2016-12-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 14, 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`' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Malia Clark, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Sean Conrad, Associate Planner
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
PRESENTATION BY MAYOR EARLING
Mayor Earling announced that Board Member Stewart was retiring from the Board at the end of the year, and this would be
her last meeting. He thanked her for her many years of service and presented her with a gift. He particularly noted her
exemplary work with the student group, Saving Salmon. Board Member Stewart said her time on the Board has been an
incredible and fulfilling experience, and she will miss her fellow Board Members.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 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.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF
THE BOARD FOR 2017. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER MONROE TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE
BOARD FOR 2017. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Ms. Hope advised that the Edmonds portion of Highway 99 has been an important focus of the community for a long time. A
lot of work has been done in the past, and these previous efforts were studied as part of the current planning process. She
reviewed that the subarea planning process started in 2015, and worked ramped up significantly in 2016 when the City hired
a consultant team, led by Fregonese Associates, to assist staff in developing the plan. The goal was to create a more detailed
visionary plan for the future. She emphasized that the current document is a draft, but staff believes it is very close to what
the actual plan will be. The consultant and staff look forward to hearing from the public and the Planning Board so that the
document can be adjusted and moved forward to the City Council for consideration and final adoption.
Ms. Hope reviewed that public outreach for the project included briefings and discussions with the Planning Board and City
Council, meetings with key property owners, three public open houses, three mailings about the project to nearly 2,200
addresses, press releases, news media articles, at least two sets of email announcements to people who signed up for emails,
meetings with the technical advisory committee (including transportation agencies and nearby local governments), special
information on the City's website, and various communications with interested parties.
Ms. Hope introduced Alex Joyce, Fregonese Associates, who was present to review the highlights of the plan, listen to public
comments and answer questions of the Board. At the conclusion of the public hearing, she recommended the Board forward
the plan to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with any technical changes identified by the Board. Staff
anticipates that adoption of the plan will be followed closely by implementation, which includes working with interested
property owners who want to improve properties, working with housing agencies who want to help with affordable housing,
working with neighboring jurisdictions on infrastructure and transportation improvements, and working with various
government agencies to obtain grant funding. In addition, more detailed changes to the development codes and design
standards will be needed to implement the plan.
Alex Joyce, Principal, Fregonese Associates, advised that the public process was robust and allowed people to identify their
vision for Highway 99 in term of land use and transportation/infrastructure improvements. They received great feedback
during the public process, which identified the following community values:
• Connectivity. Better connections and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders to destinations and amenities
in the area.
• Walkability. Create walkable neighborhoods and commercial centers where visitors can walk safely and comfortably at
all hours of the day.
• Safety. Safer connections for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders to destinations and amenities in the area.
• Destinations. Enhance distinct districts in the area such as the Health District and the International District to create
more vibrant destinations and an even better sense of place.
• Healthy Businesses. Bring new businesses and jobs to the area, encourage existing businesses to thrive, and provide
good quality retail and shopping amenities.
• Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable housing options for a mix of income levels (low-income, workforce, and
moderate -income).
• Beautification. Create a more attractive place for residents and visitors through landscaping and urban design.
Mr. Joyce explained that there have been multiple attempts at planning for the Highway 99 area, and these were considered
throughout the process. The proposed plan is a vision and action plan to enhance the Highway 99 area, support prolonged
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 2
economic prosperity in the corridor area, and build a more attractive place for the Edmonds community to live, work and
play. The document provides guidance for how the corridor should grow and change in the future and sets forth the
opportunities and actions needed to address the challenges on Highway 99. The plan describes three alternative scenarios
representing different intensities of investment and redevelopment in the short- and long-term future. It also identifies
implementation strategies for investments, policy changes and short-, medium- and long-term actions needed to transform the
Highway 99 area into a vibrant, mixed -use, transit -oriented corridor.
Mr. Joyce advised that the vision goals contained in the draft plan represent the themes that surfaced throughout the
community discussions with residents and stakeholders. They describe the qualities residents want to see in the Highway 99
Corridor as:
• Economic Development. Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new businesses, investment and
redevelopment.
• Safety and Walkability. Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to move along
and get across Highway 99.
• Housing and Development. Encourage and incentivize mixed -use development, affordable housing, office/commercial
and other types of development.
• Identity. Establish a distinct identity along the corridor that supports existing cultural destinations and amenities and
creates a welcoming and attractive environment for both visitors and residents.
• Transportation. Create more efficient and accessible connections between districts, destinations and other transit
centers/stations.
Mr. Joyce described the corridor as an approximately 2-mile stretch of road that borders several jurisdictions in addition to
Edmonds: Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). The plan
identifies the following three subdistricts:
International District (North). This area is a major cluster of Asian -owned businesses, with diverse restaurants,
grocers and shops. It is already a regional destination, and there are opportunities to strengthen its identify and help it
thrive in the long term.
Gateway District (South). This area is the first introduction to Edmonds on Highway 99, and the community expressed
a strong desire for a "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds. The intent is to place a recognizable
marker at the entry point.
Health District (Center). This area is home to a variety of health care facilities and offices, including Swedish Hospital
Edmonds Campus.
Mr. Joyce advised that the Implementation Strategies were organized into sections: zoning and development, affordable
housing, signage and wayfinding, and transit. He explained that the strategies proposed in this section are intended to
strengthen the design standards that currently exist. As the plan moves into the implementation phase, there are certain
conditions on the corridor that may need special design consideration. The proposed design standards are intended to apply
throughout the corridor, but other, more detailed standards will need to be created later to address unique circumstances. He
reviewed the recommended strategies as follows:
• Recommendation LL Replace the current Comprehensive Plan maps and text with updated materials that clearly
identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as
the hospital and international businesses. The intent is to simplify the zoning and make it more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Maps.
• Recommendation ZL Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 zones into a single CG zone with height limits at 75 feet.
Most of the area is either zoned CG 1 or CG2, and the difference between them is a minor height difference of 15 feet.
• Recommendation 3.1. Instead of having six or more zones, it is recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone be
applied to most of the study area. Much of the current zoning was inherited when the area was annexed from
Snohomish County. The patchwork of zones is outdated, and in some cases, inconsistent with parcel boundaries.
• Recommendation 4.1. On a primary frontage, a minimum of 50% of the street frontage should have buildings within
10 feet of the front property line. In addition, 50% of all other street frontages will have buildings, walls or hedges at
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 3
least 4 feet in height, within 10 feet of the property line. The current standard requires that not more than 50% of a
project's total parking spaces may be located between the building's front fagade and the primary street, and parking lots
may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. This standard can allow too much parking on street
fronts, which impacts pedestrian activity and hinders a vibrant urban street. The intent is to encourage more parking in
the rear of buildings by regulating the location of a percentage of the parking, but the amount of parking in front could
still be very large. The plan suggests that regulating the percentage of the frontage that needs to be occupied by building
instead of parking area is a better approach.
• Recommendation 4.Z Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage. This will push parking towards the
side and rear of buildings and bring buildings up to the street, allowing more space for pedestrian activity on primary
streets and more visibility for businesses.
• Recommendation 4.3. 50% of primary frontage building fafade within 10 feet lot line shall be made of transparent
windows and doors. All other building frontage require 30% transparency.
• Recommendation 4.4. Replace the 4-foot landscaped buffer with a required 10 foot pedestrian activity zone setback
on all primary frontages with ground floor retail. The current standard creates landscape barriers between pedestrian
and buildings rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone. The proposed change would allow for a
range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art, street furniture, street trees, etc.
• Recommendation 4.5. Establish stepback and setback standards for apartments and mixed -use buildings adjacent to
single-family zones and include these standards in the zoning code. The current design standards do not ensure proper
transition of higher -density buildings adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. As the City contemplates expanding the
CG zone over a larger area, it is important that mixed -use development transitions nicely into the single-family
neighborhoods. The proposed design standards would ensure predictability by strengthening the requirements for
stepbacks and setbacks. The plan proposes the following setbacks/stepbacks:
• Ground Floor Setback. Frontages on Highway 99 would require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a
pedestrian activity zone. The setback for frontages not on Highway 99 would be reduced to 5 feet to encourage an
enhanced pedestrian realm. The current 15-foot setback and 10-foot landscaping requirement for lot line adjacency
with single-family zones would be retained.
• Upper Floor Stepback. There would be zero stepback required for the portion of building up to 30 feet in height, as
30 feet is the maximum height allowed in the RM-1.5 zone, which is the predominant zone surrounding the
commercial zones on Highway 99. A 10-foot stepback would be required for the portion of building beyond 30 feet
in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single-family zones. An 8-foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height would
be required on all sides across the street from single-family zones.
• Recommendation 5.1. Adopt transit -supportive parking standards. As proposed, the parking standard for the entire
residential portion of a development would be 0.75 per unit. The commercial parking standard would be 2 per 1,000
square feet. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial within mixed -use buildings would be exempt if there is a shared
parking plan. This exemption is intended to reduce the cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs. In addition, the plan
proposes that the City allow developers to present project -specific studies that reflect special situations. Through
interviews with people in the development community who do transit -supported development in the region, it was made
clear that parking standards can be an impediment to mixed -use, transit -oriented projects.
• Recommendation 6.1. Enact a Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program. The City should pass an ordinance to
define Highway 99 as a "target area" to allow MFTE projects. This would incentivize the construction of additional
housing and mixed -use projects by enabling qualifying projects to take advantage of a tax exemption on the residential
portion of new buildings for 12 years in exchange for keeping 20% of the units affordable during that period.
• Recommendation 7.1. Adopt a Fee Waiver Program for mixed -income projects. The City should adopt an ordinance
that allows staff to waive permitting and impact fees for projects that include affordable units for 12 years.
• Recommendation 8.1. Facilitate a mixed -use, mixed -income demonstration project. This could include identifying a
site with a willing owner or purchasing or securing a transferrable option on a site, establishing a special fund targeted at
affordability and/or redevelopment, actively recruiting developers of affordable housing, and cultivating a champion who
can motivate the development community and advocate for more affordable housing projects. This project could be the
pilot project for the newly adopted MFTE and fee waiver programs to ensure they function well and iron out any issues
before broader adoption. The City could also consider adopting one or more special assessment districts and locating the
pilot project within one of the districts. This will enable the City to make use of special funds to assist with development
and infrastructure costs or other subsidies. The first project will likely require more assistance than other projects.
Special staff could be assigned to the pilot project to ensure it remains a City priority and keeps moving forward.
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 4
• Recommendation 9.L Expand the use of financing tools. The City should actively seek to make use of local state and
federal funds and funding mechanisms to expand the opportunities for affordable housing, redevelopment and economic
development in the Highway 99 area.
• Recommendation 10.1. Provide gateway signage at Highway 99/Highway 104 interchange. The public process
identified the need to clearly establish the identity of Edmonds at the south end of the study area through gateway
features such as signage and landscaping. This could be done in tandem with realignment of the on and off ramps of
Highway 104, which is included in the proposed project list.
• Recommendation 11.1. Identify the transit gateway at the intersection of Highway 99 and 22e Street. The
Mountlake Terrace transit center is scheduled for completion in 2023, and the link from Edmonds to the new station is
2281h Street. It is important to identify this transit gateway and strengthen east/west connections for transit riders,
bicyclists and commuters.
• Recommendation 12.1. Improve wayfinding signage along the corridor. Many amenities and community destinations
exist near Highway 99, but they can be difficult to find, particularly for visitors. Wayfinding signage, with a uniquely
Edmonds identity, should point out safe routes to the amenities.
• Recommendation 13.1. Develop a unique district design identity. The City should invest in signage, lighting and art to
improve the vitality of the existing nodes, such as the Health District and International District.
• Recommendation 14.1. Prohibit new pole signs. As the area transitions from an auto -oriented highway to a more
dynamic and mixed -use environment, new large pole signs designed to capture the attention of fast-moving traffic are no
longer compatible. The City should prohibit new pole signs within the study area.
• Recommendation 15.1. Improve Transit Transfers. The area is well served by both local and regional transit, but
concern was raised that the transfers, schedules and stops could be better coordinated. The City should work with transit
partners to ensure regional and local bus stops are close together and schedules are aligned to ensure convenient and
efficient transfers. As 2281h Street is a future gateway to regional transit and light rail, the City should consider
opportunities to connect the corridor area in a more explicit way to the future rail station.
• Recommendation 16.1. Incentivize alternative transportation options. The transportation landscape is shifting
rapidly, and people's willingness to engage in various ways to get around is expanding. The City should think
proactively about incentives that invite people to engage in a variety of other transportation options. Incentives could
include on -site car share and bicycle parking, electric charging stations, etc.
Next, Mr. Joyce reviewed the transportation infrastructure recommendations that are outlined in the plan. He noted that
many of the recommendations came from existing plans and other were identified as part of the planning process. The
improvements are intended to:
• Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from the Highway 99 Corridor.
• Improve bicycle circulation across and parallel to the Highway 99 Corridor.
• Improve the pedestrian environment along the Highway 99 Corridor
• Provide safe pedestrian crossing of Highway 99 and access to transit.
• Improve transit mobility and transit stop environment.
• Improve traffic flow and general safety with access management.
Mr. Joyce provided maps to illustrate the transportation improvements proposed for the south, north and middle portions of
the study area. He noted that a new traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of 234th Street, near where a mid -block
pedestrian crossing has been proposed. The maps also identify the location of new bike route designations and new bicycle
lanes, access management improvements, intersection improvements, pedestrian improvements and street improvements. He
explained that the main pedestrian improvements will focus on where there are safe crossings now, as well as near the new
crossing that will be provided at 2341h Street. The plan proposes a cost-effective redesign of the Highway 104 on/off ramp to
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. Mr. Joyce also provided pictures to illustrate the types of improvements that are
proposed for enhancing the median and improving pedestrian access. He also provided pictures of what potential
redevelopment might look like.
Mr. Joyce advised that following the Planning Board's recommendation, the plan will be presented to the City Council for
review and another public hearing. It is anticipated that the plan will be adopted in early 2017. Chair Lovell asked that the
PowerPoint presentation be made available on the City's website, and Ms. Hope agreed to have it posted.
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 5
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He noted that the City
received two written comments. The first was from John Owens of Makers, who recommended some tweaks to the plan
regarding stepbacks and setbacks. The second was from Anne Wermus with respect to affordable housing, and her concerns
are explicitly addressed in Section 6 of the proposed plan. Both comments will be entered into the record as part of the
hearing. No other written comments were received.
Jim Underhill, Edmonds, cautioned that it is important to come to a point of understanding as to where the projects should
start. The projects will take a long time and consume a tremendous amount of energy, and this is an important decision to
make early in the implementation process. Mr. Underhill also pointed out that several of the banners in the International
District have been blown down and were never replaced. The same is true for some banners in the Health District. He
suggested that these banners be replaced, and that the City have backup banners for future replacement. He said he heard that
a developer is interested in constructing a hotel on the Value Village site, which would be fine as long as it isn't at skyscraper
height. He noted that there are many busses running along the corridor and to and from the corridor throughout the day, and
the transit agencies have a good handle on how to make the system work well for Edmonds. He said he likes the idea of
having a "Welcome to Edmonds" sign at the south end of the corridor, and he would like the City to consider placing a
similar sign at the north end of the corridor.
Mr. Underhill referred to a parcel of land near 234th Street, which is currently developed with a small, white house. He said
he would like to see this property redeveloped at some point. To the north of this lot is a run-down property where people
come to play video games. This large section needs attention fairly soon and it might be a good place to start a pilot project.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for more information about the banners Mr. Underhill referred to. Mr. Underhill said there are
large banners along the highway in the International District, and many of them are missing. There are also some missing
banners in the Health District. The banners are intended to identify the two different districts, so it is important that they be
maintained properly.
Bill Sunderland, Edmonds, commented that he lives on Pine Street and is very much in favor of the plan. He has a strong
interest in incubator businesses moving into the area, particularly in the Gateway and International Districts. These types of
businesses would result in more employment opportunities for the newer generation. He suggested that this be emphasized in
the plan.
Mary Monroe, Edmonds, said she was present to represent the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), to
make the Board aware that the CEDC is very interested in this topic and has formed a subcommittee to review the plan. The
CEDC would like to provide input relative to the plan, particularly in regard to economic development.
Robert Siew, Edmonds, said he owns a parcel of land on the south side of Highway 99, just north of the Highway 104
interchange. He said he has attended all of the public meetings pertaining to the plan, and he is very impressed with the work
that has been done by the City staff and consulting team. The plan contains a number of good recommendations. However,
he is concerned about the proposed design standard that would require 50% of all buildings to be within 10 feet of the street
front. He has had discussions with City staff and the consultant about how difficult this requirement would be for some
property owners. If Highway 99 were truly an urban environment, with traffic speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour and street
parking on both sides, the requirement would be appropriate. However, Highway 99 is a high-speed corridor, with cars
traveling in excess of 40 miles per hour. Requiring 50% of all buildings to be located within 10 feet of the corridor is a bit
overstretching. He noted that there has been no redevelopment along this stretch of the corridor for a number of years, and it
is currently developed with a mixture of uses. Applying a uniform standard would be difficult.
Mr. Siew reminded the Board that the goal of the subarea plan is to encourage development, and he is definitely interested in
redeveloping a portion of his 10.5-acre property. The site is developed with several buildings, including the Burlington
Factory building. The restaurant space has been vacant for quite some time, and he is very interested in redeveloping that
portion of the property as perhaps a pilot project for the new subarea plan, but the proposed development standard for
setbacks would make redevelopment impossible for him. He explained that he currently has an agreement with Burlington
Factory that any redevelopment on the site cannot be any further west than the main building. Burlington Factory does not
want any development closer to the street because it would block their business. If the design standard is implemented, it
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 6
would stop him from redeveloping the rest of the property, and he would have no option but to remodel and continue to use
the existing development.
Mr. Siew pointed out that there are only a handful of large parcels along the corridor. Aurora Market Place is a newer
development, and he does not envision redevelopment in the near future. He does not foresee that the Ranch 99 property will
be redeveloped in the near future, either. These two properties, in addition to his property, are the only large parcels available
for retail development. His building is very old and obsolete, and he would like to redevelop the entire parcel at some point.
There is three acres of available land behind the Burlington Factory building that he would also like to develop as mixed -use.
While its location is not really suitable for retail uses, it would be a good location for incubator types of businesses on the
ground floor and residential above. He encouraged the Board to carefully consider whether or not the proposed design
standards would help or hurt property owners and developers and impede them from moving forward with redevelopment.
He said he would continue to work with City staff and the consultant to address his concerns about the design standards.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said he is very excited to see the vision for Highway 99 that is laid out in the proposed plan.
He recalled that he served on the Highway 99 Task Force for a number of years with Mr. Underhill. To finally see some of
their ideas come to fruition is very exciting. He said he is impressed with the short-term transportation components,
particularly the safe pedestrian crossings and access to transit. He said he is most familiar with the Gateway District on the
south end of the corridor because he lives in the Aurora Market Place neighborhood. The single-family residential
development in that area and other single-family residential neighborhoods in the area adjacent to the highway provide some
of the most affordable housing in Edmonds. He encouraged the Board to pay attention to this fact as they consider
redevelopment options, not only along the corridor, but those properties that are adjacent to the corridor.
Mr. Witenberg said he likes the concept of transit -oriented development and access to bus rapid transit service is very
important. However, it should not be more important that preserving the single-family residential neighborhoods. As the
Board considers the plan, he urged them to reduce the parking requirement for the multi -family zones located adjacent to
single-family residential zones even more than was has been proposed in the plan. The goal is to make sure that the multi-
family residential developments are, in fact, occupied by people who are using public transportation. By the same token,
they need to provide those new people that will live in the units with access to the public transportation by providing
infrastructure, particularly sidewalks. There are few sidewalks in the areas around the Aurora Market Place, and he asked
that the Board consider requiring developers to connect the sidewalks to the next available parcel that has a sidewalk rather
than just putting a sidewalk in front of the redeveloped property. For residents behind the Safeway, there is no direct access
from 84"h Street. People have to walk all the way around. He asked that some consideration be given to the large parcels on
84`h Street between 236th Street and 238`h Street of allowine some Dublic access through the development to the Safeway.
As someone who drives down Highway 99 through the City of Shoreline at least four times a week, Mr. Witenberg
encouraged the Board to require different landscaping in the medians. The materials used in Shoreline's medians requires
intense maintenance and it appears that they have to close off some lanes of the roadway on a weekly basis to do routine
landscape maintenance.
Mr. Witenberg suggested the Planning Board consider meeting jointly with the CEDC to develop a plan for attracting
businesses that provide economic development along the corridor. The CEDC is working on this effort, and they have
formed a subcommittee to study the issue further. If the two groups put their heads together, they will be able to come up
with a great plan.
Chair Lovell closed the public portion of the meeting.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that the Board has considered the design standard of requiring buildings to be located close
to the street in other plans, such as Westgate. However, it might not be completely practical on Highway 99. Having taller
buildings could end up creating a tunnel effect along the corridor. He asked if it would be reasonable to have an alternative
that requires the bulk of buildings to be adjacent to the activity zone and a landscape buffer that provides a sense of
continuity without moving all of the buildings up to the street. Mr. Joyce commented that feedback at the public meetings
identified a strong desire for a range of active uses and improvements to the pedestrian environment, and they considered
policy mechanisms that the plan could offer to implement what they heard during the public process. Highway 99 is a major
regional facility and the sidewalk areas are limited. The intent of the requirement is to provide additional space for
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 7
pedestrians and to address how a portion of the frontage could be immediately accessible to the pedestrians. Right now, the
standard setback is just four feet, but the buildings can still be located 50 feet away from the pedestrian space. Often
landscaping prevents pedestrian access to the buildings, as well. Whether a 50% requirement is the right number is up for
debate, but the intent was to bring active uses up to where pedestrians will be. The design standard that requires a portion of
the building at the street front would help expand the pedestrian realm.
Board Member Cloutier said he understands the concern, as well as the proposed method. However, he is concerned about
how the requirement would impact owners of large properties that are already developed with multiple buildings. It could
limit the ability to redevelop just a portion of the site. He does not want to put a requirement in place that would hamstring
property owners who want to replace one or more buildings on a large lot. He likes the idea of having 10-foot wide
sidewalks that provide a sense of place, and having the buildings located along the sidewalk would be desirable, as well.
However, he would like the plan to include alternatives that would work for both pedestrians and landowners. Ms. Hope said
the big picture vision is definitely having more connection between pedestrians and buildings, and they do not want to
promote a tunnel affect. However, she also recognizes the need to provide flexibility for large parcels that are developed
with multiple buildings. She noted that, as proposed, not all of the buildings would be required to be located close to the
street front, and staff believes there is some room to refine the language in the draft plan, as well as the codes and standards
that follow, to provide sufficient flexibility. Board Member Cloutier suggested that an alternative might be to require a
connection between the sidewalk and the buildings without requiring the buildings to be moved closer to the street.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that, several years ago, the Board had a discussion about the City's fiber optic plan. He
asked if this plan still exists, and Mr. Chave answered yes, but he could not provide any details. Board Member Cloutier
noted that more band width will be needed in order to encourage high-tech businesses or start-ups along the corridor. He
encouraged the staff and consultant to talk with the CEDC to figure out how to do a joint effort to provide higher band width
connections along the corridor.
Board Member Cloutier recalled public comments that indicated a desire for the plan to include certain elements it is not
designed to include. He emphasized that the plan is intended to be a vision and should not call out how a specific lot should
be redeveloped. The plan can encourage a mixture of uses and a certain type of development, but it cannot say there must be
a particular type of business along the street.
As someone who lives in an apartment along Highway 99, Board Member Crank commented that the proposed
improvements at 236th Street speak to her personally. This is a high -traffic area and it is currently unsafe for both pedestrian
and vehicular traffic. Based on the maps provided in the plan, one of the areas of study will be site distance, visibility, etc.,
and she appreciates projects that improve visibility.
Board Member Crank asked if rezoning the properties at the corner of 236th Street and Highway 99 would negatively impact
any of the residential development that is there now. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the CG zone allows for a range of uses,
including residential. Therefore, there would be no negative impact to this property.
Board Member Crank noted that part of the plan's vision called for improving lighting along the corridor, which is
desperately needed. She asked if the medians would be lit, as well. She agreed with the public comments about how the
landscaping in Shoreline's medians requires a lot of maintenance, and they have to block traffic while the work is performed.
She hopes that lighting plans will impact the roads along Highway 99, as crossing the street is very difficult when it is dark.
Board Member Crank voiced concern about reducing the parking requirement for residential development. While she thinks
it is a good concept, there are still a lot of people moving into Edmonds from other places, and the current transit predictions
for the next 10 years will not make the connectivity necessary for Highway 99 to be a truly transit -oriented community.
Whatever decrease is approved should be slightly greater than what is recommended in the plan, but less than what it is now.
Many people who live along the corridor cannot use public transportation in an efficient time to get to their place of work.
This should be factored into the equation. Mr. Chave noted that the requirements are minimum and developers can definitely
provide more parking. Staff s experience is that developers tend to put more parking along Highway 99 than what is needed.
Board Member Crank asked if the City is allowed to require in -lieu -of fees as opposed to offering tax waivers for affordable
housing. Ms. Hope said there are different options, and an in -lieu -of fee program would require separate authorization.
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 8
However, the two types of fees identified in the implementation strategies are fairly easy to apply while the City continues to
explore other options. She reminded the Board of the two options that are recommended in the plan. The Multi -Family Tax
Exemption (MFTE) Program would allow a developer to exempt the residential portion of a building that is identified as
"affordable" from property taxes for up to 12 years. This is a huge incentive that allows development to be done at a lower
cost, and the savings can be passed on to the users. The Fee Waiver Program would come into play at the time of
development and could lower the cost to the developer. The City has been working on this program since the study began,
and the City Council just approved a waiver of up to 80% for multi -family development that meets the characteristics of
"affordable." They are also looking at housing strategies in the next year or two that will consider all the different housing
opportunities.
Board Member Crank noted that other communities have successfully implemented in -lieu -of fee programs that allow
developers to contribute into a fund that is available for City housing projects in lieu of developing affordable housing as part
of their projects. Mr. Chave noted that some of these programs have had mixed results. Board Member Crank concurred, but
noted that other communities have done well. If the City wants to go that route, it must do its homework on the communities
that have implemented successful programs.
Board Member Crank referred to the picture that was provided in the plan of the white house that is located across the street
from the new light that is proposed at the intersection of 234th Street. She pointed out that there is a bus stop on this side of
the street, but most people who get off the bus in this location have to cross the street to access the Community Health Clinic.
In order to safely cross, a person must walk six blocks in either direction. She suggested that this is an important location for
a safe pedestrian crossing.
Board Member Monroe complimented Mr. Joyce on his presentation. He asked him to point to what part of the plan
encourages commercial development, such as big box stores and automobile sales. Mr. Joyce said feedback from the public
meetings did not indicate a desire for big box stores, and the plan is intended to reflect the vision they heard at the
workshops, which is to strengthen the pedestrian environment and encourage economic activity, but not in a specific way that
involves big box retail. The comments were in the opposite direction. The public wants an environment along the corridor
that respects and supports transit users and walkers. That being said, there are several large sites and none of the proposed
design standards would preclude big box stores or automobile sales from developing along the corridor.
Board Member Monroe observed that Highway 99 is the last remaining location in the City that can accommodate the type of
development that brings in substantial tax revenue. Mr. Joyce said it came down to a design decision. While they did not
want to discourage these activities, even if the uses are allowed, the desire is to improve the pedestrian experience.
Board Member Monroe asked if there are barriers that would discourage automobile dealers from locating in Edmonds. Mr.
Chave said it would probably be land assembly. Board Member Monroe asked if the plan promotes potential land assembly
such as vacant streets. Mr. Chave cautioned that this would be difficult. He observed that automobile dealerships are
looking at expanding upwards rather than out because land is difficult to acquire. The plan talks about accommodating these
uses and not precluding them, but there are limits on what properties are available. The intent of the plan is to remove
obstacles for redevelopment. When considering big box retail, he recalled the 2004 Economic Development Study that
indicated that other big box stores were already located within close proximity to this stretch of Highway 99. It was felt that
these existing stores have captured the market so it is highly unlikely that big box retail will be proposed within the subarea
boundaries. In addition, the national trend for big box stores is downsizing and providing smaller stores in urban areas,
which would definitely be a possibility in the subarea. The plan tries to take advantage of changes in the retail environment
and urban development.
Mr. Joyce added that the economic consultant made the observation that, from a retail perspective, the distinct advantage of
this stretch of the corridor is not necessarily large retail, but it is cultivating and strengthening the unique international related
businesses that have already collocated. These could become a very big regional draw. Board Member Monroe asked what
could be added to the plan to promote this concept. Would the City hire a facilitator to cultivate the concept of incubator
business or work with groups to lay out a specific plan to identify and provide a cohesive sense of place to the area? Mr.
Chave said a key will be working on the public infrastructure that is needed to accommodate future development. The
connections and physical improvements along the corridor and connections to the neighborhoods will result in more people
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 9
using the services. They have solidified that the International District is still a goal for this stretch of Highway 99, and the
specific recommendation is to look at unique and distinctive improvements that can be made within the right-of-way.
Board Member Robles said he likes the idea of addressing the things that are wrong now before encouraging redevelopment.
He agreed that the plan cannot define what is built on a piece of property, but it can facilitate different types of businesses.
Lighting and broadband are current deficiencies that need to be addressed before the City gets into stylized adaptations. The
plans should be contingent upon who moves in. Once they identify the anticipated mix of uses, they can put the crossing at
the appropriate point to serve the development. He commented that there are models for incubator development, communal
work spaces, etc., and the City should consider these models as implementation moves forward.
Board Member Robles commented that providing access across large properties is an interesting idea that could mitigate
some of the issues about putting buildings next to the street. If the buildings are set back more with access east/west, it
would provide the same effect. He recalled that issues were raised as part of the Westgate Plan discussions about putting
buildings too close to the roadway given the speed that vehicles travel. There will be pressure waves, etc. that will be felt
from quite a distance. The plan should be flexible enough to address these concerns.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she is interested in hearing about the economic drivers of what Highway 99 can become. She
would also like the consultant to comment regarding Mr. Siew's concern about the need for businesses to have visibility.
One economic driver that is built into the plan is that buildings are proposed to be closer to the street with transparency to
increase exposure for the businesses. It is likely that rent for buildings with good exposure will be much higher than those
that sit back further from the street. The proposed document is a plan for future possibilities. It identifies things the City can
encourage, guide and restrain. The nuts and bolts needed for implementation will come later.
Mr. Joyce said the International District is a key economic driver. It is a distinct set of businesses that, if cultivated, can grow
into an even bigger economic draw and destination for a variety of services. The Health District is another regional draw in
terms of its associated office, research, accommodations, etc. A wide range of uses can orbit around the health -related
drivers. The philosophy, in terms of design, is rooted in supporting many ways to get through the corridor to connect the
economic engines, but allow residents to access these areas, as well. Development that has more transparency is supportive
of the pedestrian environment and feels more safe and inviting. These tend to have a lot more economic vitality because they
are so accessible to people who drive, walk, bike or ride the bus. He expressed his belief that the plan, and the policies that
will come after, will support the economic vitality through design.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that there were no visual examples in the plan to illustrate what the Gateway District might
become. However, when developing large parcels, locating buildings closer to the street would result in higher market rates
in terms of rental value. She commented that Burlington Factory is a regional business, as there are no other similar
businesses close by. If the site is redeveloped at some point in the future, it is likely that Burlington Factory would prefer to
have its building closer to the street because it would give higher visibility.
Mr. Joyce agreed that the plan needs to respect the fact that not all properties along the corridor are uniform and have the
same conditions. The intent of the plan is to transfer the community's aspirations into high-level recommendations. As they
transfer the plan into implementation, their role will be to help the City identify areas and consider how they reach the intent,
but in a unique way that encourages economic development.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board discussed the concept of parking reductions at length as part of the Westgate
Plan. They also talked about requirements for bicycle parking spaces, electric car charging stations, etc. With the Highway
99 Subarea Plan, they are talking about less parking space and more use of alternative forms of transportation. In conjunction
with this, the plan should address such things as loading zones, bicycle parking, charging stations, car share parking, etc. Mr.
Joyce agreed that these concepts need to be worked in as the plan is implemented.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Westgate Plan could be used as a model for Highway 99 development. Mr. Chave said
they may consider the plan, but it is important to recognize that the two areas are very different. The City's research will
include what other jurisdictions with similar development might have done. For example, the parking recommendation is
based on experience from other jurisdictions. Mr. Joyce explained that, early in the process, they initiated a focus group and
interviewed a range of developers that do transit -oriented, mixed -use development in the region. They generally landed
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 10
around .75 parking spaces per unit for developments that are well served by transit. They also ran a series of proforma to test
the assumption to figure out an economically -defensible standard for parking, and it ended up being around .75 spaces per
unit, as well. Whether the City lands on .75 spaces or lower or higher, the standard tends to be in the range of .5 to 1,
depending on the location of the development.
Board Member Stewart said she looks forward to seeing the plan evolve. She asked the consultant to respond to the comment
letter the City received from Makers. She felt the request sounded reasonable, but she found it difficult to compare and
identify the differences between the requested language and the proposed language. Mr. Joyce agreed to do a detailed
comparison of the two. He explained that the letter recommends a more complicated formula for determining setbacks. The
City's general philosophy is to keep the plan as simple as possible for administrative purposes, but they may end up
proposing additional language that will provide guidance to City staff.
Board Member Stewart said she supports the idea of consolidating zoning and felt it would make it easier for developers.
Mr. Chave advised that there are some parcels on the east side of Highway 99 that are zoned multi -family, and that is what
the Makers letter may have been referring to. These properties are surrounded by single-family residential, and staff was
reticent to recommend a zoning change to CG. Specific questions about zoning will come later as part of the implementation
phase. He noted that Makers also voiced concern about some of the activity zone requirements, such as expanding sidewalks.
While he is not sure that is something the City Council would be receptive to, it could be considered as a potential option.
Board Member Stewart said she was recently at Crossroads Mall and noticed that Bed Bath and Beyond was not visible from
the right-of-way, but she could see the sign from the street and was able to locate the store. She understands that the goal is
to eventually have consistency with respect to buildings being located adjacent to the right-of-way, but they also must allow
flexibility to address unique situations. She agreed that continuity is appealing, and perhaps it would be helpful if the plan
provided pictures to illustrate what might be possible.
Board Member Stewart said she knows how forward thinking Fregonese Associates is, and she was surprised that no mention
was made in the plan about sustainability. One of the City's goals is to encourage green buildings, and she understands that
more details will be provided during the implementation phase. However, she felt the plan should at least encourage
sustainable design and/or green building to show that the community is forward thinking.
Chair Lovell recalled that, several years ago, they went through a similar planning process for Firdale Village, which was a
mixed -use commercial property under single ownership. A lot of ideas were put forward by the public and the Planning
Board, but the end result of the plan was so restrictive that no one has developed the property. He voiced concern that the
same might happen with Highway 99, which is one of the last large parcels available in Edmonds for significant
redevelopment. Flexibility is needed in order to encourage redevelopment in the near future.
Chair Lovell observed that Highway 99 is a state highway with high speed traffic. Although a lot of development has
occurred on the Shoreline portion of the highway, their design guidelines do not seem to be effective since it still appears to
be a hodgepodge. It is important to have a clear understanding of the right-of-way width along the highway when
considering the appropriate setback for buildings. Even if they establish a 14-foot setback from the right-of-way as a
guideline, he is not sure that he would feel safe walking along the sidewalk with high-speed traffic going by. He voiced
concern about jumping ahead with predictions about what redevelopment will be before the infrastructure improvements have
been nailed down.
Chair Lovell voiced support for Ms. Monroe's earlier suggestion that the Planning Board and CEDC meet together to discuss
the plan. They need more flexibly to work with individual property owners, and work needs to be done with the individual
property owns in order to refine what can clearly be done on a given property. He questioned whether the City would have
the ability to require a develop to connect a sidewalk to the next available sidewalk.
Mr. Chave explained that the Firdale Village Master Plan was interesting because it was a privately -sponsored zoning/master
plan change. It is not anything like the Highway 99 Subarea Plan process. The Firdale Master Plan was initially a planning
level idea that morphed into something that was onerous. He also explained that there are significant differences between the
Shoreline and Edmonds portions of Highway 99. Much of the right-of-way in Edmonds was developed years ago by
WSDOT, and the rights -of -way are mapped out. He doubts the City would do what Shoreline did, which is to purchase large
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 11
amounts of right-of-way. The intent is to work with the existing right-of-way and expand the pedestrian area to improve the
overall right-of-way and how works.
Chair Lovell asked if the proposed subarea plan provides enough guidelines and flexibility for the staff and consultant to
work with property owners to plan specific redevelopment. Mr. Chave answered yes. Many of the elements of the plan are
couched as recommendations that are not conditions. Perhaps they could emphasize the fact that transition properties are
very important and flexibility is needed to address unique situations. For example, they could find a way to accommodate
Mr. Siew's needs but still keep with the overall vision in the plan. He summarized his belief that the plan offers the
flexibility necessary for the different unique properties. More detailed flexibility will be addressed in the next phase of
implementation, as well.
Mr. Chave pointed out that Shoreline's improvement plan is not very old, and they are finally starting to see things happen.
It takes time for the plan to come to fruition, and it will be interesting to see how fast it does occur. He advised that there is a
fair amount of interest in the development community and they are starting to see multi -story projects pop up along the
corridor. Mr. Joyce said the consultant is committed to working with staff and concerned property owners to make sure they
are not doing anything in the plan that would preclude development that is supportive of the overall plan goals. They need to
have a plan in place, but also a flexible framework that allows them to move towards the vision. The plan sets the stage for
the detailed work that will come in the next phase.
Chair Lovell asked if staff intends to present the plan to the City Council in its present form. Mr. Chave answered
affirmatively, but added that if the City Council has concerns, there would still be an opportunity to work them out before
final adoption. Chair Lovell said he supports the plan and is sensitive to specific comments made by the public. In order to
make the plan fly, it will need a fairly substantial element of flexibility to work with individual property owners to end up
with development that is consistent with the long-term vision in the plan.
Chair Lovell inquired if the Board is ready to move the plan forward to the City Council with a recommendation, or if they
want one more opportunity to review the plan after it has been updated to include their comments. Ms. Hope explained that
the Board could recommend approval of the plan now with some clarification about flexibility, etc. They could also decide
to come back at a January meeting with some minor changes to address the concerns that were raised before forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council. The Board felt that the consultant and staff had a clear understanding of their concerns
and how to address them in the plan.
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN TO THE
CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS REVISED TO REFLECT THE DEGREE
OF FLEXIBILITY THE BOARD IS CONCERNED ABOUT WITH REGARD TO IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Monroe said he would like the plan to include a recommendation relative to economic development. Mr.
Joyce pointed out that the plan does include language relative to the economic success of the Health District and International
District. Board Member Monroe said he is more concerned about including language in the plan about the need to encourage
the types of businesses that result in more tax revenue for the City. Also, if Highway 99 is intended to become a "tech"
corridor, it should be identified as a recommendation or strategy.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Planning Board is interested in meeting with the CEDC prior to forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Hope advised that one goal is to attract businesses, not just through the plan, but
through the next phase of implementation. While the CEDC has requested an opportunity to be involved early on, they may
be more interested in where the plan goes from here. It would definitely be worthwhile to include them in discussions related
to implementation of the plan. Board Member Crank pointed out that the CEDC will also have an opportunity to review the
plan and submit feedback to the Board. While she supports the concept of highlighting economic development as something
of interest, it does not need to be specific at this point. More detailed strategies for economic development can come forward
during the implementation phase, which can involve discussions with the CEDC. Ms. Hope agreed that the CEDC could
provide comments directly to the City Council. The Board could forward their recommendation to the City Council, as well,
recognizing that more about economic development would be incorporated into the plan during the next phase. The Board
and the CEDC could then work together to develop codes and standards to implement the plan.
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 12
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the December 28th meeting was cancelled, and the Board's next meeting will be January 1 ltn
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell thanked Board Member Stewart for her excellent work on the Board.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart said it would please her if the Board would keep the concept of green building and sustainability
alive in future discussions, where appropriate.
The Board Members all thanked Board Member Stewart for her service.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 2016 Page 13