different type does not mean it would be automatically
ruled out. The intent is for the code to be descriptive rather than rigid in its definitions, and that is why sign codes are so
difficult to write. c
N
cNi
Chair Lovell reviewed that one of the desires expressed in the recommendation memorandum is that some exploration be 04
done as to the feasibility of directional signage on the street corners. He asked if this is something the City's sign shop could c
help with. Mr. Chave agreed that is a possibility, depending on the style, design, materials, etc. 3
Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously discussed the idea of having a GIS-imbedded mechanism that
ai
business owners could use to determine what type of sign package he/she would be allowed. However, this concept was not
included in the draft recommendation that was prepared by staff. While this may be more of an administrative issue as the
City becomes more technologically advanced, perhaps the Board should be more clear that they heartily support the concept.
Board Member Robles commented that the matrix tells what signs can go in what areas, and the information could also be
0
served on a map. Adding pictures would also provide helpful information. However, this approach is archaic given current
technology. He asked about the timeline for reviewing the sign code again in the future. Mr. Chave explained that the
O
current sign code amendments were put forward at the request of the City Council to specifically address pedestrian signs in
>
the downtown. In addition, staff has included some minor amendments to clean up and clarify the existing sign code. He
a
said he is not sure that GIS would be the best solution so he would be hesitant to include it in the Board's recommendation.
Q.
However, it could be a subject that his considered as part of a future discussion of trying to make the code easier to
Q
understand. Board Member Robles suggested that if updating the sign code is an ongoing process, it should be articulated in
c
the recommendation. He said he would support the proposed changes as long as there remains an avenue by which the sign
code could be improved upon in the future.
Board Member Robles asked if all enforcement of the sign code is done on a complaint basis. Mr. Chave answered that all
code enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Board Member Robles suggested that this should be noted in the sign code.
Mr. Chave cautioned against adding language relative to enforcement in the sign code. Otherwise, the sign code would have
to be updated every time the enforcement provisions are changed and vice versa. Board Member Robles expressed concern
that citizens should have a clear understanding of how they are being judged. Mr. Chave advised that, in addition to
complaint -based enforcement, there are general compliance requirements on how the overall code is administered. Staff
ensures that code provisions are being met whenever someone applies for a permit.
Board Member Stewart said she understands the concerns that have been raised about the proliferation of pedestrian signs in
the downtown. Because there are a lot of pedestrians in the downtown area, it is likely that more people will speak up about
illegal signs. On the other hand, Highway 99 is mostly a drive -by situation so there will not be as many complaints. She said
she is not sure how the fairness issue can be resolved except with additional enforcement that will require more manpower.
Mr. Chave advised that the City only has one Enforcement Officer, and he does an amazing job of enforcing the
Development Code provisions. It would be an entirely different thing to start patrolling the commercial areas to enforce the
sign code provisions.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that another bullet point should be added to the Board's recommendation to read, "Employ
technology measures, when available, to assist in sign code application.
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE REVISION OF ECDC 20.60 (SIGN
CODE), INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE SIGN CODE UPDATE, PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS, AND
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOUND IN THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF ON JUNE 22, 2016, TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN, AND WITH ONE ADDITIONAL
BULLET POINT TO READ, "EMPLOY TECHNOLOGY MEASURES, WHEN AVAILABLE, TO ASSIST IN
SIGN CODE APPLICATION." BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell announced that the Board is scheduled to present a report to the City Council on June 28th. He asked that this
date be incorporated into the extended agenda.
Chair Lovell asked when the Board can expect to hear from the City Council regarding a subarea plan for Five Corners. Mr.
co
c
Chave answered that he is scheduled to provide an update to the City Council on July 12th. Chair Lovell suggested that the
N
topic be added to the Board's extended agenda for August as a placeholder.
csi
04
a�
c
Chair Lovell left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
m
r
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
0
Board Member Cloutier said he attended the first part of a meeting at the Senior Center regarding the Edmonds Waterfront
O
Center Proposal, which was formerly known as the South County Senior Center Proposal. The name change is intended to
>
ensure that the new facility is placed on the water.
a
a
Board Member Stewart announced that an open house regarding the Civic Park Master Plan is scheduled for June 23`d from
Q
6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building. She said she plans to attend the meeting as a
c
committee member, and she encouraged other Board Members to attend, as well.
Board Member Robles referred to an article in the May 3 1 " Seattle Times regarding Airbnb regulations in the City of Seattle. N
He recalled that he raised this issue earlier, and some provisions were added to the City's code to address the use. The use is m
quickly expanding, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to give further consideration to potential regulations that W
need to be in place. on
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
June 22, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/27/2016
Director Report July, 22 2016
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and consider information
Narrative
Director Report is attached.
Attachments:
Director Report 07.22.16
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Ci � � pad
0 MEMORANDUM
"', 790
Date: July 8, 2016
To: Planning Board Members
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
Planning Board —Next Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is on July 27, with an agenda focused on the status of Civic
Center master planning.
Green Resource Center —Grand Opening
The Green Resource Center —a part of the Permit Center at City Hall —is nearly complete. The
renovated space features displays of "green building" concepts, including for "low impact"
stormwater management. You are invited to the Grand Opening Wednesday, July 27 at 1:00
pm, City Hall 2nd floor. If you can't make it, we will try to show pictures later.
REGIONAL UPDATES
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
Ll PSRC is updating its Public Participation Plan to reflect good practices for public
involvement and interagency coordination, including for expanded social media and
translation services. To view the draft or make a comment on it, go online to:
http://www.psrc.org/about/public/. Comments are due by August 10.
F1 PSRC's Regional Staff Committee (which includes the Edmonds Development Services
Director) met July 21 to consider:
o Regional Open Space Strategy Update
o Regional Freight Network planning
o Travel Trends Report
o Transportation 2040 Update on Performance Measures
F1 The PSRC Executive Board meets next on July 28. Its agenda includes approval of
projects to receive federal transportation funds in 2018-2010.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
F1 The SCT Planning Advisory Committee met July 14 and discussed:
o County's annexation process
o PSRC Regional Centers Framework process
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
o Process for appointing PSRC representative
o Community roundtable (updates on local activities)
❑ The SCT Steering Committee (comprised primarily of elected officials, including
Edmonds' Mike Nelson) will meet July 27 with an agenda to include:
o Update on PSRC activities
o Update on Economic Alliance Snohomish County
o Approval of 2017 local dues assessment
o Growth trends in the Puget Sound region
o City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan
LOCAL UPDATES
Sustainable Cities Partnership
The City of Edmonds will receive a helping hand from Western Washington University students and
faculty on a range of projects over the next academic year — from developing a mobile application for
downtown visitors to helping reduce storm water impacts to the Edmonds Marsh — thanks to the first
interlocal agreement of its kind in our state between Edmonds, Western Washington University, and the
Association of Washington Cities (AWC).
Based on a proposal for future projects, our city was chosen by the University among several competing
cities. Edmonds has embraced environmental stewardship for a number of years, and is committed to
sustainability as an overall framework in all of its plans and operations.
The partnership agreement provides a new opportunity to focus student energy on a variety of city
interests for sustainability.
AWC and Western launched the Sustainable Cities Partnership based on a successful model pioneered at
the University of Oregon seven years ago, now replicated in dozens of sites around the country. The
partnership pairs students and faculty together with cities to work on city -defined projects.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, students and faculty will tackle 11 Edmonds projects that include
❑ Reduction of stormwater impacts upon the Edmonds Marsh;
❑ Progress in developing the fledgling "Green Business Pledge" program in Edmonds;
❑ Development of a mobile application to make visitors aware of amenities in downtown
Edmonds;
❑ Evaluating available methods of dealing with construction waste and food waste;
❑ Analyzing the likely impacts of sea -level rise upon the Edmonds shoreline
❑ Use of GIS for managing cemetery sites.
For the full list of courses and projects, see the Sustainable Cities Partnership website at:
http://www.wwu.edu/scp/.
Architectural Design Board
The August meeting of the Architectural Design Board is canceled due to a lack of business
items.
21
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
Historic Preservation Commission
Because the Historic Preservation Commission did not have a quorum at its last meeting, no
formal action was taken regarding the historic status of the Boys and Girls Club building at Civic
Playfield.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing July 14 to consider the City's proposal to install a
prefabricated public restroom building in a portion of the parking lot south of City Hall at 121
5t" Ave. N. Installation would not change the existing pedestrian or vehicular access points
from 5t" Avenue or the alley. The existing parking stalls and landscaping would be reconfigured
to provide room for a small plaza north of the restrooms while losing one parking stall. A
conditional use permit and variance is needed for the new building, based on the BD zoning
code requirements. Normally, the Hearing Examiner would issue a final decision, but because
the Edmonds code sends variance decisions requested by a public agency to the City Council,
the Hearing Examiner only issued a recommendation. The recommendation was for approval.
The proposal now goes to the City Council, which originally approved funding for the project.
City Council
On June 28, the City Council adopted two resolutions, one urging the federal government to
prohibit the transportation of crude oil by train through Edmonds and the other urging the
same for the transportation of coal.
Here are a few highlights from the July 19 City Council meeting:
❑ Public Hearing on Planning Board's Recommendation for Sign Code Update —with the
City Council providing direction to bring back an ordinance for consideration
❑ Shoreline Master Program Update
❑ Introduction of process for Long Range Financial Plan
The Council's July 26 meeting agenda includes:
❑ Closed Record Review of the hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve a
conditional use permit and variance for the City's downtown public restroom project
❑ Discussion and potential action on ordinance amending the sign code
❑ Study; Resolution of Intent to Designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as
Residential Targeted Zone for Implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program
and to Schedule a Public hearing
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
❑ July 27: Green Resource Center —Grand Opening, City Hall — 2nd Floor, begins at 1:00
pm.
❑ July 29: Outdoor Movie Nite, Despicable Me (G). Bring your blanket or lawn chair to
watch a blockbuster hit on a giant inflatable screen! Movie begins at dusk (around
9pm). Refreshments will be sold.
❑ July 30: ECA's 10th Anniversary Birthday Bash, from 3:00 pm — 9:00 pm.
❑ August 5: Outdoor Movie Nite, Top Gun (PG-13). Movie begins at dusk (around 9pm).
❑ August 12: A Taste of Edmonds
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
41
❑ August 25: Mayor's Town Hall meeting at Faith Community Church — 10220 238t" St SW
from 6:30 — 8:30 pm.
❑ August 27: Edmonds "Down the Hill" Wine Walk, Downtown Edmonds from 5:00 pm —
8:00 pm. Wine Walk will feature luscious local Washington wineries at 12 of your
favorite downtown Edmonds business locations
Packet Pg. 15
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/27/2016
Recognition of Parks & Recreation Month
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Board
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The Planning Board serves as an ongoing park board and advises the mayor and city council on all
matters relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks and recreation facilities.
Staff Recommendation
The Mayor, Council and staff recognize the importance of parks and recreation. Attachment 1 is the
approved proclamation.
Narrative
Parks and recreation are important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our
communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental
well being of a community and region.
Packet Pg. 16
O
City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor
Designation of July as Park and Recreation Month
WHEREAS:
parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this
country, including the City of Edmonds; and
o
WHEREAS:
our parks and recreation are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the
c
quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and
g
r
contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and
L
region; and
WHEREAS:
parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the
06
prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who
L
are mentally or physically disabled, and also improve the mental and emotional
a
health of all citizens; and
4-
0
WHEREAS:
parks and recreation programs increase a community's economic prosperity
c
0
through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased
tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and
0
as
WHEREAS:
parks and recreation areas are fundamental to the environmental well-being of our
community; and
CO)
0
WHEREAS:
parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater,
prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative
0
buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife; and
E
WHEREAS:
our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our
2
community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and
0
recreate outdoors; and
a
W
WHEREAS:
the City of Edmonds promotes and supports and excellent parks system; and
08
a
WHEREAS:
the City of Edmonds has recently opened a new spraypark, acquired an 8 acre park
c
0
downtown, has been working on the enhancement of the Fishing Pier, continues to
t
work on the daylighting of Willow Creek, provides programs for thousands of
citizens every year, and encourages an active, healthy lifestyle; and
Q
WHEREAS:
the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation
Month; and
WHEREAS:
the City of Edmonds, Washington recognizes the benefits derived from parks and
recreation resources
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Edmonds City Council that July is recognized as
Park and Recreation Month in the city of Edmonds, Washingto ,
t
David O. Eafli g, Mayor
July 13, 2016
Packet Pg. 17
8.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/27/2016
Update on Civic Center Master Plan
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Civic Center Field was recently acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District. The property
officially closed on February 9, 2016.
The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning this property once
acquired.
The kick off meeting to launch the master planning process with the City Council was held on May 3rd,
2016.
Staff Recommendation
Provide input and guidance.
Narrative
Since the kick off meeting with the City Council, the consultant team from Walker Macy, and city staff
have been fully engaged in the Master planning process. We have had many stakeholder meetings, an
open house attended by 150 people, a virtual open house, and several Project Advisory Committee
meetings.
This meeting is the first with the Planning Board. The team will be presenting some preliminary results
from all of the public input thus far. The Planning Board will be asked to give input on the information,
and provide guidance to the team as we start to work on alternatives for the master plan.
Planning member Val Stewart is represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning
process.
Attached for your reference are the following:
1. Presentation for this meeting.
2. Master Plan schedule, dates.
3. Master Plan schedule, calendar
4. Open house feedback summary
5. Virtual open house feedback summary
6. Stakeholder interview summaries
7. PAC team agendas and minutes
Attachments:
Planning Board #1 Packet
Packet Pg. 18
D] AA MO I DJNN LTA [=:I Viva 2 1 a 0 0
a
7L
Ik
IWO" zi�; AW
--AWN="
40V
let
10-
4-sw
%V1
77 V4
w
7.
f
6 ; .
mo
i .
Agenda
• Existing Park Program
• Potential Park Program
• Open House Overview
• Open House Results
• Preferred Program Direction for Plan Options
• Next Steps
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
0
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
iv
Existing Park Program
(Activities)
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
Existing Activities
• Taste of Edmonds
• 4th of July Fireworks
• Wenatchee Youth Circus
(concluding operation 2016)
• Sports tournaments
• Arts Festival (parking)
• Boys &Girls Club (Field House)
• Grand Stand
• Parking
• Storage
• Soccer
• Tennis
• Lacrosse
• Skate park
• Basketball
• Baseball
• Football
• Track
• Playground
• Petanque
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
N
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC`
PO
iv
Festivals & Events
Civic Field
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
C1
n
w
CD
N
Active Recreation
5
AT
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan WALKERIMAO
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
PO
W
iv
w
CD
to
N
tit
Existing Structures
W
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan WALKERIMACY
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
F0
fl1
Potential Park Program
(Activities)
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
PROJECT SITE (DEED_
RESTRICTIONS
APPLY)
�L
SPRAGUE STREET
AREA EXEMPT -
�..�. FROM DEED - -"
Y ■
RESTRICTIONS
•
w ■ s
'O ■
I II011
`� NOT TO SCALE
�JJ �
is
is
Park Themes
n
X
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
00
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
PO
WALKER MAO �°
Potential Additional
Activities
Civic
• plaza
• cafe
• water feature
• performance space
• permanent art
• temporary art
• promenade
• covered market space
• museum display
restrooms
X
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
- • • • .DS
"
R >r
f
rev
Passive
t s:
Potential Additional
Activities
• exercise path
• creative play
• seasonal games
• classes
• activities clubhouse
• concessions
Rw
X
w Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
m
I
Events
.4
lab. 0
4JU
411 fA
t.
id
A.k
41
. !IT
ad
PL
AW-
Open House Boards
a)
n
X
w Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
w
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
iv
Special QmaldaWIL
4 Informational Boards
BACKGROUND
r""Isct Descnpaon NI91ery
Scapa, 5chMule and Pruceae
seels-IV
THE SITE
Cm- Fidd -T—y
CONTEXT
P,,r, Fdn- n—tn— Ccrmwflom TianaltGnmEeik
.-Mom
'A
SCALES OF SIMILAR PARKS
M'J
rF
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
ymaERI
PO
WALKER MAC)
{,g°:
n URRENT A
TECTURE
Girls Club
tands
I
ARCHI
Boys &
Grand S
soccer
tennis
lacrosse
skate park
basketball
baseball
SPORTS PLAY
soccer basketball
tennis baseball
lacrosse track
skate park playground
playground
football
EVENTS"`"`
Taste of Edmonds Wenatchee Youth Circus�--
4th of July Fireworks (concluding operation
Sports Tournaments 2016)
Arts Festival (Parking)-
petanque
oys & Girls Club
Grand Stands (pending structural review)
sports events
formal track large festivals
w
CD
5 Interactive Boards
POSSIBILITIES
What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas)
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
WALKERIMAC`
PO
W
iv
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
n
w
CD
to
w
4
5 Interactive Boards
POSSIBILITIES
- --
y
+�
What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas)
activities clubhouse
creative play
L—
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Other ideas?...
(list them here)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
W
iv
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
5 Interactive Boards
PARK THEMES
What types of activities should be prioritized in the renovated park?
(check all that apply)
0
0
E
0
D
D
0 0
7
❑
-
C
= ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
1
❑
C
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
.1
Cl
C
C
= ❑
- 7
C❑
❑
--:10
-
C
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
-
C
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ El
A❑
❑
C
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
;7
❑
C
C
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
7
❑
-
❑
- ❑
- 7
C
❑ ❑
PASSIVE
❑ C❑ C❑❑ C 0 u
❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ G ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ •7
- ❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ C
C ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ 7
7 ❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑
7 ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑
7❑ C❑ C❑❑ C❑❑ C
D ❑ C ❑ G ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7
C❑ C❑ C❑❑ C❑❑ 7
❑ ❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ .7
7 ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ C
D ❑ C ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
ACTIVE
(11
❑ ❑ Cl❑ ❑ Cl CC
.❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C C;
A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C CI
1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C Ci
-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ Cl C 11
A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C G
:] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C CI
1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C D
7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑
M I
C1
n
w
CD
M
to
w Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
CO
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC`
PO
W
iv
5 Interactive Boards
PIN A COMMENT ON CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD
Tack a comment on the site or margin.
Special Considerations
-he Cla-ni-q eflD7 still xn5ide- R�F =tu g:=vr:h Breda
:.UrY§i:li aIILii ILi Bix CAIha4bCuL. II k: IaI it-rlui C:J"—UY.iGM
Easement Geed reatri�cm as fcicsva:
Nq ra* nr]
• Must oe preaeved as cWn space i.e. either pass ua cr act ua
ieu ealicn7
•himirrurr ICasirrper buacoverfnotinHudi-g Daiwa 81
No s}ntliello iur
• Np nRw n i�fi61d5, {air.nrg "Ori* — '—P - F tiRSi'9t1
• emperary-whij useca^ Deacccmrrcdste�j
-lie toowed :hst Lncluce -.he 7e c Hose iooipr nt are exempt
Il Wh I i�a Jek'e8I•iLIIL" .
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan WALKERIMAC`
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
PO
W
:v
•1•1:a�.Io
_�■ii�iii}■irrrrr■■rrrrrrrr}■I■r
'•
maw
�111.91
s !M—
y Sy
i ■ ■
■�i
•
+
� �•A k - iL' � ..
t
r ; �
k �1 i r
� �' ^�, _�:�1_MI� a-..> i 'r a•
1-1-7 aie plLtrkls11uc51orE ,li Rr1
S fi ■
•� ••• ii�rAA FA MRN04R DEED FiE9IXICTIPX9 it
Open House Q&A,
Participation & Feedback
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
iv
m
cQ
N Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
PO
WALKER MAO �°
n
w
CD
rF
w
w
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
W
iv
PARK THEMES
Vjh'n lYP" of 00%hglie3 should WE priDMired fn the —o+rated p*d*Y
jvheek *A lhafapprYJ
CIVIC PASSi4E hCil'!E
dm-rrl :r.v'—'R.r.1n,."... .... i vnLKEulrt n-
i��
EhIT I cc 1- r �"IF I
rr is f.
J E BI- N
POSSIBILITIES
What might you fike to see? (Place pins inside the colored a+rsx)
t
Liumm
ynyW MCBrer Ran
n
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
00
WALKER MAC` �°
1
A
40
r
� 4
5
0
W
CD
to
In -Person Open House Results
Attendance:
131 signed in
141 attended
Themes (Priorities):
Active 53
Passive 50
Civic 20
Activities (in order of most votes):
Activity Type
(Current v. Possible) Activity
Votes
Category
Current Activities
petanque
43
active
Possibilities
jogging/walking path
43
active
Possibilities
restrooms
41
active
Current Activities
soccer
35
active
Possibilities
shade trees
29
passive
Possibilities
strolling paths
28
passive
Current Activities
skate park
25
active
Current Activities
tennis
24
active
Current Activities
playground
21
active
Possibilities
horticultural gardens
18
passive
Possibilities
multi -use lawn
17
passive
Current Activities
B&G Club
16
arch
Current Activities
Grand Stands
16
arch
Possibilities
seasonal games
16
active
Current Activities
formal track
15
active
Possibilities
creative play
15
active
Current Activities
baseball
14
active
Current Activities
basketball
13
active
Possibilities
cafe
13
civic
Possibilities
stormwater gardens
13
passive
Current Activities
large festivals
12
events
Possibilities
plaza
12
civic
Possibilities
perfromance space
12
civic
Possibilities
picnic areas
12
passive
Possibilities
water feature
10
civic
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan WALKERIMAC)
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
PO
W
;v
Online Open House Preliminary Results
So far:
200 + visitors,
135 responses
Themes (Priorities):
Active 16
Passive 10
Civic 2
Activities (highest ranking):
What new activities would you like to see in the park?
Activity Votes
Excersise path 22
Creative play 11
Seasonal Rames 8
What passive features would you like to see in the park?
Activity Votes
Shade trees 21
Multi -use lawn 17
Strolling paths 15
What activities do you think should continue in the park?
What civic feature would
you like to see in the park?
Activity
Votes
Activity
Votes
Petanque
23
Restrooms
21
Boys and Girls Club / Field House
22
Water feature
13
Soccer
22
Permanent art
12
Children's playground
21
What small-scale, local events
would you like to see in the park?
Tennis
18
Music
20
Skate park
18
Fun -runs
14
unning track
16
Theater performances
12
0
Crosse
15
Art installations
10
Markets
8
y
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield
Master Plan
WALKER MAC`
PO
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet
(1405 : Update on Civic Center Master
Plan)
W
CD
to
00
Consistent Themes & Highest Ranked
Themes (Priorities):
Active 1
Passive 2
Civic 3
Activity
In Preson
Votes
Online
Votes
Total Votes
petanque
43
23
66
jogging/walking path
43
22
65
restrooms
41
21
62
soccer
35
22
57
shade trees
29
21
50
strolling paths
28
15
43
skate park
25
18
43
tennis
24
18
42
playground
21
21
42
B&G Club
16
22
38
multi -use lawn
17
17
34
horticultural gardens
18
14
32
formal track
15
16
31
performances (sm. music+theater)
10
20
30
creative play
15
11
26
baseball
14
12
26
Grand Stands
16
9
25
basketball
13
12
25
seasonal games
16
8
24
stormwater gardens
13
10
23
performance space
12
11
23
water feature
10
13
23
picnic areas
12
10
22
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
WALKERIMAO
PO
W
iv
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
C1
n
W
CD
to
Stakeholder Meetings
Program
Date Requests to
Interviewed ConstituencyTVpe ]lour)Individual Preferred Program Remove Comments
r—
5/17/16 Stakeholder Boys & Girls Club Architecture 18,000-25,000 sf facility
5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Dave Teitzel) Architecture Boys & Girls club building is "charming"
5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Dave Teitzel) Architecture Adjunct museum for Police and Fire
Precedents
Kingston Community Center
Alderwood
5/17/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Diane Buckshnis)
Architecture
Small Pavilion
5/19/16
Stakeholder
City Staff
Architecture
Boys & Girls Club plus muti-use facility
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Economic Development Commissions
Architecture
Concession area; stage; glass roof pavilion
Directors Park, Portland
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Architecture
Boys & Girls Club should remain on site
5/23/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Kristiana Johnson)
Architecture
as senior housing, artist live -work, mixed use / outdoor
cafe, affordable housing
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Historic Preservation Commission
Architecture
Field House should remain and be rehabilitated;
demonstration shingle mill
5/23/16
Stakeholder
City Council (neil Tibbott)
Architecture
Concert/event venue
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Museum / Market
Architecture
Museum display / fire engines, historical artifacts
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Center for the Arts
Architecture
B&G club to relocate to ECA campus
5/17/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Dave Teitzel)
Art
That captures light and wind or glass.
5/17/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Diane Buckshnis)
Art
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Art Festival Foundation
Art
Temporary or Permanent
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Arts Commission
Art
Temporary incorporated into art walks
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Art Festival Foundation
Bike Racks
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Boys & Girls Club
Blacktop
Like Basketball, with fencing
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Holy Rosary
Bleachers
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Bleachers
Spectators should be encouraged
5/17/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Dave Teitzel)
Community Gardens
5/17/16
Stakeholder
City Council (Diane Buckshnis)
Community Gardens
"can be beneficial'
5/18/16
Stakeholder
City Staff
Community Gardens
Or lower intensity uses around residences
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Economic Development Commissions
Education
Environmental Education/ Stormwater
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Economic Development Commissions
Events
Movies, music
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Art Festival Foundation
Events
Arts festival, wine events, etc.
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Planning Board
Events
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Events
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Arts Commission
Events
Concerts (200-300 pp); theater,
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Events
Taste of Edmonds; only portion of felt that could relocate is
vendor parking along north edge; power supply could earn
city money
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Center for the Arts
Events
Could book outdoor concerts at the park
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Edmonds Arts Festival
Events
Interested in moving Arts Festival to Park
5/23/16
Stakeholder
Sno-King Youth Club
Flag Football
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Football
5/20/16
Stakeholder
City Staff
Games
Like chess, ping-pong, etc.
Occidental Park
5/17/16
Stakeholder
Economic Development Commissions
Gardens
Demonstation, stormwater, p-patch
5/23/16
Stakeholder
City Council (neil Tibbott)
Gardens
S/17/1f
Ctakahnlrlor
Rnvc A rid, Cluh
rra Fiolrl
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
WALKERIMAC)
00
W
;v
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
Schedule
Council Briefing, August 9th
Open House 2 (Master Plan Alternatives), August 24
Planning Board Meeting, September 14
a)
X
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
0
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
iv
End / Discussion
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAO
PO
iv
Activities in Edmonds Parks
HAINES WHARF PARK
1 VIEW POINT I PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I WILDLIFE I TRAILS I RESTROOMS
STAMM OVERLOOK PARK
2 VIEW POINT I WILDLIFE
HUTT PARK
3 TRAILS I WILDLIFE
SEAVIEW PARK
4 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I TENNIS I SOCCER I BASEBALL/SOFTBALL
RESTROOMS
SIERRA PARK
5 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I SOCCER I BASEBALL/SOFTBALL I RESTROOA
s MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I WILDLIFE
OLYMPIC BEACH PARK
7 PICNIC AREA I TRAILS I ART I MARINE SANCTUARY I FISHING I RESTROOMS
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH & SOUTH / UNDERWATER PARK
8 PICNIC AREA I TRAILS I VIEW POINT I ART I RESTROOMS I MARINE SANCTUARY I SCUBA DIVING
CIVIC FIELD
9 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I RUNNING TRACK I BASKETBALL I TENNIS I FOOTBALL I
SOCCER I BASEBALL/SOFTBALLI SKATE PARK I RESTROOMS
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER
10 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASEBALL I SOCCER I ARTI RESTROOMS
11 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASKETBALL
12 PINE RIDGE PARK
TRAILS I WILDLIFE
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
13 OUTDOOR PERFORMANCE SPACE TART
YOST PARK
14 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I TENNIS I OUTDOOR POOL I WILDLIFE
RESTROOMS
MARINA BEACH PARK
15 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I VOLLEYBALL I KITE FLYING I BOAT LAUNCH I BARBECUE
STANDS I VIEW CORRIDOR I RESTROOMS
16 EDMONDS MARSH
TRAILS WILDLIFE I VIEW CORRIDOR
EDMONDS CITY PARK
17 PICNIC SHELTERS I PLAYGROUND (2) 1 TRAILS I SOCCER I WATER PLAY I OUTDOOR
PERFORMANCE SPACE I HORSESHOES I RESTROOMS
PINE STREET PARK
18 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASEBALVSOFTBALL I RESTROOMS
7TH & ELM PARK
19 OPEN SPACE
,10 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY & COLUMBARIUM
RESTROOMS
HICKMAN PARK
21 PICNIC SHELTERS I PLAYGROUND (TRAILS I SOCCER I BASEBALL/SOFTBALL I BASKETBALL
RESTROOMS
0 22 MAT HAYBALLINGERPARK
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASKETBALL
rF
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
N
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
W
iv
Park Conte__
� •�' 'i a }: ji*_a,� _ ;,i" -- .--r-.1• .. ' .iF} t_�
r _ '
� yam_.,
'- DOWNTOWN '
FRANCES
ANDERSON
;}„' ,CENTERW. y
Ilk
,r�'-4 • r' f ;
W.
ON
64
AF
b N
cQ
PO
w Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan WALKER MAC) 00
iv
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
Transit Connections
---
BracLanding °; �>�>' >'' \ Shoreline
1Edmonds
Sanctuary o``�� �� \ -
Center For
ro
•� N
Ferry '
Terminal
> `7
O > `gyp
> ;�,.```` Amtrak/
LINK
Station
l/
-I - The Arts
1/4 mile
Q >
A O i t = 5-minute walk l w
Main >`
-4. Street
Shops �� j MAIN ST
i
L a Z Frances
IL Library — Anderson
-. DAYTON ST Z Center
V
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
i
LEGEND
O BUS STOP
EXISTING BIKE ROUTE
PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE
••••••• FERRYROUTE
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AMTRAK/LINK ROUTE
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
N
O I
I
`r
PO
WALKER MAC)
Scales of Similar Parks
CIVIC FIELD
EDMONDS, WA
8 ACRES
BELLEVUE DOWNTON
BELLEVUE, WA
21 ACRES
CAL ANDERSON PARK
SEATTLE, WA
7.5 ACRES
EDMONDS CITY PARK
EDMONDS, WA
14 ACRES
Edmonds Civic Center Plavfield Master Plan
PETER KIRK PARK
KIRKLAND, WA
12.5 ACRES
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
WALKERIMAC)
PO
W
iv
8.B.a
Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates
May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room
May 12th: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00 —11:30 am, Frances
Anderson Center, Room 302
May 17 and 23rd: Stakeholder meetings ( Chris and Carrie, FAC Room 113)
June 23rd: Open House, 6-7:30 pm, Library Plaza Room
July 7th: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson
Center, Room 302
July 27th: Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 9th: City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 24th: Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room
September 1: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances
Anderson Center, Room 302
September 14th: Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
September 27th: City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
October 12th: Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room
October 14th: Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances Anderson
Center, Room 302
November 9th: Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
November 22nd: City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
January 17, 2017: City Council final adoption, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
eLo
Packet Pg. 56
Phase 1 - Develop Park Design Program
0-
1. Kickoff meeting with PAC
2. Site visit with Parks Staff and interested PAC members
3. Assemble and review background and historical information
4. Identify and locate natural and man-made features
5. Prepare a base plan based on materials gathered
6. Conduct meetings with Parks, Engineering, Public Works, and Planning
7. Provide a graphic summarizing site opportunities and constraints
8. Develop park program options based on input from Parks staff and City officials
9. Open House #1
10. Develop preliminary Park Design Program
11. Review final park program plan with Planning Board and City Council
Phase 2 - Develop Schematic Design
1. Assist PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for Master Plan alternatives
2. Develop three schematic design options
3. Assist the PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for schematic design
4. Prepare three schematic designs based upon the the approved design program
5. Prepare a narrative which summarizes the existing conditions
6. Meet with City Council and Planning Board.
7. Meet with the Parks staff team to review schematic designs
8. Open House #2
9. Meet with City, County, State, and Federal to review schematic design direction
10. Meet with the PAC to review comments from community workshops
11. Provide updates to the Planning Board and City Council
12. Create a single, draft schematic design based upon preferred elements
13. Create a draft Implementation Strategy/Phasing Program
14. Identify scope and schedule of permitting process
15. Attend meetings with Parks staff to review preferred Master Plan alternative
16. Open House #3
17. Meet with City to review schematic design/phasing program
18. Meet with Planning Board and City Council
19. Refine draft schematic design and phasing program
20. Review cost estimates
21. Meet with PAC to review workshop comments
22. Refine final schematic design
23. Prepare SEPA checklist if needed
24. Present Final Master Plan to City Council for Adoption
n
X
co
M
1P
Ln
4
May
2016
•
June
2016
July August
2016 2016
September
2016
•
••
October
2016
•
•
•
November
2016
•
••
December
2016
Legend
Task Duration
Meeting W
Attachment: Planning Board #1 Packet (1405 : Update on Civic Center Master Plan)
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 In -Person Data
Activity Type
(Current v. Possible)
Activity
Votes
Category
Current Activities
petanque
43
active
Possibilities
jogging/walking path
43
active
Possibilities
restrooms
41
active
Current Activities
soccer
35
active
Possibilities
shade trees
29
passive
Possibilities
strolling paths
28
passive
Current Activities
skate park
25
active
Current Activities
tennis
24
active
Current Activities
playground
21
active
Possibilities
horticultural gardens
18
passive
Possibilities
multi -use lawn
17
passive
Current Activities
B&G Club
16
arch
Current Activities
Grand Stands
16
arch
Possibilities
seasonal games
16
active
Current Activities
formal track
15
active
Possibilities
creative play
15
active
Current Activities
baseball
14
active
Current Activities
basketball
13
active
Possibilities
cafe
13
civic
Possibilities
stormwater gardens
13
passive
Current Activities
large festivals
12
events
Possibilities
plaza
12
civic
Possibilities
perfromance space
12
civic
Possibilities
picnic areas
12
passive
Possibilities
water feature
10
civic
Possibilities
permanent art
10
civic
Possibilities
performances
10
events
Possibilities
clubhouse
10
active
Possibilities
promenade
9
civic
Possibilities
berms
8
passive
Possibilities
shade pavilion
8
passive
Current Activities
sports events
6
events
Current Activities
football
5
active
Possibilities
market
5
civic
Possibilities
art installations
4
events
Possibilities
on -site parking
4
active
Current Activities
lacrosse
2
active
Possibilities
culinary events
2
events
Possibilities
fun -runs
2
events
Possibilities
concessions
2
active
Possibilities
bleachers
1
active
Other Suggestions & Concerns
Underground Parking
v
m
a
LO
0
m
IL
E
M
0
m
a�
c
c
0
a
c
a�
E
z
U
0
r
Q
Page 1
Packet Pg. 58
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 In -Person Data
8.B.a
Handball Courts
Disc Golf
Pickleball
leave as is with upgraded fields
Sustainability/LID features demonstration areas
"natural" jungle gym for youth and adults
ethno-botanic gardens
Community Garden (P-patch)
Benches, picnic tables
Lighting
Fencing
Permanent Covered Market
Rain Protection
4th Ave Corridor Connection
Theme
Votes
Active
53
Passive
50
Civic
20
Attendance:
131 Signed In
141 Counted by Parks Staff (exclusive of staff and consultants)
Page 2
Packet Pg. 59
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data
8.B.a
Website analytics (June 24 — July 1)
0 203 unique visitors
• 274 sessions
• 1,350 total page views
• 4.93 pages viewed per session (average)
0 Average session duration: 00:04:28
Feedback received
The online open house surveys received 135 responses.
Welcome Page: 43 total responses
What is your relationship to the park?
I live near the park 28
1 live and/or work near the park 13
1 do not live and/or work in Edmonds 3
1 work near the park 1
How often do you use the park
I visit the park frequently 25
1 visit the park occasionally 8
1 visit the park rarely 8
1 have never been to the park 2
Did you attent the open house?
No 23
Yes 19
Possibilities Page: 30 total responses
What activities do you think should continue in the park?
Activity
Votes
Petanque
23
Boys and Girls Club / Field House
22
Soccer
22
Children's playground
21
Tennis
18
Skate park
18
Running track
16
Lacrosse
15
Basketball
12
Baseball
12
Bleachers
9
Grandstands
9
Football
8
Page 1
Packet Pg. 60
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data
8.B.a
What new activities would you like to see in the park?
Activity
Votes
Excersise path
22
Creative play
11
Seasonal games
8
Classes
7
Activities clubhouse
7
Concessions
4
What passive features would you like to see in the park?
Activity
Votes
Shade trees
21
Multi -use lawn
17
Strolling paths
15
Horticultural gardens
14
Stormwater gardens
10
Picnic areas
10
Berms
9
Shade pavilion
9
What civic feature would you like to see in the Dark?
Activity
Votes
Restrooms
21
Water feature
13
Permanent art
12
Performance space
11
Temporary art
10
Promenade
9
Plaza
5
Cafe
4
Covered market space
2
Museum display
2
Parking: There is currently no parking provided at Civic Center Playfield. Should parking be provided in th
No 18
Yes 5
No opinion 4
What is your opinion of hosting large events in the park?
I would prefer not to have large event 13
Large events bring vitality and income 11
I enjoy all or some of these events 5
How frequently should large events be scheduled for the park?
I don't think there should be large eve 9
1-2 times per year 7
Page 2 Packet Pg. 61
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data
3-6 times per year 9
7-10 times per year 4
What small-scale, local events would you like to see in the park?
Music
20
Fun -runs
14
Theater performances
12
Art installations
10
Markets
8
Culinary events
8
1 would prefer not to have more evens
5
How frequently should small-scale, local events be scheduled?
1-2 times per year 9
3-5 times per month 7
1-2 times per month 7
Park Themes Page: 31 total responses
Park Themes
Civic
Passive
Active
Age
Over 60
45-59
30-44
18-29
Gender
Male
Female
Prefer Not To Answer
Are you a resident of Edmonds?
Yes
No
1- high 2 - modera 3 - low
2 9 13
10 8 9
16 9 5
If ves. how lone have you lived in Edmonds?
17
5
5
2
24
0
Over 10 years 16
1-5 years 4
6-10 years 3
Less than a year 1
identify as:
White/Caucasian
20
8.B.a
c
a
L
as
`m
a�
U
v
U
c
O
m
c�
a
LO
0
lid
U
M
a
L
�0
W
a�
c
c
c�
a
a�
E
z
U
2
r
Q
Page 3
Packet Pg. 62
EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data
Prefer not to answer 2
Other 1
Other Suggestions & Concerns not otherwise represented (see full notes)
proper clay track (meandering path not a substitute)
community garden plots
alley safety / visibility - no bushes
horseshoe pit
obstacle course
sustainability demonstration features
sell some property for development (housing/retail)
relocate the Taste of Edmonds
Page 4 Packet Pg. 63
WALKER IMACY
STING AGENDA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time:
10:00-11:00
Topic:
Project Introduction & Kickoff
Meeting Date:
5/12/2016
Location:
Frances Anderson Center
Project:
Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan
Project #:
P3282
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Introductions - Team and Attendees
Edmonds
Renee McRae, City
of Edmonds
Project Overview — Background and Team Selection Process
Rich Lindsay, City
of Edmonds
Walker Macy Presentation
Frances Chapin,
1. Firm Background
City of Edmonds
2. Project Understanding
Chris Jones,
3. Public Process & Schedule
Walker Macy
4. Site Context
Ann Marie
5. Program
Schneider, Walker
Macy
a. Is our preliminary list of program appropriate?
Rob Chave
b. What should be added or taken away?
Dave Teitzel
c. What are the priorities for program?
Valerie Stewart
d. What are the opinions about Taste of Edmonds -any possibility it would not
Barbara Chase
remain on site?
Doug Sheldon
6. Capital cost and Operations & Management
Steve Shelton
Questions and discussion on project scope and process
Lesly Kaplan
Joe Mclalwain
Site Visit (immediately following meeting at 11:00 am)
Alex Witenberg
Kyla Blair
Pat Woodell
Bob Rinehart
John McGibbon
Diana White
Emily Scott
Dick Van Hollebeke
Mike Echelbarger
Q
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 64
WALKER IMACY
STING MINUTES
Time: 10:00-11:30
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Topic: Project Introduction & Kickoff Meeting Date: 5/12/2016
Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282.01
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Edmonds Introductions of team and attendees
Renee McRae, City
of Edmonds
Project Overview and Presentation (Carrie Hite and Walker Macy)
Rich Lindsay, City
of Edmonds
Questions and Discussion:
Frances Chapin,
City of Edmonds
Chris Jones,
• The grandstand is undergoing structural review.
Walker Macy
Lara Rose,
• Historical analysis was added to the scope; Walker Macy has added Bola Architects to
Walker Macy
their team specifically for this.
Ann Marie
Schneider, Walker
• The park grant funding has restrictions on approximately 6 of the 8 acres that prohibits
Macy
certain things such as impervious cover (only 10% allowed, excluding pathways)
Rob Chave
• The council is in the process of reviewing vacation of the public rights -of -way from the
Valerie Stewart
former streets and alleys that transected the property
Barbara Chase
Doug Sheldon
• The project team will be in conversation with the Boys and Girls Club to determine their
Steve Shelton
interests
Lesly Kaplan
• Park users currently use the church parking lot to the north for parking. Parking will be
Joe Mclalwain
considered in the list of possible park programs. The project team will need to know daily
Alex Witenberg
use requirements for design consideration.
Kyla Blair
• Are there city ordinance and/or curfew limitations on park hours and evening uses?
Pat Woodell
Currently yes, there may need to be some review depending on desired uses.
Bob Rinehart
. What is the process for capturing public input? It may be useful to start at a higher level
John McGibbon
and suggest themes such as Health & Wellness before getting specific on program.
Diana White
• Discussion around the public process: Public Open Houses generally include a short
Emily Scott
presentation and small group interaction. We will also be employing graphics and models
to elicit information and ideas. At the second Open House, three schemes will be shown
Not in Attendance:
that demonstrate possible designs that incorporate ideas and priorities from the
Dave Teitzel
community. The final Open House will present a single scheme that has been distilled
Dick Van Hollebeke from the prior three as priorities and desires are refined.
• There will be a kiosk on site for park users to provide feedback.
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 65
8.B.a
PAC Meeting #1
Edmonds Civic Field
5/ 12/2016
Page 2 of 3
• A parkour trail and Tai Chi are other program considerations. LaCrosse is also currently
very popular.
• PAC would like Walker Macy to also share examples of things that didn't work on prior
park projects such as Pioneer Courthouse Square. A lessons learned discussion will be
considered for our next PAC meeting.
• What kind of park access hours will there be and will the fence remain? This is open for
discussion.
• If PAC members have additional comments or theme suggestions for Open House #1 they
can send them to Carrie to be shared with the project team.
• The next PAC meeting is scheduled for July 7. We will be reviewing input from
stakeholder interviews and Open House 1 to determine program priorities.
Site Visit
• The Boys & Girls Club (BGC) has a bi-annual track meet. This is the only formal event that
uses the track. Residents and workers regularly use the track for exercise.
• Many residents walk through the park to get to downtown / work.
• There are problems with geese. Any design interventions to reduce geese should be
considered.
• Skate park noise is a challenge; currently there are mats along the fence to reduce noise.
• The baseball field is rarely used (only by the 12 and under children) for baseball. It's
more frequently used for soccer and lacrosse.
• Views are precious, trees should be low.
• The grandstand is "historic" (which means greater than 50 years old) but this does not
necessarily make it "significant."
• Parks maintenance staff is limited and sometimes utilizes volunteers. A "friends of"
group for the park should be considered. The Edmonds Community College Horticultural
program may also be a good resource for support.
• Adjacent streets should be considered in the park design. During the Taste festival,
buses drop off along 7th and vendors park on the baseball field. On -street parking and
re -striping should be considered for parking solutions. There is interest in a mid -block
crossing, particularly across 71h , for better/safer pedestrian access to the park. There is
not a recent parking study for the City.
• A park restroom, shade structure, or even a year-round pavilion are all open for
discussion and will be dependent on the intent for the existing BGC and grandstand
condition report. Retrofit of some portion of the existing grand -stand could also be
considered.
• There are standing water issues on the southeast portion of the site.
Packet Pg. 66
8.B.a
PAC Meeting #1
Edmonds Civic Field
5/12/2016
Page 3 of 3
• Emergency vehicle access during events is challenging.
Action Items:
Item Description Action by Due date
2
Post presentation, including existing list of park WM & EPR 05/13/2016
uses
Packet Pg. 67
WALKER IMACY
STING AGENDA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Public Input Review & Preferred Meeting Date: 7/7/2016
Program
Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Edmonds
Public Input Review
Renee McRae, city
1. Open House Overview
of Edmonds
2. Turnout and Results
Rich Lindsay, City
a. Live Version
of Edmonds
b. Online Version
Frances Chapin,
City of Edmonds
3. Stakeholder Interviews Summary
Chris Jones,
Walker Macy
Preferred Program Direction for Plan Options
Lara Rose,
1. Activities / Priorities
Walker Macy
2. Events
Ann Marie
a) Taste of Edmonds
Schneider, Walker
Macy
b) Arts Festival and Others?
Rob Chave
Dave Teitzel
Deed Restrictions Clarification -
Valerie Stewart
1. Recreation fields existing vs. new
Barbara Chase
2. Structures
3. Parking (underground)
Doug Sheldon
Steve Shelton
Site History & Structures
Lesly Kaplan
1. Clarification of site history
Joe Mclalwain
2. Architecture
Alex Witenberg
a. Grand Stands
Kyla Blair
b. Boys & Girls Club
Pat Woodell
Bob Rinehart
Schedule - July/ August (Design Alternatives)
1. July 27, Planning Board Meeting
John McGibbon
2. August 9, City Council Briefing
Diana White
3. August 24, Open House #2 - Design Options
Emily Scott
4. September 1, Next PAC Meeting
Dick Van Hollebeke
Additional Discussion
Mike Echelbarger
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 68
WALKER IMACY
STING MINUTES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Open House 1 Review and Guidance Meeting Date: 7/7/2016
Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Project #: P3282.01
Master Plan
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Introductions of team and attendees.
Edmonds
In attendance: Carrie Hite, Renee McRae, Frances Chapin, Todd Cort, Chris Jones, Ann Marie
Renee McRae, City
Schneider, Rob Chave, Valerie Stewart, Barbara Chase, Steve Shelton, Alex Witenberg, Kyla
of Edmonds
Blair, Mike Echelbarger, Bob Rinehart, John McGibbon, Diana White, Emily Scott, Kristiana
Rich Lindsay, City
Johnson, Dave Teitzel, Linda Malan for Pat Woodell
of Edmonds
Absent: Lesly Kaplan, Rich Lindsay, Joe Mclalwain, Doug Sheldon, Dick Van Hollebeke
Frances Chapin,
City of Edmonds
One citizen, Roger Hertrich was also in attendance.
Chris Jones, Walker
Macy
Open House Recap and Input Review
Ann Marie
Schneider, Walker
Macy
Questions and Discussion:
Rob Chave
• Role of the PAC is to provide guidance to consulting team on feedback received from
Valerie Stewart
community. Recommendations will then be shared with the Planning Board, whose role
Barbara Chase
is intermediary.
Doug Sheldon
Steve Shelton
• Almost half of the PAC was present at the in -person open house.
Lesly Kaplan
• Carrie provided updates on deed restrictions, the State allows for facilities that support
Joe Mclalwain
outdoor recreation such as restrooms, parking, shade structures, etc. No definitive
Alex Witenberg
answers yet from Snohomish County whose funds are generally more restrictive.
Kyla Blair
• A copy of the presentation power point will be posted online the day after the meeting.
Pat Woodell
• Draft meeting minutes will be posted and PAC members will be allowed to comment
Bob Rinehart
within a brief time -frame following the meeting.
John McGibbon
Diana White
• Request was made to receive presentation materials in advance (current meetings
Emily Scott
materials went out the day before). Project team will try to publish them earlier going
forward, however they are often compiling data from the Open House until a day or two
Christiana Johnson
before the meeting.
Dave Teitzel
Mike Echelbarger
Citizen: Public Engagement
Attachments:
• Open House There was high turnout at the in -person open house and to -date for the online open
Results / house (which doesn't close until EOD the 7t"), with some overlap in participants.
Presentation
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 1 SEATTLE, WA 98104 PHONE: 206.582.3874 1 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 69
8.B.a
PAC Meeting #2
Edmonds Civic Center PlayField
7/7/2016
Page 2 of 4
Questions/concerns were raised about individuals participating in both and double -
voting. There is no way to prevent participants from multiple votes and this is taken into
consideration to the degree possible. Suggestions were made to remind participants that
they may only vote once.
• Discussion ensued about the challenges in capturing public input, which is an "imperfect
process" by nature. Surveys are a good place to start but offer limited utility. There was
general agreement that we need to develop realistic parameters to start honing in on.
• Suggestion was made to put the online survey link on the District website.
• Concerns were raised about young adult outreach and the fact that the project public
input process does not coincide with school terms. This is a challenge given the project
schedule, there are plans to engage a group of Parks Dept. summer youth interns.
• Also discussed assistance from Kyla for facilitating social media coverage (e.g. Twitter
and Facebook sharing).
• The issue was raised that the public open house (in -person) better accommodates the
elderly (which is why the online open house is also offered). It was suggested that PAC
members also share the online open house links with others, particularly those with
children.
• Question was raised to group on whether the list of priority programs that came out of the
open houses was in -line with their expectations; a significant majority agreed that the list
seemed to be a reasonable representation of community sentiment.
Structures
• What is the Boys & Girls Club envisioning for their building? Team updated the PAC on
the stakeholder meeting discussion, that the Club would like an 18-25,000 SF facility and
a long-term lease. There is generally strong support from the City Council and
conversations with the City and with the ECA about options for expansion or relocation
are ongoing. The direction of these conversations will have a significant impact on the
park design.
• Importance of having the Boys and Girls Club in the city was expressed.
• Grand Stands have a significant impact on park design and a decision is needed soon for
design consideration. There are structural and safety concerns, and the structure is not
ADA compliant.
• The HPC offered no recommendation on the Grand Stands.
• After consultation with the State, the Development Services Department has concluded
that removal of the structure, with proper documentation before it is removed, is
appropriate.
• Most agreed that removal of the stadium, if it doesn't have historic significance, is
desirable. One member suggested keeping the steps, possibly creating a lookout area.
Packet Pg. 70
8.B.a
PAC Meeting #2
Edmonds Civic Center PlayField
7/7/2016
Page 3 of 4
• Most agreed that some historic acknowledgement/marker should be considered for the
site.
• Some have historic and emotional attachment to the bleachers and would like to
consider that portions of it remain. Others stated it should only remain unless it is
important and integral to the new park design.
• It is possible to use some of the grant funding for demo of the Grand Stands, this would
have to be determined soon.
• Large event seating could be provided by other options, i.e. portable bleachers.
• Carrie will talk to the state RCO office about completing a Cultural Resources report for
the Grand Stand, and possibly the Field House. The PAC agreed that if the report results
show that the Grand Stand is not of historical significance its removal is appropriate. The
scope of the report was removed from the Civic Center Playfield contract and will be a
separate but related initiative.
• Approximately 50% of Grand Stand storage is used by the City. The City is seeking a
replacement/new facility to consolidate their storage. Other stakeholders have been
briefed on the situation and options are being discussed.
Events
• Sentiment to not design for festivals was raised, and has been heard repeatedly via
community and stakeholder input. The design team needs guidance however, on what
level of footprint to consider in the design process. The PAC agreed that some
reorganizing and possible consolidating of the Taste of Edmonds footprint should be
explored and considered. Particularly there are large areas used for vendor parking.
• Middle -scale events should be considered and weren't well represented in the
questionnaire (e.g. a summer market with option for some street closures). Relocation of
the current market to the park edge along 6t" should also be considered.
Program
• Some felt strongly that the park should be active, others felt that purely active program
only serves a segment of the community and that passive program is equally important.
• The importance of beauty and the significance of a downtown signature park should be
considered.
• Having some shade trees is important, but need to consider the height and views
• Options for some program to be accommodated in other parks should be considered
such that Civic Playfield can be special.
• Options to consider multi use spaces was discussed, i.e. Petanque.
Packet Pg. 71
8.B.a
PAC Meeting #2
Edmonds Civic Center PlayField
7/7/2016
Page 4 of 4
• Questions were raised about the 2-acre unrestricted area and whether there should be
consideration for development, in addition to Boys and Girls Club expansion, for example
low income or senior housing. It is believed that there are not funding restrictions to keep
this area as part of the park but that the intent of the purchase, and the funding, was to
keep it as part of the park. Most felt that private redevelopment would not be an
appropriate use.
• Program should include a mix of active, passive and civic. Many uses are not mutually
exclusive.
• The project team is experienced in developing flexible use space (space that
accommodates multiple programs), which will be a key component in the park design.
Packet Pg. 72