2017-04-12 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 12, 2017, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: March 22, 2017
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Presentation on Highway 99 Code Amendments
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review of Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
April 12, 2017
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2017
Approval of Draft Minutes: March 22, 2017
Staff Lead: N/a
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB170322d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 22, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
Malia Clark, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Brad Shipley, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE 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 Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. She
asked if any Board Members attended the March 17th Diversity Commission meeting. None indicated that they were able to
attend. Chair Rubenkonig also asked staff to provide an update on recent City Council actions relative to the Highway 99
Subarea Plan and the Sign Code Amendments. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council is ready to move forward with a
public hearing and final approval of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, and they made one minor tweak to the Planning Board's
recommendation relative to the Sign Code Amendments. Instead of the grandfathering provision, they added six square feet
to the allowable sign area. This gives businesses the choice of having a pedestrian sign or some other sign option. The
amendments will come back to the City Council for final approval at their next meeting. Board Member Crank added that
she watched the television version of the City Council meeting and was pleased that most of the Board's recommendations
regarding pedestrian signs were accepted by the City Council. She was particularly pleased with the decision to eliminate the
0
N
N
N
s
2
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
permit free for blade signs. She noted that the City Council did not spend a lot of time discussing the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan.
Board Member Robles reported that an article was recently published in THE EDMONDS BEACON that mentioned the
Planning Board several times and gave them credit for their good work.
INTRODUCTION TO HIGHWAY 99 DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS
Mr. Shipley provided a brief overview of the recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
to help implement the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He provided a map to illustrate the subarea, which is a 2.3 mile stretch of
roadway along Highway 99. He also provided a map to illustrate the current zoning.
Mr. Shipley explained that the current Comprehensive Plan identifies four different districts: Hotel, Residential, International
and Healthcare. As per the subarea plan, the International and Healthcare Districts would be retained, and the
Hotel/Residential Districts would be consolidated into a single Gateway District. c
N
N
Mr. Shipley advised that, as currently proposed, the General Commercial (CG) CG and CG2 Zones would be consolidated N
into a single CG zone with a height limit of 75 feet. The difference between the two zones is 15 feet in height. The CG2 2
zone allows a height of 75 feet, and the CG zone limits height to 60 feet. Much of the remaining zoning is a remnant of old
county zoning that was inherited over time. Instead of having six or more zones in the subarea, the new, consolidated CG
zone would be applied to most of the study area. Much of the current zoning was inherited when the area was annexed from
Snohomish County. In some cases, it is inconsistent with parcel boundaries. Last night, the City Council recommended that
a few of the Multi -Family Residential (RM) parcels on the east side of the corridor be included in the CG zoning, as well.
Impacts associated with commercial development adjacent to residential zones will be mitigated via step backs and other
design standards. a
Mr. Shipley explained that the purpose of the proposed Development Code amendments is to strengthen the current design
standards and incorporate them directly into the zoning code. The proposed design standards are intended to apply
throughout the corridor, but more detailed standards will need to be created to address unique circumstances. He reviewed
the proposed Development Code changes as follows:
Parking. It is typical for current development to have a sea of parking between the building and the street. However,
the subarea plan envisions a more pedestrian -friendly environment going forward. Staff is recommending that the City
set a standard that would limit the amount of parking that comprises the area between the building fagade and the
primary street. For example, the City could require that no more than 50% of the required parking spaces could be
located in front of the building. In addition, a standard could be added that would result in most vehicular parking being
located at the side or rear of the building. For example, a proposed amendment could limit parking to no more than 40%
of the total street frontage. The intent is for the majority of the primary frontage to be building or amenity space, with
parking located to the side or rear of the building.
• Transparency. In order to create a vibrant pedestrian environment, it is important to avoid large, blank walls along the
street front, and a proposed amendment would require a certain amount of transparency on the ground floor fagade that
faces the street.
• Activity Zone. The current standard is a 4-foot wide landscape strip in the setback area between the sidewalk and the
private property. This creates a barrier between the pedestrian space and the building rather than enhancing a safe and
comfortable pedestrian zone. Rather than a barrier, the proposed amendment would require a 10-foot activity zone that
allows a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art, street furniture, street trees, etc. The
intent is to create a buffer between the cars and the sidewalk.
Board Member Lovell asked if the area along the street where the light poles, waste baskets, etc. would be located is part
of the activity zone. Mr. Shipley answered that the area is actually part of the right-of-way, and the 10-foot activity
space would be located between the right-of-way and the building.
Planning Board Minutes
Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
Vice Chair Monroe asked if the code would require access to the buildings from the street side. Mr. Shipley agreed that
would be best, but the code amendments have not reached this higher level of detail yet.
• Setback. Generally, the intent of the subarea plan is for buildings to be located closer to the street and oriented towards
the pedestrian areas. However, that may not always be possible. The current proposal would require that at least 15% of
a new building must be located between 10 and 20 feet of the property line of the primary street it faces. Other frontages
would have some type of landscape requirement to provide a buffer.
• Amenity Zone. A proposed amendment would require an amenity space to be part of any new development, but no firm
figure has been identified for how the space would be calculated.
• Building Orientation. In some situations, street -side development is not always feasible to do because of existing
buildings. It is not the City's intent to limit redevelopment by requiring that buildings always be located along the street.
.-.
While buildings cannot always be oriented towards the street, the amenity spaces could connect to the pedestrian zone to
allow people to walk into the development between the buildings. This option would provide some flexibility, but still
N
achieve the goal of enhancing the pedestrian experience along the corridor.
N
N
• Stepbacks and Setbacks for RM and Mixed Use (MU) adjacent to Single -Family (RS). Proposed amendments
t
L
would establish stepback and setback standards for RM and MU development that is located adjacent to RS zones. The
intent is to ensure that MU and RM development transitions into the RS neighborhoods. The current 15-foot setback
requirement between Commercial and RS zones would be maintained, and there would be no stepback requirement for
the portion of building up to 30 feet in height. However, a 10-foot stepback would be required for the portion of
building beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to RS zones. An additional 10-foot stepback would be
required for the portion of building above 30 feet. The total stepback between the upper floors of neighboring parcels
would be 35 feet.
• Parking Standards. As proposed, the parking standard would be relaxed and become more flexible to only require one
parking space for residential units less than 700 square feet in size. The commercial parking requirement would be
loosened to one space per 500 square feet, and the first 3,000 square feet of commercial use within a MU development
would be exempt from the parking requirement if a shared parking plan is in place. In addition, developers would be
allowed to present project -specific studies that reflect special situations that warrant a reduction in the required parking.
Chair Rubenkonig noted that the presentation is very similar to the presentation that was provided at the Board's December
14`' meeting. She asked Mr. Shipley to specifically identify the changes that have been made since the last presentation. Mr.
Shipley answered that allowing frontage to be amenity space rather than just building will result in flexibility but still achieve
the goals they are trying to capture of making the area more pedestrian friendly. He noted that, in some cases, it may not be
possible to bring all buildings to the street front, and this flexibility is a good option to connect the buildings to the street.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the proposed amendments would require that the building fagade be modulated. Mr. Shipley said
that the current code allows for building modulation, but it is not necessarily required. As currently drafted, buildings must
be located between 10 and 20 feet from the property line, and this allows some flexibility in the depth for modulation. Board
Member Lovell observed that new CG zone (combined CG2 and CG) would allow a maximum height of 75 feet, and this
may create some concern if buildings are located close to the street front. Mr. Chave explained that the proposal would also
require stepbacks for the portion of building above 25 feet. He suggested overall bulk is more important than fagade
modulation. It is difficult to get uniform street fronts at the street level is buildings are required to move in and out. While
the current proposal would not force a uniform line, it would not require modulation, either. Vice Chair Monroe suggested
that much of the concern could be addressed by requiring a building entryway on the street front side.
Vice Chair Monroe asked if the proposed requirements for parking and amenity spaces are consistent or more stringent than
what is required in other jurisdictions. Mr. Shipley answered that he does not believe they are more restrictive in terms of
developers not wanting to meet the requirements. Developers seem to be more interested in height and the opportunity to
scale back the parking requirement based on a site -specific study.
Planning Board Minutes
Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Board Member Robles recalled that the last time the proposed code amendments were presented, there was a fairly stout
comment from the Board on the viability of a 10-foot activity space given the velocity of the traffic along the corridor.
However, he does not see that the proposal was adjusted to address this concern. Mr. Shipley pointed out that developers
would be allowed to provide amenity space along up to 50% of the street frontage, and the 10-foot activity space between the
building and the street would be separated by a 5-foot right-of-way. However, he agreed that the pedestrian atmosphere will
not be similar to what exists in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there are any incentives to encourage
this type of development, and Mr. Shipley pointed out that the proposal would allow buildings to be setback between 10 and
20 feet from the street, and a 5-foot right-of-way buffer was added to provide an additional buffer.
Board Member Crank suggested it would be helpful for the consultant to provide mockups to illustrate how the proposed
amendments would impact both existing and new development. Mr. Shipley pointed out that existing development would
not be impacted by the proposed amendments, which only apply to new development. The only potential impact would be
the proposed amendment that prohibits pole signs. However, existing pole signs would be allowed to remain.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the intent is to encourage new development in an existing scene. She asked where the N
balance would be between the current look and what is proposed as the new look. She asked how this issue would be N
addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Shipley noted that a lot of the existing development along the N
corridor is located towards the back of the lots, with parking along the street front. New development located closer to the 2
street could take place on these properties. Mr. Chave pointed out that the properties along Highway 99 are of varying �
shapes, sizes and configurations. Some property owners many just want to refurbish an existing building or add additional
buildings, and other property owners may want to tear down the existing buildings and replace them with new development.
The intent is to figure out a way for all of these activities to move forward but at different stages.
Board Member Crank said she likes the concept of activity spaces between the buildings and the sidewalks. However, she
asked if the walkways in front of existing buildings would be done as part of a single project or if they would be done
piecemeal. Mr. Shipley answered that sidewalks would be done has redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave added that the City
has some money for this purpose and it is desirable to enhance the public spaces along the frontage, but a lot more funding
will be needed.
CODE AMENDMENTS FOR UNIT -LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003)
Mr. Clugston advised that this is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a
new section to the subdivision code, which would provide for unit -lot subdivisions. The process would allow for the creation
of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones as an alternative to
condominium ownership. He reviewed that from 2003 to 2008, the City had a process known as a "townhouse subdivision,"
which was based on a 2003 staff interpretation (Attachment 6). This process resulted in several projects, two of which are
included in the packet: Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2) and Cooper's Crest (Attachments 3 and 4). He noted that
the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of internal lot lines between the individual units. The
developments were designed to meet all of the requirements for the particular RM zone, just like any other RM project, but
the lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units.
Mr. Clugston further reviewed that during review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner identified some
inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied based on the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. In particular, the Hearing Examiner noted conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal
setbacks and insufficient access within the development. The City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision, but
the project was never built due to the recession, and the permit eventually expired. Since the 2008 decision, no townhouse
subdivisions were approved because of the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and
standards in the code.
Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for RM projects in the RM zones that is
consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed language was included in the
Staff Report as Attachments 7 and 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9, and the current RM zoning
code is Attachment 10. In addition, the City received one comment letter in response to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) from a planner in Mountlake Terrace, who provided some good insight to consider. He noted that some local
Planning Board Minutes
Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
jurisdictions currently have a form of this process in place, including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, and
the applicant has worked with a number of these codes. He has reviewed their processes and created a proposed amendment
that takes the best of each one and refines it to meet the City of Edmonds' needs.
Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the material in the Staff Report and felt it would have been beneficial to have a
graphic illustration of a project that meets the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment. His understanding is that the
individual living units would need to be 1,500 square feet in an RM-1.5 zone in order to be divided into fee -simple lots. He
felt that would be a very difficult task to achieve. Mr. Clugston clarified that is not really the intent of the proposed
amendment. He referred to Attachments 1 and 2, which provide aerial views of the Cascade Cottage Project. Attachment 1
shows a regular RM project with detached units. Per the current code for the RM-2.4 zone, each unit needs at least 2,400
square feet of lot area. However, that does not mean that each dwelling unit needs to be that size. It is more a density
number. Attachment 2 show the same aerial photograph, with the lot lines drawn as part of the townhouse process. The
squares are not all 2,400 square feet. The density is based on the entire lot rather than the individual lots. This needs to be
clearly addressed in the proposed amendment.
0
N
John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He N
attempted to explain the concept of unit -lot subdivisions and fee -simple lots, which he agreed is very complicated and N
technical. He also explained the difference between a condominium project and a subdivision project. With a subdivision, 2
lines are drawn over the ground to create separate lots, but that is not the case with a condominium. Only the units, not the cc
underlying ground, are individually owned. He advised that State law enables jurisdictions to have subdivision laws, but
condominium laws are handled by the State and local jurisdictions are excluded from the process. It is important to
recognize that the processes are different, and the State's condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium M
developers. Small architecture firms and many builders cannot get insurance to design and construct condominiums. When
insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This has resulted in a very low inventory of RM units in Washington
State and rents are skyrocketing. In response to this growing problem, a number of jurisdictions are seeing the unit -lot L
subdivision as a solution to continue to implement their comprehensive plans in RM zones using the same density
requirements and built environment as is currently allowed. o
Mr. Bissell explained that unless cities amend their codes in some way to support the development standards of the parent lot,
they will end up creating a bunch of smaller lots. Most zoning codes have a minimum lot standard in the RM zones, which
prohibits the creation of separate dwelling units. It is not possible to reach the density the comprehensive plan anticipates by
using the subdivision code given the requirements for setbacks, lot area, etc. He referred to the Cascade Cottages
(Attachments 1 and 2), noting that he was the planner for the project. The project was originally designed to fit the units on
the site without a subdivision. The original plan looked at the exterior boundaries and how individual units could fit on the
site. The units are separated from each other by six feet, as required by the building code, and the project is consistent with
the required street setbacks from 75`" Avenue and 210th Street. The project was approved by the Architectural Design Board
and found to be consistent with the RM development standards. Subsequently, the developer decided to sell the development
as separate lots using the townhouse subdivision provision that was in place at the time. The properties were divided into 16
separate lots. Although none of the individual lots are 2,400 square feet in size, the parent lot is large enough to
accommodate the 16 units based on the density allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. Although the parent lot was subdivided, the
project was still required to meet all of the zoning, density, design, subdivision, and engineering standards that are required
for RM development. He cautioned that any provision that allows for unit -lot subdivision and fee -simple lots should also
include appropriate standards to ensure that the built environment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bissell said he has done consulting work in a number of different cities and for various developers. About 15 years ago,
he contracted with the City of Edmonds to review projects under its unit subdivision code, and he has also been a
development consultant for the City of Seattle and gone through the process as an applicant. The City of Seattle has had a
great deal of success and very few problems with their provision, which provided a good model for him to start with.
However, as well as unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that
have been adopted. These issues have been addressed in the proposed code amendment. He reviewed the issues/problems as
follows:
• There is a new trend in real estate development and investment in which a developer builds a RM site with several
multiple -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the
Planning Board Minutes
January 11, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
individual units. This opportunity is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by
other jurisdictions. Because it is not prohibited, it is not considered contrary to the intent of the unit subdivision code
and both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted it to occur. This option would not violate Edmonds'
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment expressly permits it as an option to avoid future confusion.
A subdivision is a two-dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two-
dimensional box described in the plat. No portion of any one unit can overhang a portion of another unit. Therefore,
flats are excluded from the provision. While many codes are not clear on this exclusion, the proposed language
expressively excludes them. A unit -lot subdivision includes the exterior of the building, which can create a potential
problem in exterior maintenance because it might be hard to tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for
owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who maintains what. To address this concern, the proposed
amendment includes a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the buildings.
• Snohomish County's provision is fairly new and has experienced problems because it is too generous with the building
community stakeholders group and does not include enough controls to protect the neighborhoods or county against N
problems that can arise. At the same time, the provision cannot be used for detached units. They now believe that was a N
mistake and are in the process of amending the provision to allow attached units.
N
s
V
L
• The City of Redmond's provision is also new and does not consider the relationship between the code and public works
M
2
standards. For example, access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit.
Therefore, if a RM development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lanes are required.
But if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard.
Because the use affects the environment and not the type of permit, language was added to clarify which regulation
should apply.
The City of Seattle does not accept unit -lot final plat applications until at least the development foundations are installed
and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot lines are set on the common wall.
However, this is not a codified requirement in Seattle, and it is not included in the County's provision. He explained that
because foundations are not always installed precisely per plan, this requirement makes sense to him. He contacted four
licensed land surveyors who have experience in constructing foundations, and received a mixed response. He expressed
his belief that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof
than requiring the building to be staked and the inspector to verify. This requirement was included in the proposal.
Mr. Bissell referred to the cover letter he submitted with the application (Attachment 7), which reviews all of the potential
issues and explains how the proposed code amendment would address each one. The proposed language would be added to
the subdivision code to give clear direction. The proposal includes specific requirements, such as maintenance agreements
for the maintenance of the exterior of the building. In addition to minor amendments to correct terms, new definitions would
be added for "unit -lot subdivision," "parent lot," and "flats." A portion of the definition of "townhouse" would also be
amended.
Mr. Bissell referred to the comment letter submitted by Edith Duttlinger, Senior Planner for the City of Mountlake Terrace,
which recommended some potential changes. For example, she strongly recommended that flats not be allowed in
townhouse subdivisions, and the proposal specifically excludes them from the provision and adds a definition for "flats."
Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Clugston to explain how a private individual can propose a development code amendment. Mr.
Clugston answered that the code allows citizens to make application for code amendments, which are Type 5 decisions that
require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 5, which describes a townhouse proposal that failed the test as determined by
the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that the proposed amendments are intended to revitalize the ability to do townhouse
development in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston agreed that is the intent. He explained that the City does not currently have a
process for unit -lot or townhouse subdivisions to create fee -simple lots for RM projects. The applicant has applied to amend
the code to add that process within the code and make sure it fits with the rest of the code. He recalled that, with the 2008
project, the Hearing Examiner found a number of issues with the interpretation that staff had been relying on. The
Planning Board Minutes
Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
applicant's proposal is intended to address these issues so the process can work. He clarified that the development that was
proposed in 2008 met the code requirements for RM development, but the Hearing Examiner found that subdividing the
property into separate lots did not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She felt the minimum lot size would
have to be 2,400 square feet based on the RM-2.4 zoning. This issue needs to be made clear in the proposed new language.
Mr. Clugston also explained that drive aisles are typically required for dense RM development, but as soon as you have
access ways that serve five or more lots, the street setbacks outlined in the code would apply. This is something the City's
previous townhouse interpretation did not address. The intent is to have the same development, but allow the parent lot to be
subdivided into separate lots. It is important to make sure that all of the proposed changes are consistent with the existing
code.
Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Bissell to share more information about the new trend of development and investment
where a developer builds a RM site with several multi -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management
companies. He asked if this must be done in order for the concept to function property. If so, what is the maximum of
number of units allowed per building. Mr. Bissell said he is not proposing to alter the existing limit of six units per building.
He suggested it is not so much about the number of units per building but the idea that you could have two buildings, each N
with a number of units, and the lot lines would go around the buildings rather than the individual units. He reminded the N
Board of his earlier comment that this type of development is a new market trend. While it would not alter the built N
environment, it would provide flexibility in the code for different ownership options. Board Member Lovell asked if this 2
type of development has occurred in other communities, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He explained that the �
demand for apartment units is very high and this is a real change in how the economy of Puget Sound had been working for a
long time. The people who own the buildings and lease them are called "legacy developers." For most of his career, he had
one legacy developer and now he is working with about ten. He said the current market of building owners is not equipped to
own 60 or 80-unit developments. As developers transition from a business model with a 4-year investment cycle to a
business model with a 50 to 60-year investment cycle, this type of development will become more popular.
L
Board Member Crank asked if the proposal is intended to apply to a specific plot of land or to a specific development
proposal. She also asked how the provision would be applied to future requests of this nature in single-family zones. Mr. o
Clugston said the provision is only intended to apply to existing and future RM development, and not single-family
residential zones. Even with the provision, RM development will still have to meet all design standards and the base zoning o
requirements. From the outside, the development will look no different whether it is subdivided or not. It is a matter of a.
ownership of the different pieces of the site. For existing developments, owners can apply for a unit -lot subdivision and Q
create fee -simple lots to sell off. The provision would apply to both existing and new RM development. It could also be
utilized in other zones in the city where residential development is allowed, such as the CG zone along Highway 99 and the
CD
commercial zones at Westgate.
13
Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed provision is simply an ownership option, and it does not change zoning, density or M
bulk requirements. It simply gives another way to divide up ownership of a piece of property. It may apply to existing 0
buildings as well as new construction. It is not intended to be a project -specific application. It is a legislative change to the m
code that would apply throughout the City. a
Board Member Crank asked staff to clarify the Board's role in the process of moving the proposal forward. She noted that a m
public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 26`b. Mr. Chave said this presentation was intended to be an introduction to z
the proposed provision before going forward with a formal public hearing. The Board is more used to applications that are 0
quasi-judicial, and this particular proposal is legislative. That means the Board Members are free to ask questions and Q
discuss the proposal outside of the formal public hearing.
Board Member Robles noted that condominium agreements protect people, as well. For example, one person's behavior or
decision could impact the value of another's property. He asked how the rights of the individual property owners would be
preserved. While he understands the reasons for pulling away from the condominium concept, it is important to recognize
that subdividing into separate units would result in the residents losing their collective power to defend their properties. Mr.
Bissell said that most subdivisions have a homeowner's association that has certain rights, particularly when common areas
are involved. A lot of protection can be obtained through a homeowner's agreement, and he always relies on his attorneys to
write the covenants for his projects. Board Member Robles asked if the code could include a provision that requires the
construction company to maintain a reserve or if it would that be the responsibility of the individual owners. Mr. Chave
Planning Board Minutes
Januaryl 1, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
expressed his belief that a not all unit -lot subdivisions would have homeowner's associations, and that is why building codes
are so important. Building codes require certain things in a fee -simple setup that are different than for condominiums. The
assumption is that individuals would be in charge of their own lot and not rely on the neighbors or a condominium
association.
Board Member Robles asked if condominiums that are subdivided into fee -simple lots retain their value more or less than the
traditional type of arrangement. Mr. Bissell said that unit -lot subdivisions have been done in Seattle since the early 90s, and
they have held their value as well or better than traditional condominiums. He said he does not believe value will be an issue.
Some people want the condominiums for protection and others prefer not to be in condominium situations.
Board Member Robles observed that property owners purchase property with certain assumptions, and he voiced concern that
they might not always be fully informed. Mr. Chave said the subdivision will be recorded on the legal documents that are
part of the real estate transaction. It will be up to the real estate agent to know this and inform the buyer. This is outside of
the government's control. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Seattle requires that the developer be in charge of
the homeowner's association for one year, and then it becomes the responsibility of the individual owners to govern N
themselves. Mr. Bissell agreed there is not clear answer for what the best approach would be. N
N
Mr. Chave referred to the provision in the draft proposal that would require a maintenance agreement for when the units are 2
in a single building. This agreement will probably not be covenants to the extent of a condominium association, but cc
maintenance of the buildings that are connected will be covered through the agreement. Typically, with subdivisions, there
are also underlying utilities that have maintenance agreements attached to them, as well. a
Vice Chair Monroe asked what Mr. Bissell anticipates will be the counter argument against the proposal. Mr. Bissell said he
does not anticipate a lot of opposition to the proposal. However, when he has been involved in projects that modify the lot
area in some way, the standard objection is that the zoning code says you have to have a certain lot area and you are throwing
that out the window. He tries to point out that the total lot area is the same as if there were no subdivision.
Mr. Chave summarized that the proposal is essentially overlaying smaller ownership over a larger development. Any
agreements for maintenance or agreements that otherwise apply to the development would still be there. All the provision
would do is allow for the transfer of ownership of the units, but it would not absolve the owners from their responsibilities for
maintenance, drainage, internal driveways, etc. It would not change density, either. Vice Chair Monroe emphasized that, as
proposed, the provision would only apply to RM development.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the April 12'h agenda includes a presentation on the Highway 99 Code Amendments. On
April 26th, there will be a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments for a proposed change from Single Family
Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor. A public hearing on the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment is also scheduled for
April 26`h. The Board's retreat is tentatively scheduled for May 24th, pending confirmation from the Bartell Development
Company that they will be able to attend that evening.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for focusing to move through the complicated proposal related to the
Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Monroe reported that he attended the March 151h Economic Development Commission meeting, but he did not
have anything substantial to report.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
January 11, 2017 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2017
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. R e p o rt.04.07.17
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
otiEL)41
'0
���c V 4yLl
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
VVIIA A061 „_ � lL
April 7, 2017
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next Planning Board meeting is on April 12 and there will a presentation by John Fregonese on
the Highway 99 code amendments. There is a public hearing tentatively scheduled for May 10. The
full agenda packet is online.
REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
The PSRC Growth Management Policy Board met April 6 and, among other things, discussed the
Transportation 2040 planned update and the Regional Centers Framework update.
Snohomish County Housing Program
Snohomish County has announced the availability of an estimated $1.6 million in federal and local
funds for the development of affordable multi -unit rental housing capital projects, homeownership
development projects, and for organizational support for non-profit housing developers that qualify
as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). The application deadline is May 31.
More information is available from the County or at: https://wa-
snohomishcounty.civicplus.com/684/Applications-for-Available-Funds.
LOCAL NEWS
Forum on Low -Income Housing
A forum on local low-income housing needs will be held at 6:30 pm, April 24, at the Edmonds Library
Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. It is a free public event sponsored by the Edmonds Housing Instability
Coalition in cooperation with the City of Edmonds.
The forum will feature a panel discussion about needs and trends in housing for low-income
households. The moderator will be Mark Smith, executive director of Housing Consortium of Everett
and Snohomish County. Panelists will include: Chris Collier, program manager at Alliance for Housing
Affordability of Snohomish County; Mary Anne Dillion-Bryant, regional director at YWCA Snohomish
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
County; and Elizabeth Kohl, director of social services at Housing Hope. For the City of Edmonds,
Shane Hope, Development Services Director, will be present to assist with information.
The Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition is a relatively new local, community -based volunteer group
dedicated to bringing awareness of the need for low-income housing in Edmonds.
Architectural Design Board
No meeting is scheduled for April. There are several projects scheduled for May 3.
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission held a meeting on April 5 and topics of discussion included a report on the
Youth Forum, Indigenous Day, 2017 Work Plan and subgroups, and Retreat. Their next meeting will
be held on May 3.
Economic Development Commission
The Economic Development Commission next meeting is April 19. An agenda will be posted on line
when available.
Edmonds Sister City Commission
There is no better way to build international understanding than immersion in another culture. The
Edmonds Sister City Commission provides students with a unique opportunity to experience the day
to day life, language, and traditions of Japan through their annual exchange program. For 15
students each summer, it is the adventure of a lifetime. While in Japan, students live with a Japanese
family and travel to see the sights and sounds around Hekinan, Japan. Upon their return, they and
their families offer the same consideration to the Japanese students. Introducing these kids to each
other's culture opens their world and encourages a global view.
The City of Edmonds Sister City Commission invites students 14-18 years of age to participate in the
annual student exchange to Hekinan. Students will travel to Hekinan for the last two weeks in July
2017 and then host a Japanese student during their stay in Edmonds during the first two weeks of
August 2017. Student cost for the trip will range between $1,600 and $2,200 depending on the cost
of airfare. Hekinan and Edmonds have been Sister Cities since 1988 and the exchange program has
been a central component of that relationship.
There are still open positions for the 2017 Delegation — don't miss out on this wonderful opportunity!
Deadline for applications is Tuesday, May 9, 2017 @ 4:30 pm.
For applications and more information please visit http://www.edmondswa.gov/sister-city-exchange-
programs.html.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner held a meeting on March 23 on a denial of a commercial business license for
an automotive repair and maintenance shop in the BN (Neighborhood Business) zone. The Hearing
Examiner upheld the decision and the appeal is denied.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting is April 13. An agenda will be posted online
when available.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met April 6. Items of discussions included: Earth Day ivy clean-up at Hutt Park &
other event planning updates, Tree Board annual presentation to the City Council on March 14; and
Urban Forest Management Plan scope of work.
City Council
Topics for the Council's April 4 meeting included:
❑ Approval of Consent Agenda, including:
o Adoption of fee schedule resolution revising permit fees for pedestrian signs and
"blade signs"
o Adoption of ordinance amending sign code related to pedestrian signs (very similar to
the Planning Board's recommendation)
❑ Update on SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force (presentation)
❑ Approval of interlocal agreement with Snohomish County for funding of waterfront
redevelopment near the senior/community center
❑ Shoreline Master Program —Council voted to approve Option M for the SMP and have it
provided as part of the City's response to the Dept. of Ecology*
❑ Crumb rubber: proposed ordinance to extend crumb rubber ban for public facilities in
Edmonds (while studies are being completed) —Council concurred to put this on the next
Consent Agenda
❑ City Council meeting format.
* NOTE: The Dept. of Ecology may approve, deny, or take other action regarding the City's proposed
SMP. Upon approval by Ecology, the City may then adopt an ordinance adopting the final SMP.
Topics for the Council's April 11 meeting will include:
❑ Adoption of ordinance extending the Crumb Rubber Moratorium
❑ Presentation on Creative Age Festival
❑ 2016 Comprehensive Plan Performance
❑ Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) Review
❑ Study of amendments to On -Street Employee Parking Permit Program
❑ City Council Meeting Format and Committee Structure
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
❑ April 15: Rotary Easter Egg Hunt, FAC Field, 10 am
❑ April 22: Earth Day Ivy Pull at Hutt Park, Hutt Park at 187t" St SW & 94t" Ave W., 12:00 pm
❑ May 6: Watershed Fun Fair, Willow Creek Hatchery, 11 am
❑ May 7: Historical Museum, Salish Bounty, Traditional Foods of the Native American People
❑ May 20: Health & Fitness Expo, Edmonds School District Stadium, 9:00 am
❑ May 29: Memorial Day Program, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium, 11:00 am
31Pane
Packet Pg. 14
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2017
Presentation on Highway 99 Code Amendments
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
A draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan has been considered by the Planning Board and recommended for
approval by the City Council. Meanwhile, to help implement the plan, some amendments to the City's
development regulations are needed. At the Planning Board's last meeting, the Board reviewed the
general outline of amendments that would be proposed.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the draft development regulations and provide any feedback.
Narrative
First, recall that the zoning map is proposed to be changed, consistent with the final version of the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan. This would include a consolidation of the existing CG 1 and CG 2 zoning
districts into just one district: CG. In addition, some other parcels (primarily multifamily) in the Highway
99 subarea would be designated as CG.
The draft development regulations are broken into two parts:
6 Attachment 1 for the draft revised Chapter 16.40 CG- General Commercial Zone; and
d Attachment 2 for the draft revised changes to a portion of the Sign Code (Ch. 20.60).
The first attachment shows the revised draft code chapter for the General Commercial (CG)Zone. It is a
clean draft and doesn't track the changes being proposed compared to existing regulations. (Because
there were numerous changes, it would have been hard to read.) However, to view the existing
regulations for the CG Zone, see Attachment 3.
The second attachment shows the portion of the eixsting sign code that is being proposed for minor
changes related to the CG zone. The minor changes are shown as edits in this attachment. The
proposed minor sign code changes are to:
a. Prohibit new pole signs
b. Reduce the height for freestanding signs (such as monument signs) from 20 feet to 14 feet for the CG
zone.
At the Planning Board's April 12 meeting, the City's consultant on this project will present the proposed
zoning map and development code amendments.
Packet Pg. 15
8.A
Attachments:
Att. 1: CG District_Draftl.PB.mtg.04.07.17
Att. 2: Original CG District compared to version 2.1 COE edits_signs
Att. 3: ECDC Chapter 16.40
Packet Pg. 16
8.A.a
DRAFT
Chapter 16.60
CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
Sections:
16.60.000 CG zone.
16.60.005 Purposes.
16.60.010 Uses.
16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses.
16.60.020 Site development standards — General.
16.60.030 Site development standards — Design.
16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
16.60.000 CG zone.
This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district.
16.60.005 Purposes.
The CG zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and
commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use
of land;
B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists;
C. Encourage attractive mixed use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial
uses; and
D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between
different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones.
16.60.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically
prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this section;
2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited
by subsection (D) of this section;
3. Halfway houses;
Page 1
Packet Pg. 17
8.A.a
4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC
16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the licensing
regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use.
2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted primary use,
such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales,
or garden/nursery sales, provided that such outdoor uses are screened from adjacent residential
zoning districts
C. Prohibited Uses
1. Mobile home parks.
2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to a
permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses
primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use.
D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 §
1, 20071.
16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses.
All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the development
regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this
section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or products: (1) expressive
dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted
for a scientific or educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for
educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar facility used for
changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or
other similar medical facility for health -related purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G,
PG, PG13, R, and NC17 by the Motion Picture Association of America.
A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where
specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met:
1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following;
protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: Q
r
c
a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC;
E
b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC.
a
Page 2
Packet Pg. 18
8.A.a
2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following
protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city limits:
a. A public park;
b. A public library;
c. A nursery school or preschool;
d. A public or private primary or secondary school;
e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for
religious worship;
f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public
playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and
families for recreational or entertainment purposes;
g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone;
h. A museum; and
i. A public hospital or hospital district.
3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within
or outside the city limits.
B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the
nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or nearest physical
point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section to the nearest
physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented business.
C. Variance from Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation requirements
in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met:
1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the
proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of visibility and
access;
2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the
community development code;
3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and
surrounding land uses;
4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and
5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary effects
of the proposed sexually oriented business.
D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The separation
requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the
Page 3
Packet Pg. 19
8.A.a
city in accordance with the requirements of this section. [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1,
2007].
16.60.020 Site development standards — General.
A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows:
Dimensional Requirements Table
Minimum
Lot Area
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum Street
Setback
Minimum
Side/Rear
Setback
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Floor Area
CG
None
None
5'/10"
None'
75"
None
1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by any
other provision of this code.
2 The 5' minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10'.
a None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map.
B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical
equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no
case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area
above the maximum height.
C. Pedestrian area.
1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street
that encompasses the public right of way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from
the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, which includes the area for the
minimum amount identified in Table A of this section and, except as otherwise provided
under XXXX, any additional area between the right-of-way and the building front up to a
maximum distance of 20 feet from the property line fronting the street.
2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the
streetscape zone.
a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the pedestrian realm from the building front
to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian
realm that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the
building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but
are not limited to, window shopping, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and
shopping. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in the activity
zone.
b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the
amenity zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum 5-foot clear and unobstructed
path for safe and efficient through -traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and
outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone so long as a
Page 4
Packet Pg. 20
8.A.a
minimum 5-foot clear path and 7-foot vertical clearance is maintained within the
pedestrian zone.
c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement
edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide. The
streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for activities that commonly occur
between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through -traffic. Typical
amenities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street
lights, benches, bus stops, outdoor dining tables, and bike racks. Street trees shall be
required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan.
IJ
c
•�
�
rp
ro
J
N
a
N
Q
N
(Illustration: Pedestrian Area Zones)
B. Building stepback when adjacent to IRS Zones
1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall set back no less than 10 feet from
the required setback to an adjacent IRS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height
shall be set back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent IRS Zone.
Page 5
Packet Pg. 21
8.A.a
2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may
extend into the stepback area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural
features.
Height Limit: 75' — — —
I
I 10 6
I I
I 5
I I
I 4
I � I
o' 3
2
15'setback with
, 0' landscape buffer
(Illustration: Stepback of building adjacent to RS Zones)
16.60.030 Site development standards — Design.
Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings
exceeding 75 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.70.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be
reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects
proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in this section.
A. Screening and Buffering.
1. General.
a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights of way shall not exceed seven
feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped
wall segments.
b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet
allow visibility to signage and building entry.
c. Landscape buffers shall be integrated into the design and layout of water detention
and treatment elements, to minimize the physical and visual impacts of the water
quality elements, consistent with stormwater requirements of the City
Page 6
Packet Pg. 22
8.A.a
d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping.
f. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent
to single family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width
and continuous in length.
g. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single family
zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length.
h. Type I landscaping is required for office and multifamily projects adjacent to single
family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height
and continuous in length.
i. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single family or
multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six foot high concrete wall plus a
minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements
shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to
single family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical
elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks.
Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to
single family zones.
2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets.
a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages
where parking lots about the street.
b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public
street by one of the following methods:
i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements
listed in ECDC 16.60.030.E.6;
ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque;
iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque; or
iv. Type III landscaping.
B. Access and vehicle arking.
1. Parking requirements. Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for nonresidential uses, one v
space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and (b) for residential uses, one space per
unit that is less than 700 square feet, and otherwise as required for RM zones, provided that a Q
different ratio may be approved pursuant to subsection 3 of this section . For mixed use
development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and m
E
commercial uses provided the director finds that the proposal is supported by a parking study
and/or nationally recognized parking standards and that the site plan assures access for all
shared parking uses.
a
Page 7
Packet Pg. 23
8.A.a
2. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial space in a mixed use development with a shared
parking plan is exempt from off street parking requirements.
3. The development services director may approve a different ratio for the parking requirements
when an applicant submits parking data which illustrates that the standards of this Chapter do
not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking
plan shall include, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, and the
anticipated peak and average parking loads of all uses. The director may approve a parking
requirement that is based on the specific type of development and its primary users in
relationship to:
(1) An analysis conducted using nationally recognized standards or methodology ,
such as is contained in the Urban Land Institute's most recent version of the
publication "Shared Parking" or the latest version of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers publication "Parking Generation"; or(2) when a site -specific parking study
includes data and analysis for the following:
(A) 1-4 mile proximity to a bus rapid transit station and methodology
that takes into account transit -oriented development;
(B) Use of transportation demand management policies, including but
not limited to free or subsidized transit passes for residents and
workers; or
(C) On -site car -share and bike share facilities.
3. All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building and
shall be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between two and four feet in
height. Parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage within 100 feet
of the street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner.
4. Electric vehicle charging stations
One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development that
includes housing. The number of required charging stations shall be 1 for every 10 required
residential parking stalls, plus either additional stations or planned capacity (or a combination
thereof) that could double the amount of initially required stations. For this section, "planned
capacity" means site design and construction that includes appropriate electrical wiring
connection and ventilation to support potential or actual future electric vehicle charging
stations. Q
r
c
5. Bicycle storage spaces
E
M
Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or other
specialized facilities where the development services director finds that the targeted population Q
is not likely to use bicycles, shall be provided for residents at a ratio of 1 bicycle storage space
Page 8
Packet Pg. 24
8.A.a
for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage spaces for each residential
unit greater than 700 square feet. Bicycle storage spaces shall consist of storage racks, lockers,
or other secure space to provide sheltered, safe, and convenient bicycle storage for building
residents. Such space may be in a vehicle parking garage or another appropriate location but
shall not be provided as open storage on a deck or balcony.
5. Driveways accessing Highway 99.
All driveway connections to Highway 99 must meet the applicable requirements of the
Washington State Department of Transportation, including requirements for distance
between driveway access connections, which help promote traffic safety and minimize
pedestrian -vehicle conflicts.
4. Paths within Parking Lots.
a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that
meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or
colors as well as landscape barriers.
b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots
These shall be designed to provide access to onsite buildings as well as pedestrian
walkways that border the development.
c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and shall be separated from the parking
area either horizontally or vertically (e.g. with curbs). Where paths cross vehicular
lanes, raised traffic tables should be considered if feasible.
d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum of
every 100 feet.
5. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground Floor.
a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the ground
floor of the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the parking
that is provided:
i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet.
ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent.
iii. A mixture of full and reduced width parking stalls may be provided without
meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could a
r
be provided at full width dimensions. m
E
6. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and
espresso stands, shall comply with the following: Q
Page 9
Packet Pg. 25
8.A.a
a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of
the building that face a street.
b. Audio equipment at drive -through facilities shall not be audible off site.
c. No more than one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a
separate curb cut onto an adjoining street.
7. Pedestrian and Transit Access.
a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to
adjacent developments if feasible.
b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing
pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such
that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking
or access areas.
c. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel,
pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are
required.
C. Site Design and Layout
The following site design layout standards shall apply in the CG Zone.
Page 10
Packet Pg. 26
8.A.a
CG Zone 1 and 2
1. Pedestrian oriented design area
Primary Frontage. A minimum of 50% of the primary street frontage for each development shall
have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line with the principal entrance located on
that frontage. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with this requirement, the
building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. On a corner
lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine
the primary street frontage considering the following:
a. The street classification of all streets;
b. The prevailing orientation of other
buildings in the area;
c. The length of the block face on which
the building is located; or
d. Unique constraints and characteristics of the I
2. Alternative Design Option
An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection 1 in
this section may be allowed by the development services director for sites with unique
constraints and a phased design plan. While currently largely auto -oriented, Walkable
Design Areas have a high potential for walking, bicycling and transit service. If a
development is allowed to use this standard, it shall be subject to the following
requirements
Building Placement
A minimum of 50% of the primary street frontage
for any development shall have buildings within 60
feet of the front property line with the principal
entrance located on that frontage. When site
constraints preclude strict compliance with this
requirement, the building line shall be measured
one foot behind the line created by that
constraint. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages
on multiple streets, the Development Services
Director shall determine the primary street
frontage considering thefollowing:
a. The street classification of all streets;
b. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in thearea;
c. The length of the block face on which the building is located; and,
d. The location of any alley.
e. Parking Areas
Page 11
Packet Pg. 27
8.A.a
No more than one row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its
primary frontage.
Required Amenity spaces shall be located to connect the building to the street as much as
practicable, provided that amenity space may also be located between buildings where the space
will be used in common. The following diagram illustrates the first -mentioned concept.
3. Amenity space.
Amenity space will provide residents and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities.
a. At least 5% of the building footprint or the parking lot area being developed, whichever area is
greater on any site, shall be provided as amenity space.
b. The amenity space shall be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, such
as, but not limited to, seating, paths, gazebos, dining tables, pedestrian -scale lighting, and
artwork. At least 10% of the required amenity space shall be comprised of plantings, which may
include tree canopy areas and other shade or screening features. Native vegetation is
encouraged.
c. The required amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms:
1. Recreation areas: an open space available for unstructured recreation. The area may
be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall consist
primarily of groundcover and trees and must provide a minimum of 60 percent planted pervious
surface. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not comprise more than 20% of
the total area.
2. Plazas: an open space available for community gathering and commercial activities. A
plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by either building facades, with strong connections to
interior uses, or close proximity to the public sidewalk, especially at the intersection of streets. Its
surface shall be primarily hardscape, provided that trees, shade canopies, and other landscaping,
as well as water features and artwork, may add visual or environmental features to the space.
3. Squares: an open space available for unstructured recreation or community gathering
purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior
uses. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping.
Water features and artwork are optional.
4. Lighting.
a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This may be
achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut off" fixtures.
b. Parking lots shall have lighting poles with a maximum of 25 feet in height.
c. Pedestrian ways shall have low height lighting focused on pathway area. Pole height
shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred.
d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/canopy
Page 12
Packet Pg. 28
8.A.a
D. Building Design Standards
1. General. To provide variety and interest in appearance, the following design elements should
be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least four of the elements will be used to
vary the design of the site:
a. Building massing and unit layout,
b. Placement of structures and setbacks,
c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities,
d. Composition and character of open space, plant materials and street trees,
f. Variety in architectural elements, fagade articulation, and/or building materials,
g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials.
2. Building Design and Massing.
a. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top, which may be achieved through
differences in massing elements and/or architectural details.
b. The bulk and scale of buildings of over 10,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated
through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation,
setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and other design details.
c. Primary Frontage
To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, 50% of
the building fagade between two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent
sidewalk, shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of
■ 50°% Min Transparency (may include all
windows and glass doors, but not mirrored
$nishes)
which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from
this standard may be approved when the fagade will not be visible from the public
street due to the placement of other buildings on the site, provided that the
requirements of subsection 5 or subsection 6 in this section shall apply.
4. All Other Building Frontages
Page 13
Packet Pg. 29
8.A.a
a. All other street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than those
facing an alley, shall comply with the standard below.
i. Thirty percent (30%) of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height
shall be made of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which
may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Windows shall not
be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40% in order to meet this
requirement.
6. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets or
residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially
zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating at least four of the
following elements into the design of the facade:
a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block).
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall.
c. Belt courses of a different texture and color.
d. Projecting cornice.
e. Projecting metal canopy.
f. Decorative tilework.
g. Trellis containing planting.
h. Medallions.
i. Artwork or wall graphics.
j. Vertical differentiation.
k. Lighting fixtures.
I. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. [Ord
3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
16.60.040 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except
the following:
1. Public utilities;
2. Off street parking and loading areas;
3. Drive in business;
4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B);
Page 14
Packet Pg. 30
8.A.a
5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single family residential zone, the
market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building;
7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC;
8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC
B. Interim Use Status — Public Markets.
1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the
city of Edmonds, a premise licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a
temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the
market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to
a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the
other business use below the standards established in this chapter.
Page 15
a
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.b
Formatted: Header
20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations.
A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only
where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative
signage methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement.
B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign
RS, RM
10 square feet (subdivision, PRD,
multifamily)
4 square feet (individual residence
sign
BN, BP
24 square feet (single)
48 square feet (group)
BC, BD,
WMU, FVMU
32 square feet (single)
48 square feet (group)
CW
32 square feet (single)
48 square feet (group)
CG
Sign area shall be governed by
subsection (C) of this section
C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs
on general commercial sites shall be 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of
street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area.
Freestanding signs count against the overall allowable permanent sign area. Multiple business or tenant sites
shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial tenant or
Formatted: Footer
Page 1
Packet Pg. 32
8.A.b
c
a�
Formatted: Header
- ]
C
w
E
Q
occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosinq to accumulate
N
sign area under the provisions of subsection (E) of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet.
O
V
D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows:
cC
3
z
Maximum Height of
Zone
2
Sign
O
c
RS, RM
6 feet
G
r
cv
.r
C
BN, BP, BC, BD, CG, CW,
14 feet
O
N
N
WMU, FVMU
L
IL
L ]
Deleted: CG
•
Formatted Table
0)
r
Deleted: 25 feet
to C ]
.N
O
c
�L
O
N
Formatted: Footer ]
Q
Page 2
r
C
a�
E
t
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 33
Print Preview
Page 1 of 1
8.A.c
Chapter 16.40
BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES — PURPOSES
Sections:
16.40.000 Purposes.
16.40.000 Purposes.
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... ...... .............. .
The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are:
A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services
according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they
serve;
B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of
the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other;
C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may
appropriately locate in commercial areas;
D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities;
E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes,
and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke,
vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic.
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl
Packet Pg. 34
4/7/2017
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2017
Review of Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda is attached
Attachments:
04-12-2017 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 35
OY F.➢M
N
pAMM BOARD
"nc. 1890
Extended Agenda
April 12, 2017
Meeting Item
APRIL 2017
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
April 12 1. Presentation on Highway 99 Code Amendments
April 26 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Amendment for proposed change
from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor (Fraser Fir
Tree / AMD20160008)
2. Public Hearing on Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment
MAY 2017
May 4 Open House on Highway 99 Area DEIS
May 10 1. Public Hearing on Rezone for property under Contract Rezone R-97-
28 (contract RS-8 to RS-12)
2. Public Hearing and Recommendation on proposed Highway 99 Code
Amendments
May 24 1. Retreat
TUNE 2017
June 14 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Update
2. Public Hearing on Water Comp Plan 2017
June 28
JULY 2017
July 12
July 26
AUGUST 2017
August 9
r
Q
Packet Pg. 36
Items and Dates are subjec
August 23
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2017 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
9.A.a
to change
Packet Pg. 37