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