2017-05-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 10, 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 h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 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. There
was no discussion relative to the report. She also referred to the Development Activities Report, which was also included in
the meeting packet. Board Member Lovell commented that it is an extensive report with a lot of visual aids. Mr. Chave
advised that the report was presented to the City Council and was provided to the Board as a matter of information. The
report is available on line, as is the City Council meeting at which the report was presented. Board Member Lovell
encouraged members of the public to view the report.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE FOR PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT REZONE R-97-28 (CONTRACT RS-8
TO RS-12)
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded the
Board and public of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which requires that the hearing be fair in form, substance and
appearance. She asked whether any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents
regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All members answered no. Next, she
asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a
fair and objective manner. All Board Member responded no. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the
Board Members' participation as a decisionmaker in the hearing, and no one in the audience voiced a concern. Lastly, she
asked everyone planning to testify during the hearing to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they would
give would be the truth.
Mr. Lien provided a vicinity map to illustrate the location of the subject properties, which are located in the Perrinville area
of Edmonds between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. One of the parcels is owned by the City, and the other
four parcels are in private ownership. The rezone application was initiated by the City, but the private property owner has
submitted an email in support of the rezone application, as well. Mr. Lien reviewed the subject property's long procedural
history:
• A rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 was first proposed for a portion of the properties in 1992 (R-92-39). The Planning Board
recommended denial, and the application was ultimately withdrawn.
• In 1996, the previous property owner applied for a street map amendment (ST-96-77) and street vacation (ST-96-78) in
order to develop a portion of the site. The City Council approved the street map change and street vacation (Attachment
7 of the Staff Report), but held final approval until such time that a development plan was approved providing for
adequate alternative connections for roads, pedestrian and bikeways, and utilities in the area.
• In 1997, the previous property owners applied for a contract rezone (R-97-28) for the subject parcels (including a City -
owned parcel for which the City had entered into a conditional sale agreement) from Single Family Resident (RS)-12 to
RS-8. The contract rezone was approved with eight conditions, including requiring that development of the site be
approved through a Planned Residential Development (PRD) process, incorporating the requirements of the street map
amendment and street vacation, and limiting the percent of buildable area to 21 %.
• In 2001, the City initiated a rezone from the contract RS-8 back to RS-12 (R-01-168) because the property owner had not
yet applied for the PRD or met other requirements of the contract rezone. The City and the property owner eventually
came to a settlement agreement that spelled out a timeline for a PRD submittal and the City withdrew the rezone
application.
• In 2002, the previous property owners applied to amend the contract rezone provisions that limited building pads to 21%
of the net buildable area, but the City Council denied the request.
• In 2005, the previous property owners applied to amend the contract rezone provisions again, but staff recommended
denial and the application was withdrawn.
• In 2005, an application for a 27-lot formal plat and PRD (Angler's Crossing) was submitted. Both the plat and PRD
received preliminary approval in January of 2007, but the approval was never finalized and preliminary approval expired
in January of 2017.
• On March 14, 2017, the City Council initiated the current rezone application via Resolution 1384.
Mr. Lien explained that a contract rezone adds extra conditions to a rezone above and beyond what would normally be
required in the zone. The current contract RS-8 zoning places limitations on lot coverage and height and requires that the
properties be developed via a PRD. The proposal before the Board was initiated by the City Council and would change the
zoning of the five parcels from contract RS-8 to RS-12 (no contract). He briefly reviewed the differences between the RS-8
and RS-12 zones as follows: Minimum lot area is 8,000 square feet in the RS-8 zone and 12,000 square feet in the RS-12
zone. Density in the RS-8 zone is 5.5 units per acre, compared to 3.7 units per acre in the RS-12 zone. Minimum lot width
in the RS-8 zone is 70 feet, and 80 feet in the RS-12 zone. He noted that reverting back to the RS-12 zoning, as proposed,
would also invalidate the street vacation and street map amendment that were attached to the contract rezone.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 2
Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the criteria they must considering when reviewing rezone applications, which is found in
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40.010. He reviewed the criteria as follows:
1. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lien advised that the
current zoning is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject parcels, which is Single
Family Resource (SFR). Compatible zoning for the SFR designation include RSW-12, RS-12 and RS-20. The proposed
rezone would make the property consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation.
2. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Lien explained that, according to ECDC
16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: 1) "to assist in the implementation of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning
for the future as specified in the Comprehensive Plan; " and 2) "to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of
densities consistent with the public health and safety and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. " He further explained that
one of the reasons the City has large -lot Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning is to protect critical areas. Large
lots sizes provide more opportunity to avoid disturbance of existing natural features (particularly vegetative cover) and
provide an opportunity to maintain linkages between critical areas and habitat. Larger lot sizes in areas subject to
landslide hazards also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes and reduce the probability that continued
slide activity will harm people or residences. He summarized that rezoning the property to RS-12 would provide a
density that is more consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of
surrounding or nearby properties. Mr. Lien reviewed that the neighborhood is comprised of a variety of different zones
and Comprehensive Plan designations. The subject properties are on the western edge of the Perrinville Commercial
Area and across from Olympic View Drive from the Perrinville Post Office. North of the properties are single-family
properties zoned RS-12 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource (SFR). The properties to the
south are zoned RS-8 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Urban 1 (SFU-1). The properties to the
west of the site across 80t' Avenue West are zoned RS-10 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family
Urban 3 (SFU-3). The subject properties have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource (SFR). He
summarized that, of the three adjacent single-family zones, only RS-12 is consistent with the property's current
Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, rezoning the property back to RS-12 would make the zoning compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
4. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City
policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Lien explained that when the property was rezoned to contract RS-8 in 1997, the
Comprehensive Plan did not distinguish between small and large lot single-family designations. This distinction was
first made in 2003, and in 2004 the current five categories for single-family designations were established, including the
Single Family Resource (SFR) for the site. He also explained that the current contract rezone requires that the property
be developed through the PRD process (ECDC 20.35). However, it is important to note that the PRD regulations have
since been changed and the property might no longer be able to meet the new requirements. For example, the current
PRD code requires at least 10% of the gross lot area in useable open space, but the required landscape buffers and critical
areas (except for trails) cannot be counted towards the useable space requirements. Much of the subject parcels contain
critical areas, including potential landslide hazard areas, erosion hazards and a small wetland. It is not likely that 10% of
useable open space outside of the critical areas could be achieve.
5. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing
zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained
undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere in the same zoning. Mr. Lien reminded the
Board that the site's history and contract rezone led towards a specific development that expired and never came to
fruition. Prior to the contract rezone, the site was zoned RS-12. He summarized that the property has remained
undeveloped, and it is time to rezone it back to RS-12.
6. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in
value to the property owners. Mr. Lien explained that, given the changes to the PRD code, the site could not likely be
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 3
developed under the current PRD regulations, as required by the existing zoning. Rezoning the site to RS-12 would
allow the property to be developed at densities appropriate for the constraints on the property. In addition, other
regulations, such as critical area and stormwater regulations, will provide a relative gain to the public health, safety and
welfare over the existing RS-8 zoning classification.
Mr. Lien summarized that staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval of the rezone application, which would
rezone the property from contract RS-8 back to RS-12. He noted that the City received one email pertaining to the proposed
rezone from John Heighway. Mr. Heighway voiced opposition to the proposed rezone, but it appears he was confused and
thought that the proposal was to change the zoning from RS-12 to RS-8. Staff sent him a response to clarify the proposal.
Mr. Heighway's remaining comments related to development, but it is important to note that the current application is not a
development proposal, and issues related to future development of the site would be addressed if and when a development
proposal comes forward for the property.
Board Member Lovell clarified that the property located between parcels 18305 and 18325 is owned by the City. If the
rezone is approved as proposed, the City -owned parcel would also revert back to RS-12. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a
previous development proposal for the subject parcels included the City -owned parcel, but the purchase and sale agreement
has expired, and the City Council ultimately decided against selling the property. He noted that there are some significant
public utilities that cut through the parcel (sewer, stormwater, and a water main). Board Member Lovell asked if the City
Council has had any discussion about converting the property into a mini park. Mr. Lien said that was one concept brought
forward by the public when the City Council was considering whether or not to sell the property, but he does not know if the
concept is included in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Board Member Lovell asked who owns the other four parcels, and Mr. Lien answered that they are all owned by the same
person. However, the City Council initiated the rezone application and is the applicant for the proposal. Board Member
Lovell asked if the owner of the four other properties supports the proposed rezone, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively.
Board Member Lovell summarized that the only change to the City -owned parcel would be a rezone back to RS-12. The City
would continue to own the property. The remaining four properties would be rezoned to RS-12, too. There would also be
restrictions or limitations on the buildable area on the subject parcels based upon the City's adopted Critical Areas
Regulations. Mr. Lien agreed and advised that RS-12 zoning would result in a density that is more consistent with what the
Comprehension Plan envisions for the properties.
Chair Rubenkonig invited members of the public to comment regarding the proposed rezone application.
Richard O'Neill, Edmonds, said he and his wife own the property at 18414 — 79t" Avenue West, which abuts up against the
subject parcel identified as 18325. While he is not opposed to the proposed rezone, he has some serious concerns. They
have lived in their home for 26 years and the subject parcels have remained a green belt and forest throughout that entire
time. He and his wife have become increasingly concerned about the illegal activity that takes place on the subject parcels, as
well as the garbage that gets deposited there. He pointed out that there is a very steep slope on the properties identified on
the map as 18414, 18417, 18405 and 18415, which abut the subject parcels. If the rezone application is approved, he asked
that the City require any developer of the parcels to put in a retaining wall along the property line starting at 80th Avenue
West. This slope has been intact for 26 years, but if development is allowed to occur on the subject parcels, he is certain the
bank will slide. Again, neither he, nor his neighbors, are opposed to the rezone, but they would like the City to require that
future development include a retaining wall to protect the properties owners on top of the slope. He subject pictures to
illustrate the slope, which were entered into the record as exhibits.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he lives in the neighborhood that would be impacted by the proposed rezone. He said that,
currently, the land is a beautiful forest, and once that forest is gone, it will never be brought back. He said it is imperative
that they save the existing tree canopy because once it is gone, it will never come back. This is particularly a concern given
the rapid climate change that is occurring. The urban forests are critically important to sequester carbon dioxide. The
holding capacity of the existing large trees is immense. If they are cut down, the carbon dioxide will be released into the
atmosphere. The current forest is a wildlife corridor and habitat, and there is a very steep slope that should be classified as a
critical area and not allowed to be developed. He noted that there is also water runoff to the streams below. He voiced
concern that it appears something deceptive is taking place and the City is not being honest with what is really going to
happen to the subject parcels. He heard that 27 homes were going to be built on the site, and he hopes that is not true. That
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 4
many homes would result in 50 more cars on 80th Avenue West, which is a small and rough road that cannot handlc that
much traffic on a daily basis.
Mr. Phipps summarized that the City should have purchased the land when it had the opportunity to do so and turned into a
park. That should be what happens now. The land should be preserved as a wildlife park. He encouraged the City to
purchase all of the land in questions and turn it into a park and preserve it forever. These are beautiful forests, and once they
are gone, they will be gone forever. He encouraged the Board to be brave and forward thinking. Future generations will
applaud their decision if they preserve this land.
Mr. Lien clarified that the current application is not a development proposal, just a rezone from contract RS-8 to RS-12.
However, he acknowledged there will likely be a development application at some point in the future. At that time, there will
be more opportunity for the public to comment on development -related issues. When an application is made, residents within
300 feet of the subject parcels will be notified of the proposed action. He further clarified that the 27-lot project is an old
development proposal that has expired. By changing the zoning back to RS-12, the number of lots allowed on the site would
decrease. In addition, the subject property has slopes that exceed 40%, which classifies portions of the property as potential
landslide hazard areas; and the majority of the remainder the properties have slopes that fall between 15% and 40%, which
are potential erosion hazards. All of these critical areas are identified in the Critical Areas Map, and the Critical Areas
Regulations will apply.
Board Member Lovell asked about the combined area of the four privately -owned parcels, and Mr. Lien answered it is about
5.3 acres. The current RS-8 zoning would allow up to 29 lots, but the proposed RS-12 zoning would limit the maximum
number of lots to 19. Beyond that, the access easement and other site constraints would likely reduce that number down to
between 12 and 13 lots. Board Member Lovell asked if the current owner of the four parcels was present in the audience, and
Mr. Lien answered no. Board Member Lovell noted that the four parcels would need to be subdivided to create individual
lots, and this project would be further constrained by the Critical Areas Regulations and other zoning requirements.
Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Lien to provide more explanation as to why the properties would not likely be eligible for a
PRD development based on the existing PRD code. Mr. Lien explained that a PRD allows for smaller lots below what the
zone requires, but you must set aside useable open space. When the rezone was established, the PRD code allowed for
critical areas to be counted as part of the useable open space. That is no longer the case with the updated code. Because of
the existing slopes on the subject parcels, it is not likely that the property owner could find 10% of the site that is not critical
area, and that is why it could not be developed as a PRD.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the change in the PRD code was initiated by the City or if it was required by State law. Mr. Lien
said the Critical Areas Regulations have changed significantly since 1997 when the contract rezone was approved. The
current Critical Areas Regulations require that at least 30% of a site be preserved in native habitat. If a subdivision came in
on the property, the Critical Areas Regulations would require that at least 30% of the slope must be preserved with native
vegetation, and this requirement was not in place when the contract rezone was adopted. Chair Rubenkonig summarized that
the current Critical Areas Regulations are more restrictive now.
Board Member Cheung requested clarification relative to the line between the four smaller subject parcels and the large
parcel. Mr. Lien advised that a street vacation was approved in 1996 for a portion of 184`h Street Southwest, as well as a
portion of the Olympic View Drive right-of-way. This street map change cut through the subject parcels. However, if rezone
is approved as proposed, then the street vacation and street map amendment would be rescinded. Any future development
proposal would have to address the street vacation and street map changes that are needed to accommodate the development.
Board Member Cheung asked who would be responsible for maintaining the street if 184th Street Southwest is extended
through the subject parcels to Olympic View Drive. Mr. Lien noted that there are some utilities located in the vicinity, but
the Fire Department and Public Works Division have recently indicated that a connection between 80th Avenue West and
Olympic View Drive would not necessary provide a public benefit.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City has any plans to develop its parcel into a park. Mr. Lien said the one parcel that is owned
by the City is likely identified in the PROS plan as open space. In addition, comments were made previously, when the City
Council decided not to sell the City -owned property, suggesting that the property be developed into a park.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 5
Chair Rubenkonig closed the public portion of the hearing.
Board Member Lovell said he can understand the surrounding property owners' desire that the subject parcels remain as
forest, but it is important to understand that the property is privately owned. If members of the public want the City to
purchase that land, they should recommend this action to the City Council. Other than changing the zoning to RS-12, which
seems appropriate given the conditions of the lots relative to their suitability for building single-family homes, it would be
quite an operation for the private property owner to develop parcels that meet the Critical Areas Regulations and other zoning
requirements. He said he does not see any reason not to support the proposed change. The property is privately owned, and
the City should not have the ability to prohibit development entirely. He said he supports the rezone, as proposed.
Chair Rubenkonig observed that the Staff Report discusses how the proposed rezone addresses the criteria outlined in ECDC
20.40. She invited the Board Members to share any additional thoughts about how the proposal is or is not consistent with
the criteria. None of the Board Members indicated additions to the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT IN FULL.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY HEARD DURING THE HEARING, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THE
REZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.40.010 AND RECOMMENDS THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONE FROM RS-8 TO RS-12 WITH NO CONTRACT. VICE CHAIR
MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGHWAY 99 CODE AMENDMENTS
John Fregonese, Fregonese Associates, advised that he was hired by the City as a consultant for the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan. He reviewed that the Board recommended approval of the draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan and forwarded it to the City
Council for final approval. On April 12th, the Board also reviewed proposed amendments to the development regulations
needed to implement the plan. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward its recommendation to the City Council,
and the subarea plan, implementation strategy and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will move forward to the City
Council at the same time.
Mr. Fregonese recalled that the subarea plan was designed to make the area more pedestrian and transit -oriented and to
beautify it to meet the community's goals. He referred to Attachment 1, which is the new language proposed for Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.60, and Attachment 2, which outlines changes to a portion of the Sign code
(ECDC 20.60). He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan would be updated to identify the three distinct districts
within the subarea: Gateway, International, and Health. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning map was
changed to consolidate 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) were re -designated as CG. He
provided an illustration of the proposed zoning map to show the changes. He noted that the only difference between the
current CG and CG2 zones is height, the CG zone limits height to 60 feet, and the CG2 zone allows a height up to 75 feet.
As proposed, the consolidated CG zone would allow a maximum height of 75 feet.
Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.60.020 are intended to strengthen the existing design
standards and incorporate them directly into the zoning code. They also establish a straightforward process for obtaining
development permits for projects within the subarea. As proposed, most permits will be approved by staff. In addition, the
proposed amendments provide flexibility to address special circumstances within the corridor, such as large parcels that
would have multiple buildings if developed and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges (i.e. properties
located near the highway interchange).
Mr. Fregonese explained that the pedestrian area adjacent to the street is composed of three zones: activity zone, pedestrian
zone, and streetscape zone (ECDC 16.60.020.C.2). 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.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 6
Mr. Fregonese pointed out that the proposed language in ECDC 16.60.020.1) 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. As per ECDC 16.60.030, the 15-foot setback requirement with 10 feet of Type I landscaping would still
apply, as well. In addition, a minimum 5-foot Type I landscape buffer would be required along all street frontages where
parking lots abut the street.
Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that one intent of the subarea plan is to get buildings closer to the street. The proposed
code language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.4 requires all off-street parking spaces to be located to the side or rear of the primary
building. In addition, they must be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 and 4 feet in height.
Outdoor parking areas must comprise 40% or less of the area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract. On
corners, parking areas cannot be located at the corner. However, this requirement does not apply to permitted auto sales uses
where cars are displayed along the street front. He said the idea is to cut the amount of parking adjacent to the street to a
reasonable standard. Also, the proposed language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.5 would require one electric vehicle charging
station for all new development that includes housing. Bicycle storage spaces would also be required for RM housing.
Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed code language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.8 requires pathways within parking lots, and a
pedestrian plan will be required for all projects to show how pedestrians will move around the site. 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 will be required (ECDC 16.60.030.B.11). Pedestrian routes must also be provided to connect buildings on the
same site to each other.
Mr. Fregonese advised that, as proposed in ECDC 16.60.020.C.1, at least 50% of a building's fagade facing the primary
public street must be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. Buildings must
include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage, and vehicle parking cannot be located within the first 20 feet of
the primary street frontage, other than as allowed for vehicle sales uses. However, an alternative design option (ECDC
16.06.030.C.2) would be available for sites with unique constraints. As proposed, the alternative design would require that at
least 50% of the building's fagade facing the primary street must be located within 60 feet of the front property line (ECDC
16.06.030.C.2). In addition, no more than one row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary
frontage, and required amenity spaces must be located to connect the building to the street. As proposed in ECDC
16.06.030.C.3, exceptions may be allowed by the Hearing Examiner to provide for design flexibility that still encourages
pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under the following criteria:
• A property is located within 300 feet of the highway interchange.
• One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage
• The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street frontage that is likely to be active
through the day and evening.
• At least 25% of the required amenity space is located to connect the building to the street.
• Where a site has multiple buildings, an amenity space should be located between buildings to allow shared use.
• Vehicle parking is not allowed within the first 20 feet from the property line adjacent to the street.
• One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space.
Mr. Fregonese reviewed that ECDC 16.60.030.C.4 requires an amenity space area that is equivalent to at least 5% of the
building footprint. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of a building of at
least 2,000 square feet, an amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5% of the additional parking area. He explained
that the amenity space would be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, and at least 10% of the required
amenity space must be comprised of plantings.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 7
Mr. Fregonese noted that the proposed design standards also require transparency (ECDC 16.60.030.D.2) to prevent blank
walls from being created along the street front. As proposed, 50% of the building fagade (primary frontage) between 2 and
10 feet in height must be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent.
Mr. Fregonese concluded his presentation by providing numerous examples of development throughout the region that
exemplifies the concepts in the proposed code amendments.
Chair Rubenkonig advised that the Board has discussed the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and implementing code amendments
on four previous occasions, so they are quite familiar with what the consultant is proposing. As she reviewed the proposed
code language (Attachment 1), she noted that in ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b, the word "amenity zone" should be changed to
"streetscape zone" in order to be consistent with language used elsewhere in this section, as well as in the diagram that was
provided on the next page. She also suggested that the diagram should be updated to include the required dimensions of the
three zones within the pedestrian area. Mr. Fregonese agreed to make these changes.
Chair Rubenkonig observed that ECDC 16.60.030.A.1.h requires Type I landscaping for commercial and multi -family uses
adjacent to single-family zones. It further states that the buffer must be a minimum of 4 feet wide and 10 feet high. She
asked if this runs counter to the City's requirement that fences be no greater than 6 feet in height. Mr. Fregonese noted that
this is currently the side yard setback requirement when a commercial or multi -family use is adjacent to a single-family zone.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the landscaping would likely be plantings rather than a fence or wall. He cautioned against
making the language too specific since there are numerous options for meeting the requirement. He suggested, and the
remainder of the Board concurred, that the language should remain as currently proposed.
Chair Rubenkonig requested further clarification for ECDC 16.60.030.B.9.a.iii, which allows a developer to provide a
mixture of full and reduced -width parking stalls. Mr. Chave said this language is related to an old section of the parking
chapter, which allows a developer to reduce the width of parking spaces. In order to do that, a developer has to show that
he/she could theoretically provide full width spaces. Because this requirement would be counterproductive in its application
along Highway 99, the proposed language is a first attempt to dispense with the requirement for this area.
Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the diagram in ECDC 16.60.030.C.1 should be updated to identify the location of the
primary street frontage. Mr. Fregonese agreed to identify the primary frontage as the left side of the building. He pointed out
that both frontages in the diagram are almost equal, but the primary frontage is where the primary entrance is located.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the proposed sign code amendments are similar to what has been implemented in other highway
developments. She questioned if a 12'3" by 12'3" sign would be in scale with the new pedestrian -oriented approach
identified in the subarea plan. Mr. Fregonese agreed that the signs would be quite large, but relative to the speeds and width
of the highway, it would still be within the appropriate scale. Chair Rubenkonig asked if a smaller sign would be appropriate.
Mr. Fregonese said it would be difficult based on the speed and configuration of the highway. Hopefully, with the other
requirements that address accessibility, pedestrians won't be as bothered by the large signs.
Board Member Crank asked staff to describe the process for moving the subarea plan and implementing code amendments
forward to approval. Mr. Chave recalled that the Board has forwarded its recommendation relative to the subarea plan, but
the City Council has not taken final action and is waiting to make final tweaks. The implementing zoning is intended to
accompany the subarea plan as a complete package, along with the Planned Action Ordinance. However, final adoption will
not be considered until the Environmental Impact Statement has been finalized. All of the various elements will be
assembled into a final package to be adopted at the same time. Mr. Fregonese commented that the current schedule identifies
final adoption by the City Council in July.
Board Member Crank said she loves all of the graphics provided to show what implementation of the code could look like on
Highway 99. However, she asked how the proposed changes would impact current plans for development or redevelopment
within the subarea. Mr. Chave responded that the City has received inquiries from property owners along the corridor who
are closely following the progress on the code amendments. At this point, they appear to be waiting, as the proposed changes
would benefit their development potential. He explained that, following adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance, much of
the environmental work will be done and it will be easier and less time-consuming for developers to obtain the necessary
permits.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 8
Board Member Lovell observed that the current proposal is to identify the entire corridor as CG zoning, which would allow a
maximum height of 75 feet. He asked if there would be an opportunity for taller buildings, particularly in the health district.
Mr. Fregonese clarified that a developer would be allowed to exceed the 75-foot height limit via a Type III design review
process, which requires approval from the Hearing Examiner. However, development up to 75 feet would have an easier
permit process that is done by staff.
Board Member Lovell referred to ECDC 16.60.020.1), which requires a step back for the portion of building above 25 feet in
height. He said his understanding is that this would only apply when a project is adjacent to a single-family residential zone.
Mr. Fregonese agreed that is the case. Mr. Chave noted that the provision would apply to any side of the building that is
adjacent to a single-family residential zone.
Board Member Lovell referred to the new affordable housing development that is being constructed at the intersection of
Interstate 5 and 196th Street. He noted that there are no stepbacks on the building and it appears imposing. This same type of
development would be allowed along Highway 99 and no stepback would be required on the portion of the building facing
the highway. Mr. Chave said it is important to remember that the street frontage along the highway would not be stark. In
addition to landscaping, amenity space and sidewalks, the design standards will require building articulation, transparency,
etc. The illustration provided by the consultant shows the appropriate building scale, but it fails to make note of the
amenities that will be provided along the street front.
Board Member Lovell announced that there is currently a preliminary award of $1 million on the Governor's desk awaiting
signature that would allow the City to proceed with environmental work and design of first phase improvements along
Highway 99. This bodes well for the timing of the subarea plan work.
Chair Rubenkonig opened the public hearing.
Ralph Younghammer, Bothell, said his family owns some investment property along Highway 99. He asked if the
development that currently exists on his property would be grandfathered in or if the new requirements would be immediately
applied to his property. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes are great for large properties that are ripe for
redevelopment, but they are not practical for many of the smaller properties. He asked how existing businesses would be
impacted by the proposed changes.
Robert Sieu, Edmonds, said he has reviewed the changes and is still concerned about the proposed alternative walkable
design option outlined in ECDC 16.60.030.C.2. He thanked Mr. Fregonese and Ms. Hope for working with him to address
concerns relative to his unique property. Because his property is located near the highway interchange, it would not be
feasible for him to have store entryways on the streets where there are very few people. He recalled that, at their last
meeting, the Planning Board indicated a desire for the code language to be flexible enough to address unique situations, such
as his, but he did not feel the proposed criteria was adequate. He specifically referred to ECDC 16.60.030.C.3, which
outlines the criteria that must be met in order to obtain an exception. He voiced concern that the criteria is too difficult to
meet and would render the alternative design option meaningless and obsolete. He suggested that the criteria should be
altered so the alternative is truly feasible.
Rosely Starr, Edmonds, said she lives very close to Highway 99. She said she is doing everything she can, since inheriting
the home three years ago, to keep it in the family. She is concerned about how close her home would be to the proposed CG
zone where 75-foot tall buildings would be allowed. She voiced concern that the proposed changes could cause her property
values to increase dramatically. She questioned if the people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods would be screwed
and end up wanting to sell their properties and move out of the area.
Rosella Olsen, Edmonds, agreed with the concerns raised by Ms. Starr. She said she lives near the subarea, as well. She
inherited her home, which has been in the family since 1955, and she loves living in Edmonds. She voiced concern that the
proposal would allow very tall buildings adjacent to her property, which is located on 84`h Avenue West between 238`h and
240"' Streets. She could end up looking out at mega buildings across from her, and her sunlight would be blocked. She said
she owns two lots, one is developed and the other is a forested area. She said she had no idea what was being proposed, and
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 9
she would be unable to live in her home if adjacent properties are developed into giant, ugly buildings with cars parked along
the streets.
Sharon Deebach, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds her entire life, just off Highway 99 at 224th and 76th Avenue.
She and her husband are trying to figure out how the proposed plan would impact them. They do not know what their
property is zoned and how the zoning would change based on the proposed plan. She noted that they already get overflow
parking from Highway 99, so this is a major concern for them.
Donald Deebach, Edmonds, noted that his home is actually in Esperance, which is not part of Edmonds. He asked if the
City has plans to annex this area. Chair Rubenkonig noted that is not part of the proposal before them. Mr. Chave added that
the plan only applies to properties in Edmonds, and it would not change the zoning of properties that are located in
unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). Mr. Deebach commented that the way the subarea plan boundaries zigzag,
he anticipates that a lot of single-family residential lots will be impacted. Mr. Fregonese said that, in his opinion, the
proposed changes would not impact the property values of the adjacent single-family residential properties in a negative way.
Neither would it change the zoning designation or zoning regulations that apply to single-family residential properties. Mr.
Chave added that no change is proposed for properties that are not zoned commercial or multi -family residential now. Again,
he said properties located in incorporated Snohomish County would not be impacted, either.
Ms. Olsen said her property is located west of Highway 99 at 23904 — 84th Avenue West, which is between 238tb and 240th
Streets. The adjacent property is currently zoned RM-1.5, which means her property could be rezoned based on the proposed
changes.
Mr. Sieu said he has been in the area for 30 years, and he knows the corridor well. Right now, the plan really would only
change the CG2 and CG zones by adding an additional 15 feet of height. The commercial properties along the corridor have
been zoned for high-rise development up to 60 and 75 feet for a long time, and the proposed change would not alter that
except the height limit would be slightly taller. Residential zones would not be changed.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that Ms. Olsen's property is located across the street from where development would be
allowed at a height of 7 stories, and she is concerned about how this new, taller development might impact her property. Mr.
Fregonese said the property would be impacted more if it had a southern exposure. However, it has an eastern exposure,
which means the sunlight would only be impacted in the morning. Mr. Chave agreed that the property adjacent to Ms. Olsen
would be rezoned to CG, but it is important to remember that additional standards would also apply to create an attractive
streetscape, and high-rise buildings would require stepbacks, as well. As currently proposed, buildings must be setback 20
feet from the right-of-way and Ms. Olsen's home is likely setback at least 20 feet from the right-of-way, as well. Given a 60-
foot street width, the separation between her home and any proposed new development would be at least 100 feet. He also
emphasized that it is not a given that a 7-story building would be constructed on the site.
Chair Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Olsen's recourse would be to carry her concerns to the City Council. She is also
welcome to state her concerns at a City Council meeting. Mr. Chave added that written comments can be submitted, as well.
Chair Rubenkonig asked how property owners with existing businesses on Highway 99 would be impacted by the proposed
changes. Mr. Chave said that based on the zoning and non-conformance rules, existing buildings would be allowed to
continue in their existing configuration. However, if they are replaced or new buildings are added, the new development
would be required to meet the design standards. Depending on the size of the property and its unique characteristics, it may
be eligible for the exception. Again, he emphasized that the proposed changes would not impact existing properties, and the
uses would be allowed to continue.
Mr. Fregonese commented that standards similar to those proposed have been around for 25 to 30 years in many cities, and
he could provide numerous examples of how small properties have been able to meet the requirements. Mr. Chave reminded
the Board that the subarea plan is intended to be a long-term plan. While some properties may redevelop over the next few
years, most will continue in their current form. Some developers who have been waiting to make changes may go forward as
soon as the new code is in place, but many smaller property owners will continue as they are. The proposed changes will
offer potential for more people to live on the corridor to utilize the existing businesses, but they do not have to change to
conform with the new requirements.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 10
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that Mr. Sieu has already discussed his concerns about the exception process for pedestrian or
walkable design with Mr. Fregonese, and they have been noted for the record. Mr. Fregonese encouraged Mr. Sieu to
continue to work with staff. The idea is that the code language would allow him to develop something out front that would
give people some shelter near the transit stop, and then he would have a pedestrian path to the primary entrance that is located
further away from the street. He agreed that the language could be adjusted to make it more feasible. Mr. Chave suggested
this would be a fairly minor change that could be done before the draft amendments are sent to the City Council.
Chair Rubenkonig closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Monroe noted that this is the 5th time the Board has reviewed the subarea plan and its implementing code
language, and much of their feedback has been incorporated into the proposed language. With the additional changes noted
by Chair Rubenkonig early in the meeting, as well as the changes to the exception process for pedestrian or walkable design,
the proposal looks good and he would recommend approval. Board Member Crank concurred.
Board Member Lovell said it is important for the Board to recognize that they have gone through a lot of work with the
consultant that was hired by the City specifically for the purpose of developing some reasonable long-term development
guidelines for Highway 99. Highway 99 is targeted for redevelopment in the City, and it needs to be redeveloped to generate
more revenue and better utilize the available land. The guidelines will go a long way towards creating adaptable and flexible
measures. They should keep in mind that this is a long-term plan and nothing in the plan or code would require a property
owner to change an existing use or alter an existing development. However, the proposal will create the opportunity and
feasibility of higher development along Highway 99. For that reason, he would support the proposed code amendments put
forward by the consultant.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ECDC
16.60 AND ECDC 20.60 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS
PRESENTED AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
• AMEND ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b BY CHANGING THE WORDS "AMENITY ZONE" TO "STREETSCAPE
ZONE" IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE USED ELSEWHERE IN THIS SECTION,
AS WELL AS IN THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION.
• AMEND THE DIAGRAM IN ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b TO INCLUDE THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS OF THE
THRE ZONES WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN AREA.
• AMEND THE DIAGRAM IN ECDC 16.60.030.C.1 TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE PRIMARY
STREET FRONTAGE.
• AMEND ECDC 16.60.030.C.3 TO MAKE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE WALKABLE DESIGN OPTION
MORE FEASIBLE FOR ADDRESSING UNIQUE PROPERTIES.
BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Board's extended agenda, reminding them of their retreat on May 24tb. It will start at 6:30
and the location has yet to be determined. Board Members were invited to bring appetizers to share. Chair Rubenkonig
advised that the design team for the Bartell's project will be present to answer the Board's questions and provide helpful
information relative to their affordable housing component.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig did not provide any additional comments.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 11
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell requested an update on the Mayor and City Council's progress in appointing an alternative member for
the vacant Planning Board position. Vice Chair Monroe reported that the process was started over again, and the Mayor's
choice of candidates will be interviewed by the City Council prior to final appointment. However, the applicant is out of
town now, and the interview will not happen until later in the month.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
May 10, 2017 Page 12