2016-09-14 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approve draft minutes of 8.24.16
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Civic Master Plan Update
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review of Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
September 14, 2016
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2016
Approve draft minutes of 8.24.16
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Board
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB160824d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 24, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Valerie Stewart (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Patrick Doherty, Economic Development/Community Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE
CHAIR RUBENKONIG 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 DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He pointed
out that the report provides links to information relative to the OSO Recovery Plan, Sign Code Update, and National Citizen
Survey. The community calendar of events was also provided at the end of the report, but it did not reflect that the opening
of the Edmonds Fishing Pier was postponed until early September.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig drew the Board's attention to the report that the City Council held a public hearing and adopted
Resolution 1368 to designate the Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as a Residential Targeted Area, which is the second step
in a series of actions that could result in a tax incentive program for multi -family development in the zone.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
PRESENTATION OF NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY (NCS) RESULTS
Mr. Doherty provided a summary report on the National Citizen Survey (NCS) that was administered in Edmonds in June
and July by the National Research Center (NRC). Approved and funded by the City Council, the survey was conducted in a
scientifically valid, statistically significant fashion. The surveys were sent to 2,200 randomly selected households, and 586
citizens responded (28% compared to the national average of between 20-40%). He provided a map to illustrate the location
of the households that received the standardized survey. He explained that, at the end of the standardized survey period, the
survey was opened to the entire public in an online format that ran from July ls` through July 17"'. With the 320 online
responses that were received, the total responses were 906. Because the results from the written and online surveys were
very similar, the NRC suggested that the results could be combined to increase the confidence level to only 3% margin of
error.
Mr. Doherty explained that the NRC conducts detailed analysis and draws conclusions via a "Community Livability Report,"
which examines three pillars of community: community characteristics, governance and participation. The Community
Livability Report addresses the following central facets of community: safety, mobility, natural environment, built
environment, economy, recreation and wellness, education and enrichment, and community engagement. The survey
questions were grouped to come up with conclusions that were then compared against nationwide averages. At an additional
cost, the City was able to also compare the results against 25 Pacific Northwest cities (20,000 to 60,000 population), and
compare and contrast across five demographic cohorts: length of residency in Edmonds, annual household income, rent or
own dwelling unit, age, and gender. The following is a summary of the survey's conclusions:
• The overwhelming majority of respondents gave the City a resounding thumbs -up. Nine in 10 positively rated the
City's overall image, overall appearance and as a great place to raise children. In addition, 96% rated Edmonds as an
excellent or good place to live, which is much higher than responses in nationwide surveys, as well as those throughout
the Pacific Northwest.
• Safety is an asset and priority, with 9 in 10 residents stating that they feel safe and identifying safety as a priority to focus
on in coming years.
• The economy is important and highly rated in Edmonds. About 8 to 10 rated the City's economic health as positive.
However, it was recognized that more jobs in Edmonds for Edmonds residents would be desirable, as only 3 in 10 work
in the City.
• The City supports a culture of diversity and opportunities for citizen engagement. At least 75% gave excellent/good
ratings to opportunities for cultural/arts/events engagement. In addition, 6 in 10 felt that the City has high levels of
community engagement and is open to people of diverse backgrounds.
• Categories in which responses were well above the national average include ease of walking, overall natural
environment, air quality, vibrant downtown area, mental health care, adult education, traffic flow, cleanliness, public
places, places to visit, preventive health services, cultural/art/music activities, and social events and activities.
• Only one category, affordable quality house, ranked lower than national average. The Pacific Northwest is an expensive
part of the country, and Edmonds is one of the costliest.
Mr. Doherty advised that, in addition to the standardized questions, the survey included five customized questions that were
unique to Edmonds:
• How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for transportation -related services
in Edmonds? Respondents indicated strong support for repair/replacement of existing sidewalks (86%),
repair/maintenance of City streets (88%) and construction of new sidewalks (84%). About 59% were favorable towards
expansion of bicycle facilities, as well.
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
• How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for parks and recreation -related
services in Edmonds? Respondents indicated strong support for the acquisition of parkland and beachfront property
(77%), capital projects such as Civic Field and Marina Beach Park (83%), upgrading the Frances Anderson Center
(79%), and upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks (85%).
• Please indicate whether or not your currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on various
characteristics. The respondents who indicated experience with discrimination in Edmonds was very low: sexual
orientation or gender identity was 3%, disability was 3%, religion was 3%, national origin was 3%, race was 4%, gender
was 3% and age was 5%. While these numbers appear to be small, it is important to recognize that for some of the
categories (sexual orientation, disability, national origin and race) the portion of Edmonds population who fall within the
cohorts is mostly under 10%, making the response rates more significant within each cohort. For example, if 2% of the
population states they experience discrimination based on sexual orientation, when approximately 5-10% of the
population may be a member of this cohort, that means that 20-45% of that cohort may be experiencing discrimination.
• How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance Edmonds police -related services? A
large number of respondents indicated they would support increased funding to enhance domestic violence services
(89%), patrol presence (89%), crime prevention (89%) youth service programs (74%), crime analysis (82%) and traffic
enforcement (65%).
• Rate how various media are a regular source of information for you about City functions, activities, programs
and events. About 46% of the respondents indicated that they use online media as a source of information, while 36%
indicated they receive information via word of mouth, 32% via signage, 43% via printed media, and 26% via the City's
website.
Based on the survey responses, Mr. Doherty summarized that the residents believe the following should be areas of focus
over the next two years: overall quality of life (83%), overall quality of the built environment (79%), health and wellness
opportunities (65%) and sense of community (84%).
Mr. Doherty referred the Board Members to the memorandum he prepared for the City Council, which was attached to the
Staff Report. He noted that the NRC's report includes interesting information about how different demographic cohorts
responded to the questions. For example, people who have lived in Edmonds for longer and are of the oldest cohort group
gave lower ratings relative to community livability. These people have witnessed changes over the years and tend to think
the situation is worse than the younger respondents and newer residents.
Board Member Cheung asked if the survey results had been broken down based on demographics such as income, age, sexual
orientation, etc. Mr. Doherty answered that demographic information is available for the written survey but not for the online
survey. He agreed to forward a summary of the demographic information to the Commissioners. He also agreed to forward
the Technical Appendices, which contains more detailed data.
Board Member Robles referred to the map that Mr. Doherty provided to show where the respondents to the written survey
lived and noted that the locations were staggered towards density. He asked if other stratification could also be used to gain
valuable information. For example, it would be interesting to arrange the data based on distance from downtown or the
freeway. Mr. Doherty answered that the City did not take the strategy of comparing different parts of the City and closely
referencing them to each other because they were not sure there would be agreement on what those areas could be. Without
strong neighborhood identify, it is difficult to stratify based on areas of the City. However, any community that engages in
the survey process can participate again in three years, and this would give the City the ability to compare against itself. The
total cost of the survey was $18,000. The City also has the option to pay more money to obtain additional data in the report.
Mr. Doherty said that he is working with other City staff to plan an open house to share the survey results with the public.
He commented that the public took the time to engage in the survey and the City needs to let them know that the results have
validity and will be worked into not only the budget process, but the Strategic Action Plan (SAP), as well.
Chair Lovell asked what facilitated the study. Mr. Doherty answered that the City Council briefly discussed interest in
conducting a survey at their 2015 retreat. Staff researched the concept further and presented options for the City Council to
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
consider. It was also identified as a possible expenditure to consider for the 2016 budget, and the City Council elected to
fund the project and move the survey forward.
Chair Lovell said that, as he read through the summary results, he noticed what appears to be opposing views. For examples,
the survey results suggest that there are not enough jobs in Edmonds, yet he has always been under the impression that
Edmonds is a bedroom community for Seattle. As such, people want to move out of the City into Suburban Edmonds. There
have been periods of significant housing expansion and individual private homes were developed that were reflective of the
higher -income people who wanted to live in Edmonds. A number of other cities in the county have experienced the same
conditions. The cities are now getting crowded and people can no longer afford to move out to suburbia. He observed that
Edmonds has a history of being a community of single-family residences for higher income people who commute to Seattle
for work, and this will be difficult to overcome.
Chair Lovell referred to the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides data on the number
of jobs in Edmonds, number of working -age residents, and how many people work outside of the city. Of the 20,000
working -age people who live in Edmonds, about 13,000 of them work outside of the City. A high portion of the jobs in
Edmonds are service -oriented, which equates to a lot of lesser -paying jobs and not enough higher -paying jobs that are needed
for people to afford the higher housing costs. The challenge is to increase the full spectrum of paying jobs, as well as
providing more affordable housing options. Mr. Doherty commented that the idea that Edmonds is a bedroom community is
starting to change as traffic now rules more lives. The respondents may be expressing this frustration by suggesting that it
would be great if there were more jobs closer to their hometown. They also recognize that this will mean some growth and
change. He said the City's Economic Development Department is actively recruiting businesses to garner jobs for people
who live in the Edmonds.
Chair Lovell observed that there was a high level of responsiveness to the idea that people are willing to fund more of what
they find to be the best elements of the City, and this sentiment will likely be tested in the community in the next few years.
Board Member Monroe referred to the conclusion in the report that having a healthy economy is important to residents and
highly rated in Edmonds. He asked if this specific question was asked as part of the survey. Mr. Doherty answered that the
question was more like, "what is your rating of the available jobs in Edmonds?" Only 33% of the respondents indicated they
were satisfied with the availability of jobs in Edmonds.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if there is something the Board could take away from the survey as it moves forward with
discussions relative to housing. Mr. Doherty reminded the Board that many respondents voiced concern about the
affordability of housing in Edmonds. He explained that the survey included two questions relative to housing. When
respondents were asked whether or not they consider themselves housing stressed, 70% of those making less than $49,000
answered affirmatively compared with only 33% overall. This is consistent with the national average. However, when asked
whether housing was affordable in Edmonds, the response was low and well below the national average. This leads him to
believe that people are happy with the housing they are in, but recognize that it is too costly for new residents.
Board Member Monroe asked if there were any surprising differences amongst the various demographic groups. Mr.
Doherty answered that there were a few places in his summary memorandum to the City Council where he commented on the
differences amongst the demographic subgroups. For example,
• Residents with an annual household income of more than $100,000 tended to give lower ratings to ease of travel by
public transportation than residents with lower annual household income. This difference could be related to the
fact that more lower -income people utilize the service.
• Residents who have lived in Edmonds for more than 20 years tended to give lower ratings relative to the general
aspects of governance, including the value of services for taxes paid and the overall direction that Edmonds is
taking. On the other hand, residents 18 to 34 tended to give higher ratings to general aspects of governance.
• Homeowners reported higher levels of participation for many activities compared to those who rented their homes,
and renters were much less likely to have attended a City -sponsored event.
• The rankings for services such as street repair, sidewalk maintenance, traffic enforcement, etc., also showed quite
positive marks from those residing less time in Edmonds, while the long-term residents consistently rated these
services somewhat lower.
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Chair Lovell referred to the list of highlights (Page 7 of the Summary Memorandum) and noted that 56% of those earning
less than $49,999 rated the ease of travel by public transportation highly compared to only 24% of those earning $100,000 or
more. He commented that these responses track with people who have higher incomes, have lived in Edmonds longer and
are older. Mr. Doherty pointed that this group of people do not typically rely on public transportation as much. Perhaps they
may perceive it is not easy to use because they do not use.
Board Member Cheung commented that sometimes Edmonds is generalized as being an older community. He asked if this
perception was indicative to the primary demographics of the respondents. Mr. Doherty answered that there was a good
representation across all age cohorts. He pointed out that fewer people in the 55+ cohort responded that Edmonds was a good
place to retire than in the younger group.
Chair Lovell asked if all of the detailed statistics would be made available to the community when the study is rolled out at
the open house. Mr. Doherty replied that the information is already accessible via the City's website, and the City issued a
press release relative to the summary findings. The study was also covered on My Edmonds News.
PREPARING FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chair Lovell reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed the results of a preparatory meeting that he and Vice
Chair Rubenkonig had with Ms. Hope to discuss the agenda for the upcoming joint Planning Board/City Council meeting on
September 6th. He recalled that Ms. Hope encouraged the Board Members to review information that was prepared by
Snohomish County's Alliance for Housing Affordability, as well as the Housing Element contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. She suggested, and he concurred, that the goals and policies called out in the Housing Element should
be the focus of the joint discussion.
Chair Lovell specifically referred to the last section, which identifies an implementation action and performance measure for
evaluating the City's progress towards achieving its goals and policy direction. He asked if the City has been tracking the
number of residential units permitted each year. Mr. Chave replied that the Building Division reports on housing on a
monthly basis, and the Board can extract data from this report to contribute to the metric for the Housing Element. He
pointed out that housing information is also reported to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, and they
produce estimates on population changes on a yearly basis. Board Member Cloutier recalled that the last time the Board
talked about metrics for measuring the City's progress towards achieving its housing goals and policies was in 2010. Since
that time, he conducted a web search to learn how other jurisdictions make their metrics available.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board has previously discussed how to get affordable housing on a regional basis and
improve transportation partnerships with the City's regional neighbors rather than doing it all on a local basis. Vice Chair
Rubenkonig said she and Chair Lovell discussed this concept with Ms. Hope, who indicated that Snohomish County's
approach is to make sure affordable housing is provided, and one way to address this need is to look at road network
improvements. However, more specifically, the Board is being asked to look at Edmonds. Although infrastructure is in place
to support affordable housing, it seems that the majority of affordable housing is located outside of Edmonds. She agreed
that one strategy could be for the City to work more closely with neighboring jurisdictions to address the need. Affordable
housing will not be possible in many areas of Edmond, so it will be important to take advantage of and improve upon the
affordable housing opportunities that are provided in neighboring communities by improving connections.
Chair Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed Ms. Hope's recommendation that they look at housing
from two perspectives: What can be done to create more opportunities and an environment that encourages the development
of affordable housing and what can be done to force the development affordable housing. He voiced concern that simply
creating opportunities for affordable housing might not be enough without the ability to force it upon future redevelopment.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that affordable housing is only one subset of the housing issue. While affordability needs to
be addressed as part the mix of solutions, the discussion must also include other potential strategies such as retrofitting
existing buildings and encouraging opportunities for residents to age in place. He pointed out that the goals in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan read more like strategic goals, and each has a set of policies the City could use to
implement them. What is missing is prioritization on which strategies should be pushed harder than others. He suggested
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
that the joint meeting discussion should focus on the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically seeking
feedback from the City Council relative to prioritization. Once they identify the policies they want to focus on, they can
create metrics to measure the City's progress. As progress is measured, the City can create a follow up plan as necessary.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the joint meeting discussion could focus on the housing needs of a segment of the
City's vulnerable population such as housing that allows people to age in place. This group could be used as a focus for
addressing the housing strategies. She specifically suggested the discussion could focus on the following Housing Goals:
Housing Goal C. 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.
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.
Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board could focus on potential regulatory changes and the City Council could
consider possible incentives that would encourage the type of development that meets the needs of the vulnerable
populations. She said she views strategies that allow people to age in place as one way to promote affordable housing.
Board Member Robles asked if Vice Chair Rubenkonig is suggesting that "aging in place" should be used as a proxy for
affordable housing. In other words, if they serve that need, they will, in fact, be serving the entire need. Vice Chair
Rubenkonig acknowledged that addressing the needs of the elderly would not necessarily address the more general need for
more affordable housing opportunities.
Board Member Cloutier emphasized that, in order to solve problems, the Board must first identify the problems and then
prioritize them. The Housing Element contains a number of goals, policies and strategies, and the ones they choose to focus
on should be data driven. He reminded the Board that the survey indicated that older people feel that housing is less
affordable, which indicates there is a concern that they will not be able to stay in the community. This survey information
could be considered a data point.
At the request of Board Member Monroe, Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained the concept of "aging in place." As people age,
their physical, economic and social circumstances change and they may find they no longer have the physical and/or
economic ability to remain in their current homes or even in their communities. The concept is to create strategies that result
in housing opportunities for this segment of the population, such as accessory dwelling units. She said studies show that
people live longer and are happier if they can remain in their communities. Board Member Robles added that one strategy
for "aging in place" is to split a fairly large house into two units, where the aging person lives on one floor and rents the other
space for additional income. He expressed his belief that the strategies should be aimed at economic incentives that allow the
citizens of Edmonds to act in their own best interest. While these types of strategies would not count towards meeting the
City's statistical requirements for housing, they would benefit the existing citizens rather than just turning the property over
to a developer. He suggested that incentives should be aimed towards what people can do in their community rather than
towards developers.
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the memorandum prepared by Ms. Hope, in which she recommended that the joint meeting
agenda include a 90-minute discussion about developing a Housing Strategy and the remaining time could be spent soliciting
direction from the City Council on other topics (Highway 99 redevelopment, 5 Corners redevelopment, Edmonds Marsh
progress, railroad crossing alternatives, and Civic Field master planning). He reviewed that because time will be limited, Ms.
Hope recommended the Board identify a few key questions they would like to discuss relative to housing and not get into too
many details. For example:
Should the Board be involved with the Housing Strategy that is promised in the Comprehensive Plan? If so, should the
Strategy start getting developed sooner than 2019?
Should the Housing Strategy provide a framework that includes both data and recommendations for addressing housing
issues?
While the Housing Strategy is to focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing
needs, should it prioritize particular issues or population groups?
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
In addition to the questions outlined in the memorandum, Mr. Chave suggested it might be helpful to review the goals
contained in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to determine if some should be prioritized over others.
Board Member Cheung reminded the Board that one of the overarching goals of the Housing Element is to accommodate the
anticipated growth by providing a variety of housing options. In addition, there are goals to address the housing needs for
diverse levels of income. Mr. Chave said affordability is only one component of addressing the City's diverse housing needs.
Aging in place is another component that addresses both demographics and affordability. He acknowledged that housing is a
complex subject, and he cautioned against diving too far into the details without a strategic overview of the issues and
implementation strategies, as well as direction on prioritization.
Board Member Cheung asked if an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) would count as an additional housing unit. He said he
would like to explore the possibility of allowing detached ADUs, particularly for people who want to age in place. Mr.
Chave answered that ADU's could help address the issue of affordability by allowing a homeowner to subsidize housing
costs, and they could also provide a different housing type. However, they would not change the density equation.
Currently, the code defines ADUs in such a way that makes them part of an extended family situation, which means that only
one family can live on the property. A "family" is defined in the code as up to five unrelated people. The fact that an ADU
is constructed on the property does not change the requirement. If the code is changed to allow two families to live on the
property (one in the house and another in the ADU), you are essentially allowing duplexes in the single-family zones.
Board Member Robles suggested that the City could revise the definition of "family." Mr. Chave acknowledged that is
possible, but cautioned that there would be implications that must be considered. Board Member Cheung said he would be
interested in gauging the public's general support for the concept of detached ADUs. Mr. Chave cautioned that attached
ADUs would be an easier argument to make than detached ADUs, and the public may be willing to support the concept as
long as the definition of "family" is maintained. Once you cross over to allow more than one family to live on a single-
family residential property, he suspects there will be significant neighborhood concerns. He explained that although ADU
permits are straightforward and there is no appeal process, there is still a lot of skepticism from surrounding neighbors. He
emphasized that it is important to have a clear definition of "family" in order to address enforcement issues that come up.
Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding the code to allow detached ADUs without changing the definition of "family" would
not really address the density issue, but it could address other aspects of the housing such as affordability, different housing
styles and/or living arrangements, aging in place, etc.) He suggested that the City needs to be strategic when addressing
density. He reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan was intended to include more residential density, and that is one of
the goals of the Highway 99 Study, as well. The City currently has enough density to accommodate anticipated growth, so it
is not necessary, at this time, to density the single-family neighborhoods. However, he acknowledged there may be other
reasons to consider ADUs to meet certain housing needs.
Mr. Chave suggested that the joint meeting discussion could focus on the goals called out in the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, which cover a broad spectrum of issues. The intent of the discussion would be to identify the goals
they want to actively pursue. This would allow the City to move forward with a Housing Strategy that sets out a plan for
accomplishing the goals. He noted that there is a lengthy list of housing strategies the Board and City Council could
consider. It may be valuable to gauge whether the City Council would be amenable to considering other options, in addition
to those the City has already implemented.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked who would moderate the joint meeting, and Mr. Chave answered that, typically, the Mayor
would moderate the meeting, but he will not be available on September 6th. Therefore, it is likely the Council President will
lead the meeting on behalf of the City Council. However, the Board Chair will likely have an opportunity to encapsulate the
Board's discussion by introducing a few thoughts to start off.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to clarify the land -use strategies to promote affordable housing, as listed on Page 90 of
the Housing Element. She asked if staff could map where upzoning has occurred and if there is a size criterion to qualify for
a density bonus. She also asked how small of a parcel can be developed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) and if
there are areas in Edmonds where infill development could occur. Mr. Chave pointed out that the density bonus would only
apply to multi -family development. He also said "infill development" is a generic term, and typically occurs on multi -family
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
zoned properties that are currently developed as single-family residential. He said it would be very difficult to map where
infill development has and can occur. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Conversion/Adaptive Reuse Strategy would apply
more to commercial properties than residential properties, and Mr. Chave said the strategy can have a broad application and
could include converting single-family homes into multiple units. He said it would also be difficult to map these changes.
Mr. Chave suggested that the joint meeting could include a review of the land -use strategies on Page 90 of the Housing
Element, as well as a discussion about how well each one is working. The list could then be tweaked as appropriate and
other strategies could be added. He acknowledged that it will not be possible to reach conclusions on the list of strategies at
the joint meeting. The purpose of the Housing Strategy is to evaluate the different strategies, match them with the
Comprehensive Plan goals, and identify other strategies the City hasn't yet tried. To create the Housing Strategy, it will be
necessary to review all of the data and information that has been assembled and identify the goals they want to achieve. This
approach will allow them to focus on the needs, adjust and/or expand the list of strategies, and identify the metrics that will
be used to gauge the success of the strategies.
Board Member Cloutier asked if the Housing Strategy would be done by City staff or if an outside consultant would be hired.
Mr. Chave answered that the project may require help from a consultant, which means it will have budget implications. He
reminded the Board that a Housing Strategy is high on the City Council's agenda, and it was also identified in the Strategic
Action Plan (SAP) as a high priority. Given the current status of projects such as Highway 99 and 5 Corners, it is not likely
that the Housing Strategy can be completed in 2017, but it could be started in 2017 and finished in 2018. This schedule
would still be well ahead of the 2019 date.
Board Member Cloutier suggested there are things the City could do in the meantime while waiting to hire a consultant to
work on the Housing Strategy. This could include amendments to the Development Code to address ADUs and PRDs. Mr.
Chave agreed and said the City could also update its Multi -Family Residential (RM) zoning provisions. Currently, the bulk
requirements are the same across all of the RM zones, and the only thing that is different is density. Because the bulk
standards are the same, the buildings also look the same. Independent of the Housing Strategy, the Board could ask the City
Council to evaluate the different RM zones to see if the regulations could be tweaked. Also, Mr. Chave reminded the Board
that staff is working with a consultant to introduce stronger design standards for the RM zones. If the design standards are
improved, perhaps density would become much less important. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that reviewing
the RM zone bulk standards at the same time as the design standards are being created would have an impact on affordability,
as well as meeting the Growth Management Act requirements for additional units to accommodate growth. Mr. Chave
agreed and noted that these changes would not impact single-family neighborhoods, either.
Board Member Cheung referred to upzoning, which is listed as a land use strategy to promote affordable housing. He asked
what the main objections would be to allowing development lots to be smaller. Mr. Chave explained that the number of units
allowed on a property is based on zoning. While one strategy is to change the zoning for a certain area to allow smaller lot
sizes, it is important to recognize that change would not happen all at once. He said Snohomish County used another
interesting approach where existing lots that were 1.5 times the minimum lot size required could be developed as a duplex.
Many of the areas that were annexed more recently into the City were developed with duplexes because they were slightly
larger lots. He summarized that there are different ways to address infill and density. However, there will likely be push
back because people typically do not like change.
Board Member Cheung said he has often heard the argument that changing zoning will decrease property values. Mr. Chave
said people tend to believe that allowing more units will decrease the value of the existing homes and change the character of
the neighborhood. Upzoning is not something the City has tried to do. Board Member Cheung asked if there is evidence to
support the claim that property values would decrease, and Mr. Chave answered that it depends upon the character of the
neighborhood. A change in zoning might be subtler in newer neighborhoods and more noticeable in older neighborhoods
with oversized lots. He summarized that, to date, the City has taken a very cautious view of zoning changes in the single-
family neighborhoods because it can have very unexpected results. They have tried to focus more on multi -family zones
where they can get more "bang for their buck."
Board Member Cloutier reviewed the handout he prepared for the Board's discussion, which outlines potential housing
metrics that could be used to evaluate each of the goals. He noted that a list of other resources was provided at the bottom of
the page for the Board Member's information. The overall community/region metrics dashboard example from southern
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Arizona includes a website for showing the metrics to the public in a simple and graphic way. The Metrics for Affordable
and Sustainable Housing from the Federation of American Scientists provides a study paper about affordable housing across
the board, focusing on affordable and sustainable housing and what metrics can be used. He encouraged the Board Members
to review the links, which may help them pick the "low -hanging fruit" that can be addressed before the Housing Strategy has
been completed. He suggested they could ask the City Council the following questions:
• What are some opportunities to improve Edmonds' housing stock today?
• What is the goal for affordable housing?
• What is the goal for the coming year to accommodate the housing goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan?
• What type of units should the City focus on?
Chair Lovell agreed with Mr. Chave that the joint meeting should follow the approach outlined in Ms. Hope's memorandum.
In preparation for the meeting, he encouraged the Board Members to carefully review the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. While the City Council will likely take the lead in the discussion, the Board will have an opportunity
to seek direction as to what it should focus on over the coming year. The Board could seek feedback with respect to
amending the RM zoning standards to create greater opportunities and perhaps incentive for property owners to redevelop.
They could also discuss opportunities for public/private partnerships to redevelop properties along Highway 99.
Mr. Chave commented that a number of things can impact housing. For example, subdivision regulations can discourage the
retention of existing housing stock if there is not sufficient flexibility. As currently written, the code may not allow a
property owner to subdivide an oversized lot into two or three lots without tearing down the existing home, and existing
homes usually provide more affordable housing options. One housing strategy could be to tweak the existing subdivision
code to allow variation in lot size, while still achieving the same density overall, but with flexibility in how the lots are
arranged so the existing house can remain. The PRD concept could also be used as an effective housing strategy.
Mr. Chave advised that the packet that is prepared for the joint meeting will provide a link to the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing Affordability Report that contains useful data.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the September 14th agenda will include continued discussion on the Civic Center Master Plan and
an update on the Land Division Code. The September 28th agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan
and a presentation on the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan. Based on feedback the Board receives
from the City Council at the joint meeting, they can begin working on housing issues in the near future. In addition, Council
President Johnson expressed interest in the Board starting its work on the 5 Corners Subarea Plan as early as October 26th
The initial discussions will include a review of the work performed by the University of Washington students.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell announced that the Mayor's Task Force studying railroad crossing alternatives will provide a report to the City
Council later this fall. There will be no report to the Planning Board.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no Board Member comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2016
Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is a monthly report from Shane Hope, Development Services Director.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Director Report
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
MEMORANDUM
�4 c. I SAP
Date: September 9„ 2016
To: Planning Board Members
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
E
The Planning Board meets next on September 14. The meeting's agenda will focus on proposals o
a
for the Civic Center Master Plan. "Civic Center" is the name for the City's newest park, also
known as Civic Playfield, which was recently acquired from the Edmonds School District. o
Development of this eight -acre park —next to the Edmonds downtown —is a unique L
opportunity. o
0
N
REGIONAL NEWSLO
PSRC Vision Awards
The Puget Sound Regional Council has announced two new VISION 2040 Awards. These are:
❑ Transportation Demand Management Program for the Joint Base Lewis-McChord area
(sponsored by Pierce County and JBLM in partnership with Pierce Transit and InterCity
Transit).
❑ Manchester Stormwater Park, a Kitsap County project that makes new stormwater
treatment a park amenity feature.
Snohomish County Housing and Community Development Report
Snohomish County is making the Draft 2015 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation
Report (Draft 2015 CAPER) available for public review and comment from September 8 through
September 23. It is posted online at: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2892/Consolidated-
Plan-for-2015-2019. The CAPER relates to federal funding received by Snohomish County and
awarded through a consortium with the cities and towns in the county. These funds support
affordable housing and community development projects that primarily benefit low- and
moderate- income people and neighborhoods.
The Draft 2015 CAPER describes how the grant funds were used from July 1, 2015 through June
30, 2016 and assesses progress toward annual and five-year goals. Comments to Snohomish
County are invited through September 23.
Transportation Funding for Central Puget Sound
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is taking public comments through October 27 on its draft
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP provides a list of the key current
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
transportation projects in our four -county region that are funded with federal, state, or local
funds, including federal grants awarded through PSRC's selection process. For more
information, see: http://us5.campaign-
archive2.com/?u=c30caa9729e321c331db4a046&id=9d21cb7d7f&e=9e8a6ea234. The final list
is scheduled for adoption by PSRC's Executive Board on October 27.
LOCAL NEWS
Joint Discussion by Planning Board and City Council
The City Council's September 6 meeting included a joint discussion with the Planning Board. A
key topic was housing, especially any steps the Planning Board should take to address it. The
general conclusion was that the Planning Board's role is not so much to figure out exactly how
to address a specific number of housing units projected for Edmonds, but to consider the range
of housing issues as local planning and code updates move forward. For example, the City's
Comprehensive Plan calls for developing by 2019 a housing strategy for increasing the supply of o
0.
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. (The Housing Strategy would include
data about local housing needs and trends, as well as a discussion of objectives, priorities, and `o
options that the City could consider, related to partnerships, code changes, incentives, funding, a
and more.) The Planning Board will be involved in recommending a draft housing strategy to 6
the City Council. Meanwhile, ongoing code update work may also address emerging housing c
needs. LO
Another topic was, more generally, the Planning Board's work program for the remainder of
2016 and early 2017. The work program currently includes:
❑ Highway 99 Area Plan (a key topic this fall)
❑ Five Corners planning (starting with an introduction to the work done several years ago
on this topic; any updates and recommendations would take more time in 2017)
❑ Civic Center Master Plan (with meetings this fall, including a public hearing)
❑ Development code updates (including land division and land use processes)
❑ Comprehensive Plan amendments (including for capital facilities and transportation
projects)
❑ Sustainable Cities Partnership (project status).
Architectural Design Board
The Architectural Design Board met regarding the design of Madrona Elementary School. A
new school building is being planned for the same site as the existing Madrona property (but on
the back side, so the existing school can remain open until the new building is completed).
Climate Protection Committee ("CPC")
The Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement met Sept 1 with an
agenda that included:
21
❑ CPC's August 9 report to City Council
❑ Next steps in implementing Solid Waste Resolution
❑ Sustainable Cities Partnership between Edmonds and Western Washington University
❑ Subcommittee reports on:
o Green Resource Room at City Hall
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
o Zero Waste
o Sustainable Heroes
o Green Business Pledge.
Diversity Commission
Candidates are being sought for an available position on the Diversity Commission. The
Commission is a nine -member volunteer group that advises the Mayor and City Council on
diversity issues and helps promote awareness. Online applications may be made through the
City's webpage at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/boards-commissions-committees-openings.html .
Historic Preservation Commission
The Historic Preservation Commission met September 8. The meeting included discussion of
the:
❑ 2017 Historic Calendar (being prepared for publication in late 2016); and
❑ Historic residence located at 209 Caspers Street.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met September 1. Agenda items included:
❑ Discussion of Arbor Day Celebration and event planning
❑ Tree Board University
❑ Table at Edmonds Summer Market (options for the remainder of the year)
❑ Tree -related information for the sewer replacement at 6t" and Dayton
❑ Board member introductions
❑ Website update
City Council
The City Council's September 6 meeting included the following planning -related items:
❑ Authorization for Mayor to sign 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Program Resolution;
❑ Presentation on Lynnwood's Homelessness Activities by Lynnwood City Council President Boyer
❑ Joint Discussion with the Planning Board
❑ Approval to reject current bids for the Edmonds Veterans' Plaza Project (exceeds budget)
❑ Discussion of Stormwater Management Code Update (which is expected to be adopted in final
form this fall)
The Council's September 13 meeting includes the following study items:
❑ Interlocal agreement with City of Lynnwood for Biosolids Disposal
❑ Award of Madrona Walkway Project
❑ Supplemental agreement for 76t" Ave & 212t" Street intersection improvements
❑ Utility rate analysis
❑ Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report
❑ Ordinance disbanding Transportation Benefit District (as a separate entity, since the City
Council can assume this role)
❑ Mayor/Council compensation
❑ Parks Concession Code update
❑ Sunset Avenue parking time limits
❑ Shoreline Master Program (next steps)
31
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
❑ Saturdays (9:00 to 3:00) through October 1: Summer Market in downtown Edmonds —
fresh local produce, flowers, crafts, and food
❑ Sept. 9 — 11: Puget Sound Bird Fest, 7:00 pm
❑ September 26, 7:00 pm: Sister City Commission meeting at the Frances Anderson Center
❑ October 15, 10:00 am — 2:00 pm: Community Tree Planting Event at the open space by
Main Street and 85t" Avenue
❑ Through November 6: "Hook, Line & Sinker", Edmonds Historical Museum new exhibit
details the life cycle of salmon, the story of Native fishing, and the evolution of today's
commercial fishing
4 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 16
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2016
Civic Master Plan Update
Staff Lead: Civic Master Plan Update
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Carrie Hite
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.
Since that time, there have been two open houses, two virtual open houses, many stakeholder
interviews, Planning Board and City Council input.
Staff Recommendation
Provide input and guidance.
Narrative
The City and design team have conducted two in person open houses and two online open houses.
Stakeholder outreach has continued for the duration of the project with recent engagement including
teen groups, parks maintenance staff and planning. Two design options were presented at open house
two which incorporate community feedback to date. Over the next three months, the design team will
be working with the community to refine the two alternatives to one preferred hybrid plan. We will be
hosting one more online and one in -person public open house as well as continued briefings to City
Council, the Planning Board, Edmonds Parks and Recreation and a 21 member Project Advisory
Committee. The two master plan alternatives are as follows:
Plan Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Option 1 introduces more passive landscape features into the park perimeter, including meadows,
berms and stormwater gardens that frame a central multi -use lawn. This option features a jogging trail
with exercise stations and multiple walking paths as well as a large, central play area. The lawn is large
enough to accommodate the same level of soccer usage that occurs now. A wide promenade -style
sidewalk along 6th Avenue allows for strolling or markets. It includes a plaza and shade pavilion, and
could accommodate food concessions, movable tables and chairs, and a small water feature. The project
also includes a small amount of other recreational program - multi -use courts and petanque.
Plan Option 2 - Activity Central
Option 2 maximizes recreational activities and facilitates spectatorship. It includes a 200-meter track,
multi -use lawn for soccer and other sports, and viewing terraces that overlook the playfields. Option 2
Packet Pg. 17
7.A
also includes petanque garden groves, a skate park, and four multi -use courts around an expanded Field
House that could potentially house the Boys and Girls Club or a cafe and a restroom. The north portion
of the park is more landscaped in character, and includes a picnic or performance pavilion and multi -
generational play and exercise areas. A main path runs through the park at Sprague street, and offers a
clear connection from the residential neighborhood to the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. This path offers the
potential for bringing markets and other events into the park.
Planning member Val Stewart is represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning
process.
Attached for your reference are the following:
1. Two alternative concepts
2. Presentation for this meeting
3. Master Plan schedule, dates
4. PAC team agenda and minutes
Attachments:
Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates
Civic Designs: side by side
9.1 PAC minutes
9.1 PAC agenda
PB presentation 9.14
Packet Pg. 18
7.A.a
Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates
May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room
May 12t": 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 7t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson
Center, Room 302
July 27t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 9t": City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
August 24t": 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 14t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
September 27t": City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers
October 12t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room
October 14t": Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances Anderson
Center, Room 302
November 91": 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
Packet Pg. 19
7.A.b
I)eSI
in
1. Meadow Loop
W
fe
sh
Opti
ons
2. Activity Central
%%=77 N %7= N
0 10 20 40 801) 0 10 20 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'0" SCALE: 1" = 40'0" (1)
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
WALKER
IMACY
Packet Pg. 20
WALKERIMACY
MEETING MINUTES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Civic Center Playfield Planning Meeting Date: 9/1/2016
Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282
Attendees:
Carrie Hite, City of
Open House
#2 Presentation Review given by Walker Macy
Edmonds
1.
Open House #1 Final Results & Additional Outreach
Renee McRae, City
of Edmonds
2.
Updates on Boys & Girls Club, Restrictions and Grand Stand
Rich Lindsay City
3.
Design Options
of =^nch
4.
In -Person Open House Results
Frances Chapin,
5.
Online Open House Preliminary Results
City of Edmonds
Chris Jones,
Discussion
Walker Macy
•
Track takes up too much space
Ann Marie
Schneider, Walker
.
Would like walking/joggingpaths to be marked or measured
Macy
•
Consider parkour stations
Rob ChAve
•
Existing track use is Boys & Girls Club (2-3 events/yr where they invite kids from other
Dave Teitzel
areas) and Holy Rosary Field Day
Valerie Stewart
•
Petanque would like tournament space
Barbara Chase
•
There are no other programmatic requests that require/request dirt
Deug Shelden
•
Residents do not like the dirt field as it causes dust problems
Steve-Shelten
•
Youth representation is important
•
Consider use of spaces in 20+ years, i.e. if petanque becomes less popular in the long-
mn
term what will the space be used for? Not sure petanque use warrants over 1/51h of the
`o` Me'Alw
park area. Want to make sure the spaces are truly flexible.
Alex GFg
•
The PAC felt like 6 petanque courts seem like a reasonable compromise
Kyla Blair
•
Park is in a signature location and should be designed for everyone
Pat Woodell
•
The park's flatness is unique and conducive to activity
Bob Rinehart
•
Young families and youth are least represented in feedback due to schedule constraints
John McGibbon
•
Goal should be to bring all ages together
Diana White
•
What schools have track and field? Woodway is one.
Emilyems+
•
Would like petanque court borders to be designed such that the space can host other
Dick Van Hollebeke
uses
Jennifer Lambert
•
Recent national survey shows that ages 35 and younger feel discriminated against
•
Creative play and convertible spaces are exciting trends to consider
•
Beach volleyball should be at the beach
•
Skate park is highly used by youth and young families and should be incorporated into
the hybrid scheme.
105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 21
7.A.c
PAC Meeting #3
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
9/1/2016
Page 2 of 2
• Versatility and diversity of features are sought after
• The cost of bringing in material for berms is a concern - the design team will be providing
high level / order -of -magnitude estimates for both options
• Pervious pavement should be considered
• Groundwater table is very high
• Any parking should be ADA access or van storage for B&G Club
• B&G Club interested in--18,000 SF facility with full-size gym - which is what is shown in
option 2
• Moving tennis courts could be expensive. Carrie mentioned they need to be renovated
regardless.
• Should be a load/unload zone in front of B&G Club
• Ballard Commons has a good example of a skate park and water feature
• Smart phones and other devices can now be used to measure runs in lieu of measured
paths
• Angled parking should be explored on 6t" Ave. Walker Macy added that this generally
makes a pedestrian edge that is not pedestrian friendly.
• Can there be parking in the alleys since they are public? Can they be widened or made
one-way?
• Residents feel they are too narrow (17') as is
• Alternative transportation - bike, bus - should be encouraged
• Design and construction considerations should be made for event vehicles/trucks,
especially given the cost to redevelop the park. It is a goal that the Taste of Edmonds
parking will be moved off -site.
• Emergency access to site will be a requirement
• Terraces could be wrapped around south edge; though this could be costly given the
grade
• Public art opportunities will be looked at once the design has advanced and hybridized
Funding for art is limited so one approach is to integrate functional art into the design
and construction of the park.
• Safety is a concern on the alley edges (north/south) and buffering should be included
(fence, berm, planting, etc).
• The predominant pedestrian traffic coming through the park is east to west.
• It was determined we would remove a formal track from the preferred scheme
Packet Pg. 22
WALKERIMACY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
Time: 10:00-11:30
Location: Frances Anderson Center
"'Janie
laic! �
llays �Itzs,
`val
B^ L t; l;li.:i38
f'2, ,'rpu�icii
'�i.ir•�ra �P;",its-
iiv
Topic: Civic Center Playfield Planning
Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan
Open House #2 Presentation Review
1. Open House #1 Final Results & Additional Outreach
2. Updates on Boys & Girls Club, Restrictions and Grand Stand
3. Design Options
4. In -Person Open House Results
5. Online Open House Preliminary Results
Discussion
Next Steps
Meeting Date: 9/1/2016
Project #: P3282
a
105 S MAIN STREET SUITE 205 I SEATTLE. WA 98104 I PHONE 206 582 3874 1 WEB WALKERMAC4 COM
Packet Pg. 23
,1 ,,�
v
501,
Aldd
Jt
V
r
i \
s
A�
yy ;.
' t:��
^ t
r
P 1 ei iPacket
y fir. '�. 'TF•. �-^�'>Fi%X C/� .�. I.fF „•'i.{ N •
' �_, WALKER MA
•r
Civic
mu-p =7 Rp-nmc
Passive
Active
7.A.e
Open House #1 Responses
Activity/Feature Votes
restrooms
77
^
CU
petanque
76
jogging/walking paths
71
L
N
soccer
67
;_
shade trees
56
U
skate park
50
0
LO
playground
50
tennis
49
0
Boys &Girls Club
48
L
multi -use lawn
42
m
a
formal track
40
E
small performance space
39
a
gardens
35
etc.
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 26
Open House Responses
NEELC C
.doam nt thr --itaraj
SPRAGUE ST
'eserved !ither passive or active
W. �If% imp, g pathways)
turf
n.ewaayfields, e.,]��f desired
• Temporary festival use can be accommodated
The two acres that include the Field House footprint
from the deed restrictions. ""A-
"e, C,
e O-F42 OF&
�j
=7171,11
Packet Pg. 27
AMMV—
7.A.e
Additional Community Engagement
• Student Conservation
Association
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Parks Maintenance
• My Edmonds News
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' IPacket Pg. 28
7A.e
Available Facilities (Parks + Schools)
TOTAL FACILITIES
(# At Civic Center Playfield)
Soccer Fields (Adult + Youth): .... 10 (2)
Tennis Courts: .................................. 7 (2)
Petanque:....................................... 4 (A)
Basketball Courts: ........................ 10 (2)
Baseball/Softball Fields
(Adult + Youth): ..................... 11 (1)
Skate Park: .................................... 2 (1)
Pickleball:...................................... 10 (2)
Edmonds Area
Parks
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
WA► I Packet Pg. 29
0
I
PROJECT SITE
(8 ACRES)
j7 2 ACRES EXEMPT
FROM DEED
RESTRICTIONS
DEED RESTRICTIONS (6 ACRES)
• Not more than 10% impervious surface
T_
(excluding pathways)
• Pervious surface parking only
• Must be preserved as open space
pip I Jill 1 -11 • No synthetic turf
• No buildings (restrooms allowed but apply to
impervious calculations)
Im • Shade structures are permitted N
BELL STREET
• Multi -use open grass areas are allowed NbT TO S , CALE
• Temporary festival use can be accommodated
7.A.e
Design Options
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 31
•r
Civic
mu-p =7 Rp-nmc
Passive
Active
7.A.e
Design Option 1
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 33
7.A.e
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Site Plan
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAS Packet Pg. 34
7.A.e
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Activity
Zones
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAl Packet Pg. 35
7.A.e
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Connections
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 36
7.A.e
Design Option 1 - Meadow Loop
Community
Hubs
Field House
(Boys & Girls
Club
or cafe)
shade
pavilion &
restroom
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 37
7.A.e
Meadow Loop Precedents
MEADOWS AND GARDENS
Cu
d
L
d
t+
cR
1y C
U
Ln
Alt
" C
O
I i
� G
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 38
7.A.e
Meadow Loop Precedents
PROMENADE / FLEXIBLE -USE
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 39
7.A.e
Meadow Loop Precedents
CREATIVEI INTEGRATED PLAY
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 40
iinw K-nnn Prpcpr
7.A.e
Meadow Loop Precedents
MULTI -USE LAWN
C
V
U
ti
0
LO
ai
c
0
M
-W
c
W
N
d
L
0.
m
a
r
c
m
E
u
a
r
r
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 42
mnw K-nnn Prpcpr
�[.,%,�pf .}(till. i i � L. � �' 1/ �7 , i % 9` f i' 1 R.� r . i � :; `' �f• � 1, �a{ � F �
Q
T F s a
• [•1ylym Mi•I•l •
®
r
I®
�v;` 0
I
CID ' T` + a
"®® rUS
XIBLE
E
ENT
® ® SPA
I,
I�
I®
y ® r
lie
1® L
IN
L®
- t ,
J
7.A.e
Design Option 2
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 45
7.A.e
Design Option 2
Cu
L
d
t+
CR
C
V
U
0
LO
v
of
c
0
r
�a
r
c
a�
ch
m
L
Q
m
n
r-
cd
G
L
V
Q
1111
lirlwagirk
.1 vsiTrf�Yi1�i��
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 46
7.A.e
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
Site Plan
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 47
7.A.e
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
Activity
Zones
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA' Packet Pg. 48
7.A.e
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
Connections
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAl Packet Pg. 49
7.A.e
Design Option 2 - Activity Central
Community
Hubs
expanded
Field House
for Boys & Girls
Club,
and/or cafe,
restroom)
picnic
terrace
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 50
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
SHADE PAVILION AND PICNIC AREA
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAIJ Packet Pg. 51
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
LANDSCAPE INTEGRATED PLAY
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 52
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
LAWN TERRACES FOR SPECTATING AND VIEWS
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 53
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
ALL -AGES RECREATION
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 54
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
SMALL PLAZA WITH INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 55
7.A.e
Activity Central Precedents
GAME COURTS WITHIN GARDEN GROVES
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 56
7.A.e
Activity Central Event Overlay
Site Plan
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 57
7.A.e
Plan Option 1 - Meadow Loop
• 2 smaller or 1 large soccer field
• 4 petanque courts
• 1.5 courts
• playgrounds
• walking jogging paths
• multi -use lawn
• existing Field House / B&G Club
• shade pavilion and restroom
Plan Option 2 - Activity Central
L
d
t+
CR
C
ci
U
0
LO
r
C
O
r
C
O
N
• 1 large + 1 small soccer field Q
• 8 petanque courts a
• 4 courts walking jogging paths
• 200m track multi -use lawn
• skate park expanded Field Hous( r
• sand volleyball for B&G Club / Cafe a
• parking restroom
• playgrounds picnic pavilion
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.e
Small Group Discussion &
Report Back
—160 attendees
16 Discussion Tables
Preferred Plan (by majority at table):
Option 1 preferred: 8
Option 2 preferred: 4
Split: 2
Unclear: 2
Individual Comment Cards:
Option 1 preferred: 5
Option 2 preferred: 3
Undecided / Unclear: 3
CU
cu
L
d
t+
0
LO
T
CD
a
0
L
m
a
r
E
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 59
7.A.e
In Person Open House
Most Consistent Comments
• Like the lawn terraces
• Skatepark should remain in the park
• Option 1 curves are nice but want more active program
like in Option 2
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
a
7.A.e
Online Open House
Preliminary Results
Remains open until September 7th
So far:
360 visitors
132 responses
• 42 Prefer Option 1 (32.6%)
• 87 Prefer Option 2 (67.4%)
ONLINE OPEN HOUSE: August 24th to September 9th, 2016
CITY OF ,.,
Civic Field Project
Welcome -- Orervieiv 'Ste' Sian Optiwil PUn Opnon2 Feedback ) Te11Us More About You / Thank You
Welcome
Welcome m the second online open house forthe Edmonds Civic Center
Playfield Master Plan. Hereyou can learn about the project and provide you r
input on the future of the park. In response to input from the community, two
alternative plans have been producedto generate more feedback and
discussion. The final plan will likely be a hybrid of the alternative plans and
will be presented at the October 12th open house.
This online open house is available through Friday, September9, 2616
How to use this online open house:
Visit the tabbed "stations" to learn about the park, the two proposed design
options and provide feedback. Keep an eye out for so wey questions and
submityour answers. Please share this site with other who may be interested
in this project.
Please join us in -person atone of our upcoming open houses at the Edmonds
1. What isyour relationship to the park? (Check all that
Plaza Room, 65U Main Street, Edmonds, from 6-7:30pm on the following dot
apply) • Thursday, June 23,2016- Activities (Completed)
O I live near the park • Wednesday, August 24, 2016- Master Plan Alternatives{Conn pleteu,
O I work near the park • Wednesday, October 12,2016- Preferred Master Plan Review
O 1 live and/or work near the park Changes or updates to public open house dates will be posted at:
O I do not live and/or work in Edmonds wvnv CivicPark.edmondswa Pov
Fmltuoliii
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAl Packet Pg. 61
7.A.e
Online Open House
Preliminary Results
respondents
Common reasons respondents Common reasons res p
preferred option 1 included: preferred option 2 included:
• •Long walking and running paths
Free -flowing structure, layout
and path •Track Z.
LO
• Water feature and plaza •Focus on fields and athletic
• Open green spaces and facilities
lawn • Expanded boys and girls club
• Skate ark `
• Reduced number of pco
petanque courts •View terraces
• Potential for large events
• More spaces for families and a
children
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 62
7.A.e
Online Open House
Preliminary Results
CU
Common elements not shown that
respondents would like to see included:IL
V
• Additional restrooms
• Benches and/or seating areas LO
r
• Lighting
• Additional covered athletic facility o
and market space y
• Water fountains
m
• Stage
E
• ADA accessibility
• 400-meter track a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 63
7.A.e
Project Schedule
Online Open House 2, tonight through Friday September
http://edmondscivicfield.part*lcipate.onl*lne/
Planning Board, September 14
City Council, September 27
0
Open House #3 (Preferred Master Plan), October 12
m
a
a
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 64
7.A.e
End / Discussion
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 65
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2016
Review of Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 66
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
k Alt
Extended Agenda
September 2, 2016
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER 2016
Sept. 6 Joint Special meeting with the City Council
Sept. 14 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan
Sept. 28 1. Highway 99 Subarea Plan Update
2. CIP/CFP Presentation
OCTOBER 2016
Oct. 12 1. CIP/CFP Public Hearing & Recommendation
2. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Oct. 26 1. Presentation on UW/Forterra plan for Five Corners
2. Land Use Procedures Code Update
3. Update on Highway 99 Subarea Plan
NOVEMBER 2016
Nov. 9 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan
Nov. 23 1. Land Division Code Update
DECEMBER 2016
Dec. 14 1. Update on Sustainable Cities Partnership
Dec. 28 1.
Q
Packet Pg. 67
items ana I)ates are
9.A.a
to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2016 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring Topics 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
2. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 68