Loading...
2017-04-12 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 12, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5d' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2017 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Robert Sieu advised that he owns commercial property along Highway 99 (Burlington site), and he has met several times with the City's Development Services Director, Shane Hope, and the consultant, John Fregonese, to discuss issues that concern him. He was also present at the Board's December meeting where he voiced concern that the proposal would require all future development to be brought to the street. As currently proposed, at least 50% of any new building must be within 10 feet of the curb or sidewalk. He voiced concern about uniformly applying this constraint to all property along Highway 99. He explained that some parcels are very large and it would be difficult to comply. For example, his property is located at the very south end of the Edmonds portion of Highway 99 near the interchange between SR-104 and Highway 99. It is bordered on the south side by 242nd Street, which is a dead end, and on the north side by 240d' Street, which is a very lightly -used street. The requirement that all development be placed close to Highway 99 would severely block the visibility of a large portion of his property, which is very deep. Mr. Sieu said the consultant is proposing an alternative to address properties that are constrained, which would allow buildings to be 60 feet away from the property line and have a row of parking in front. However, this alternative would still result in development that blocks visibility for the majority of his property. He asked that this concern be specifically addressed by the consultant. He reminded the Board of previous discussions about the uniqueness of his property, which is very large and right at the interchange. He hopes there will be some exceptions written into the code to address his needs. Otherwise, he would be precluded from further developing the site in the future. Mr. Sieu also voiced concern about the proposed requirement for an amenity zone that equals 5% of the building area footprint or 5% of the parking area, whichever is greater. It is important to note that most of the buildings on this stretch of the highway do not have structured or underground parking. While requiring amenity space equal to 5% of the building footprint may be reasonable, 5% of the parking area would not. This is particularly true if the City's intent is to encourage mid -rise buildings. Although their footprint would be rather small, the parking requirement would still be significant. He reminded the Board that it is already difficult to create feasible development proposals that meet the City's requirements, and the problem will be even greater as buildings go up in height. Mr. Sieu recalled that early discussions suggested a parking requirement of .75 spaces per residential unit, but the requirement was later increased to 1 parking space per unit. He reminded the Board that parking is one of the major constraints of buildings going higher to maximize the use of a given property, and providing structured or underground parking is costly. The trend in the area is for lower parking requirements, particularly for development along a transit corridor like Highway 99. He suggested that the City lower the requirement back to .75 unless there is a good reason for the increase. He explained that developers will need to figure out the amount of parking needed for a project to be viable. If the market will not accept anything less than 1 space per unit, then that is likely what developers will provide. However, the code should provide flexibility. Mr. Sieu said he recently had a discussion with Mr. Fregonese about the proposed alternative for constrained properties that would allow for a 60-foot setback from the highway. However, he clarified that the current proposal would limit parking to just one row, even though the 60-foot setback would accommodate two rows of parking with a driveway in between. He asked that the Board consider his concerns and provide flexibility in the code to address his unique circumstances. For example, he pointed out that 240th Street is a dead end and no longer connects to Highway 99. In addition, his property is about 9 feet higher in elevation than the street, and it would be a waste to put a sidewalk and activity area along this street. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. She specifically noted the forum on local low-income housing needs, sponsored by the Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition in cooperation with the City of Edmonds. The event is scheduled for April 24th at 6:30 p.m. in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds Library. She suggested that at least one Board Member commit to attend the event. Board Member Lovell agreed to attend, and Chair Rubenkonig asked that other Board Members who plan to attend should notify Board Member Lovell in advance. Board Member Lovell requested an update on the status of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Ms. Hope reported that the City Council recently decided on Option M relative to buffers on property surrounding the marsh. The City Council's decision was transmitted to the Department of Ecology (DOE), and the DOE will review the option and provide feedback about any changes that need to be made. After approval by the DOE, the SMP will come back before the City Council for final adoption. Board Member Lovell asked what the process would be if the DOE denies Option M. Ms. Hope answered that, if the DOE has significant concerns about Option M, they could direct the City Council to change it or come up with a new option. However, staff does not believe that is likely. The DOE may suggest or require some minor changes, but they appear to be comfortable with the concept outlined in Option M. PRESENTATION ON HIGHWAY 99 CODE AMENDMENTS Ms. Hope explained that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and implementing code language are strategies to make the highway a real option for redevelopment while recognizing that there is already a lot of great development along the corridor. She introduced the consultant, John Fregonese, of Fregonese & Associates, who was present to review the proposed code language. John Fregonese, Fregonese & Associates, explained that when creating a subarea plan, it is helpful to use pictures to illustrate the intent and desire for the area. The intent of the code language is to create an ordinance that results in the Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 2 desirable physical improvements without messing with the market or preventing development. When developing the draft code language, he reviewed examples from throughout the country of development in transit -oriented areas. He reviewed that in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, big box retail stores were the common type of development. In these situations, the buildings were set back from the street, with a sea of parking between the building and the street. People walking on the road felt isolated and vulnerable. More recent studies indicate that people would prefer to walk along a building fagade, see other people, have protection from inclement weather, and look into the shops. The intent of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan is to create new buildings that will change the environment of this fairly auto -oriented area. He acknowledged that the area will never be as pedestrian friendly as downtown Edmonds, but there are numerous examples of how placing buildings closer to the street creates a more comfortable environment for pedestrians, and recent development in the City of Shoreline is a great example. He noted that there was initially a lot of push back from larger box stores relative to the concept, but many have now created off -the -shelf designs that meet the standards. He emphasized that the intent is to make the permit process fairly routine so the standards can be applied by the Development Services Director. If the code is too discretionary, it would require a public hearing process. Mr. Fregonese referred to Attachment 1, which is the new language proposed for Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.40, and Attachment 2, which outlines changes to a portion of the Sign code (ECDC 20.60). He reviewed, that the zoning map would be changed consistent with the final version of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, which consolidates the existing CG1 and CG2 zoning districts into just one General Commercial (CG) district. In addition, some parcels in the subarea that are currently zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) would be re -designated as CG. He provided the current zoning map and the proposed zoning map to illustrate the changes. Mr. Fregonese referred to ECDC 16.60.020, which outlines the site development or site design standards that would apply in the CG zone. This section outlines elements a building design must address, such as the requirement that buildings must be located no more than 20 feet from the property line fronting the street. This allows for a Pedestrian Activity Area that is composed of an activity zone, a pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. The activity zone is described as the pedestrian realm from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The pedestrian zone would be located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone and consist of a minimum 5-foot clear and unobstructed path for pedestrians. The streetscape zone would be located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone, and must be a minimum of five feet wide. Typical amenities in the streetscape zone include benches, street lights, street trees, dining tables, bike racks, etc. Mr. Fregonese pointed out that the proposed language provides protection for properties that are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS) when located adjacent to properties zoned CG. As proposed, the portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. This step back area can be used for patios, etc. The 15-foot setback requirement with 10 feet of Type I landscaping would still apply, as well. In addition, a minimum 4-foot Type I landscape buffer would be required for residential parking areas adjacent to RS zones. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that one intent of the subarea plan is to get buildings closer to the street. The proposed code language would limit parking along the street to no more than 40% of the street frontage. Instead, parking would need to be located along the side or at the rear of the building. The idea is to cut the amount of parking adjacent to the street to a reasonable standard. Also, the proposed language would require one electric vehicle charging station for every 10 required residential parking stalls for all new development that includes housing. This will make it more feasible for people in RM developments to own electric cars. Bicycle storage spaces will also be required for RM housing. Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed code language would require pathways within parking lots, and a pedestrian plan will be required for all projects to show how pedestrians will move around the site. The pedestrian access must connect directly to the public sidewalk. For example, if a site is constrained such as to warrant the building be placed 60 feet from the street front with parking in front, a sidewalk or pathway must be provided from the building entrance to the sidewalk along the street front and the requirements for an amenity zone would still apply. He provided a picture to illustrate how this connection could occur. He commented that although the 5% amenity zone requirement can be significant, the amenity zone is important in the area to provide facilities for pedestrians to enjoy. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Fregonese noted that the proposed design standards also require transparency to prevent blank walls from being created along the street front. In addition, some minor amendments to the sign code (ECDC 20.60) have been proposed, which prohibit new pole signs and reduce the height of freestanding signs. Mr. Fregonese summarized that he would continue to work with staff to provide more details in the draft code language in preparation for a public hearing before the Planning Board in May. Board Member Crank observed that one of the presentation slides was identified as the intersection of Highway 99 and 238t' Street. She said she lives in the neighborhood and the picture does not illustrate what is currently on the ground. Mr. Fregonese responded that the slide was mislabeled, and it actually illustrates the intersection of Highway 99 and 2401" Street. He agreed to make the correction. He explained that he has done some preliminary site planning with the property owner to see how the proposed code language would be applied. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Sieu's concern and asked if the staff and consultant are confident that the proposed code language is flexible enough to accommodate unique situations. For example, he recalled that a developer has been trying to do a mixed -use development behind Safeway (238 h Street), but a throughway is needed in order to allow pedestrians to get through the lot and to Highway 99 to catch public transportation. This has been one of the major reasons why the property has not been developed. He said he is also concerned about the applicability of the proposed code language to properties in Esperance, which is part of unincorporated Snohomish County. Mr. Fregonese advised that Edmonds is not allowed to create code requirements that apply to these properties unless and until they are annexed into the City. Again, Board Member Lovell asked if enough flexibility is built into the draft code to allow a property owner with an unusual situation to redevelop his/her property. If the City wants redevelopment to happen on Highway 99, it needs to change its philosophy to move away from requiring seas of parking and buildings setback from the street. However, there also needs to be provisions in the code that allow some flexibility to make things work for all property owners. Mr. Fregonese explained that there is a tradeoff between flexibility and certainty. It is important for the City to have a process in place that allows staff to approve development permits for projects along Highway 99 after an administrative review. However, if the code language allows too much flexibility, the decision will become discretionary and require a public hearing process. The intent is to provide enough certainty so that permits can be done at the counter without a hearing if the design is consistent with code. The Planned Action Ordinance will also eliminate the need for SEPA review for projects are meet the requirements. Mr. Fregonese explained that applicants are encouraged to do their best to meet the standards and requirements. However, the proposed language also provides an alternative standard to address unique circumstances. As proposed, applicants with unique situations can go through the same administrative permit process but propose a 60-foot setback from the street. However, the provision that limits parking to no more than 40% of the street front would still apply. He said he believes that the alternative will take care of most of the situations that are anticipated. Another option would be to have a design exception that goes to the Hearing Examiner for approval. If neither the standard nor the alternative will work, the applicant would be required to go before the Hearing Examiner and show how his/her proposal would meet the intent of the standards. This process would take more time to complete, and there would be less certainty for property owners. Sometimes to get the best design possible, it is necessary for the Bity to negotiate with property owners. Ms. Hope added that the balancing act is not only to provide certainty for the property owner who wants to develop but for adjacent property owners, as well. Property owners want assurance that the properties next to them will also develop in a nice way so they feel more comfortable doing exciting projects. She felt that most situations could be addressed by the standard or the alternative proposed by the consultant. She acknowledged that there may be some situations that cannot be addressed with the proposed language, and she is confident that the staff and consultant can come up with something that is workable for all property owners. The intent is to avoid having a corridor full of parking. Instead, it would be a more pedestrian -friendly environment where people want to go. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that the City is anticipating that 4,000 additional units and 4,000 additional jobs will be created along the corridor in coming years, and there is already a great transit service in place. As the area becomes more populated, people will likely want to walk to the various services that are offered within a 10-block radius, and the pedestrian access needs to be as comfortable as possible. This concept has been applied in various areas since the 1980s and has resulted in transforming large arterials into pleasant environments that are full of people walking. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 4 Board Member Cheung asked if the consultant is aware of any other cities along Highway 99 that have similar design standards in place. Mr. Fregonese answered that Shoreline has tried to incorporate this same concept and has similar codes in place. He agreed to provide more examples at the public hearing of other communities that have implemented similar standards. Vice Chair Monroe asked why mobile home parks and storage facilities would be prohibited along the corridor. Ms. Hope noted that they are also prohibited uses in the current code. They could be added as allowed uses if that is something the Board supports. However, if the uses are not something the City wants to encourage, they should be specifically prohibited to provide additional clarity. Vice Chair Monroe noted that there are currently two mobile home parks and one storage facility along the corridor. Vice Chair Monroe asked for more information about why the minimum lot and lot width areas would be zero. Mr. Fregonese explained that a property owner may want to create very small lots that covers the footprint of a coffee cart or a very small kiosk. The intent of the proposed code is that the City is not interested in regulating lot width or lot area. Vice Chair Monroe asked if it would be possible for a property owner to develop the back portion of a property and then subdivide and split off the front portion to use as a parking area to serve the development at the back of the property. Mr. Fregonese agreed that a property owner may want to develop the back portion of a property first, but he felt there would be economic incentive for him/her to develop the front portion, as well. If the back portion of a property were subdivided, the access would likely be eliminated. In addition, a parking lot would not be a permitted primary use for the front lot. Ms. Hope clarified that stand-alone parking lots that are not associated with a building are not allowed. Mr. Fregonese agreed to research this potential loophole more and report back to the Board. Chair Rubenkonig also voiced concern about not having a standard lot area or width requirement. Mr. Fregonese explained that, in commercial development, you get a lot to own or lease and a building, but you are in a planned unit development and the parking is taken care of by the community. He said he does not believe that lot width or lot area will be a significant issue. Chair Rubenkonig asked what would happen if a very small lot is abandoned by its former use and it is too small to accommodate redevelopment. She recalled that, when it comes to residential zones, the City is very careful not to leave behind small lots that cannot be developed. However, this has not typically been a problem in the commercial zones where there has been more interest in assembling parcels. Ms. Hope explained that there are a variety of size needs in the commercial areas, which is different than in the RS zones, where the City wants to encourage more typical yard sizes. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that a note be added to the draft code language to clarify why no minimum lot area is required. Mr. Chave advised that, historically, there have never been minimum lot sizes in the commercial zones. Vice Chair Monroe asked if the proposed code would eliminate some ability for flexibility in the commercial zones. Mr. Chave answered that the intent is to provide design standards that are more predictable going forward. However, it will also incorporate flexibility, where helpful, and not having a minimum lot size is probably helpful. He commented that not a lot of subdivisions occur on Highway 99, since most were done years ago. However, there are subdivisions that allow people to lease parcels as part of a larger development. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that this explanation should be included as a note in the code language. Vice Chair Monroe noted that there are a number of triangular lots that may skew the frontage area and the photos provided in the presentation do not depict these situations. He asked if it is anticipated that the buildings would run parallel to the street. Mr. Fregonese said the triangular wedge could actually become the amenity area. He agreed to provide additional illustrations for the public hearing to show how triangular lot configurations could be dealt with. Vice Chair Monroe noted that the proposed code language would not require underground utilities. Ms. Hope said this is an entirely separate issue that will not be dealt with in the proposed code. While underground utilities are preferred, they are costly. Vice Chair Monroe noted that it would be less costly to do undergrounding as part of a development. Ms. Hope agreed but noted that development would likely occur one parcel at a time, and it is not really feasible to bring the line down to just one parcel. Vice Chair Monroe suggested that perhaps they should at least require that the conduit be laid at the time of construction in anticipation of undergrounding occurring at some point in the future. Ms. Hope agreed to consider this option further. She said the City hopes to address the issue via the street projects it wants to accomplish along Highway 99, and this would take care of the City's rights -of -way. The City is currently working to secure funding for these improvements Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 5 If a large chunk of the right-of-way is improved at the same time, it is likely that underground utilities would be included as part of the project. Mr. Chave explained that many cities have rules for underground utilities, but they tend to focus on certain areas. The difficulty is related to cost. Most of the utilities are located in the rights -of -way and it is extremely hard to do when development occurs project by project. However, he suggested that underground utilities should be the goal of any large project, especially City street improvement projects. Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that an exception was included in the draft proposal for unique situations. The City cannot predict into the future what great projects will come along that require exceptions. He also asked how many situations exist along the corridor where a step back would be required because the CG zone is located adjacent to an RS zone. Ms. Hope answered that there are not a lot of these situations. Board Member Robles asked if there are currently single-family homes located in the CG zone. Mr. Fregonese answered affirmatively, but clarified that the step back requirement would only apply to RS zones adjacent to the CG zone and not single-family residential development in the CG zone. Board Member Robles asked if the proposed code could result in a homeowner being stuck between two commercial developments and unable to sell the home. Mr. Fregonese said there are not many of these situations, but the homes are already compromised as single-family residential units because they are located in a commercial zone. The properties are zoned commercial and the owners would have a lot of other choices for redevelopment. They would not be stuck with a residential home. Board Member Robles asked if people who park behind the buildings will be given the same pedestrian amenities as those provided along the street front. Mr. Fregonese answered that a pedestrian plan would be required to show a system of pedestrian pathways throughout the site. Interconnectivity would be required between the buildings and to the street front. As an example, he referred to the preliminary site design for the Burlington property, which shows a system of walkways that provide safe access to all of the buildings, as well as lighting, landscaping and other amenities. Board Member Robles asked the minimum distance a building could be to the road. Ms. Hope answered that a 10-foot public right-of-way would be required, which means the buildings must be at least 15 feet away from the street. Board Member Robles asked where the bike lanes would be located. Ms. Hope answered that there would be no bike lanes on Highway 99, but there would be alternative routes located on parallel streets, as well as off -road paths. Board Member Robles asked if electric scooters and electric bicycles would be accommodated, as well. Ms. Hope answered that the staff and consultant are still looking at options to accommodate these various modes of transportation, and signing will be particularly important. Board Member Robles asked if there would be Department of Transportation (DOT) signs on the small roads located along buildings and parking areas, and Ms. Hope responded that DOT signage would not likely be used on private properties. If it were used, it would not likely be enforced. Board Member Lovell recalled that when the Highway 99 Subarea Planning process started over a year ago, he made the strong suggestion that the consultant meet with property owners to find out their thoughts and desires. This work has been supplemented with talking to the residents along the corridor on a selective basis, as well. As these discussions have occurred, he asked if any property owners expressed an interest in redeveloping their properties. If so, would the proposed code changes help. Mr. Fregonese answered affirmatively. He said the zoning provisions and general concepts have been well accepted by the property owners they have heard from, and several have expressed interest in redeveloping their properties into 5 or 6-story mixed use buildings. Chair Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 16.60.005(D) and asked if it would be appropriate to name the three specific districts. Ms. Hope answered that the subarea plan calls out the three distinct districts, but the distinction is tied to land use rather than zoning. She noted that the purpose section came primarily from the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to explain why the parking requirement was changed from .75 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit. She recalled that the last time the Board discussed the subarea plan, staff explained that things have changed in terms of how much parking is needed for residential units in transit -oriented areas. The Highway 99 corridor is more urban and the Board agreed it would be appropriate to consider a lower parking ratio. Ms. Hope agreed to review the requirement again and provide feedback about whether 1 space or .75 spaces per unit would be the appropriate requirement. Mr. Chave Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 6 reminded the Board that 1 space per unit would be the default standard, but applicants would have the ability to propose a lower standard based on a parking study. Chair Rubenkonig referred to the proposed Building Design Standards, which lists design elements an applicant should consider. She asked if the list is intended to represent the City's priorities. Ms. Hope answered that the items are not intended to be ranked by order of priority. The elements an applicant chooses will depend on individual circumstances, and applicants are required to do four of the six. Ms. Hope summarized that, for the public hearing, the consultant and staff will provide an overview about the intent and vision of the subarea plan, as well as point out key ideas and themes throughout the draft code language. They will clearly point out where exceptions have been built into the language to address unique circumstances. Chair Rubenkonig commented that additional visuals would also be helpful. She said she has struggled to visualize how the proposed code would play out on Highway 99 given the current buildings that are not likely to redevelop in the next 10 to 15 years. Ms. Hope cautioned that the important thing is to get some development that is close to or exactly what the City is looking for. One or two developments would get things going, and they have heard from several property towners who are excited about the changes. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that, rather than providing examples of how Highway 99 has developed in Shoreline and Seattle, it would be more helpful for the consultant to provide visuals of how the concepts being proposed have been applied in other areas. Mr. Fregonese said he has a library of examples that would help the Board see some of the creative ideas and how big stores have adapted to meet the requirements. Chair Rubenkonig asked how receptive developers in other areas have been to the concept of requiring amenity space. She noted that this requires them to give up developable land. Mr. Fregonese answered that the proposed standard has not proven difficult to meet in other communities, and he does not believe it would be a breaking point for developers within the Highway 99 Subarea, either. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft code language does not match the diagram provided in Slide 19. Mr. Fregonese said the code language was changed at the last minute, and the diagram has not yet been updated. He agreed to make that change prior to the public hearing. Board Member Lovell recalled that there is a large supermarket located at the intersection of Highway 99 and 220th Street. About a year ago, there was a proposal on the table where the new tenant insisted on having 6,000 square feet of retail business with blank walls facing the sidewalk on 220th Street so that internal customers visiting the supermarket could utilize these retailers, as well. He asked if the proposed code language would allow these situations to occur. Ms. Hope said the proposed code language would require transparency on the building facades facing the streets, and the front entrances would need to face the main street, as well. Mr. Fregonese agreed to provide illustrations showing how buildings on corner lots have provided access facing the parking and on the street. He summarized that the main entrance does not have to be on the street front, but transparency is required. Vice Chair Monroe said he was under the impression that the main entrance must be located on the primary street frontage. Mr. Fregonese said he would provide pictures to show how corner lots could be clipped to provide an entrance on both street frontages. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig announced that the Planning Board's retreat is scheduled for May 24th, and the Planning Director has secured representatives from the development arm of Bartells to share their experience with developing throughout the greater Seattle area, as well as their specific experience in Edmonds. She invited the Board Members to email her the questions they would like them to address, and suggested the following questions be included: • What sets apart one potential community from another when determining where to site a new development? • What criterial do they look for in a potential site? • What financial partnerships have they been part of that provide affordable housing? • What urban scale are the apartments and what amenities are provided on the site? • How do they view the government process for developing in Edmonds and elsewhere? Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 7 Board Member Lovell asked if the retreat agenda would include other items, as well. He said he anticipated that there would also be a discussion to generate ideas for creating affordable housing in Edmonds. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Bartells Project must provide 20% affordable housing units. Board Member Lovell agreed that is one mechanism to get it done, but there is interest being expressed by the City Council and the general public that the city needs to do more to bring affordable housing into Edmonds. In the case of Bartells, the developer is simply utilizing one mechanism by accepting a financial offer from the State. That is one way to deliver affordable housing, but there are other mechanisms, as well. Although the presentation will be a great place to start, he thought the intent of the retreat was to explore these other options. Chair Rubenkonig felt the presentation would be an excellent use of the Board's time, but she agreed to meet with the Development Services Director to consider additional agenda topics. Projects at Westgate could be used as examples of the type of development that could be done on Highway 99. The Board will have more in-depth discussions about affordable housing options once a consultant has been hired by the City to assist in the creation of Housing Strategies. Board Member Robles agreed it would be helpful to hear about the demographic engine that Bartells uses and what research is done when deciding where to locate developments. Affordable housing is a top priority in the City, but it would be helpful to know the types of commercial areas that Bartells prefers (i.e. low density or high density, wealthy or lower income, etc.) Chair Rubenkonig agreed to work with Vice Chair Monroe to write up the questions and finalize the agenda for the retreat. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Board Member comments during this portion of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April 12, 2017 Page 8