Loading...
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