Loading...
2017-05-10 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 10, 2017,7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: April 26, 2017 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report B. Development Activities Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Rezone for property under Contract Rezone R-97-28 (contract RS-8 to RS-12) B. Public Hearing on Highway 99 Code Amendments 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 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 May 10, 2017 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 Approval of Draft Minutes: April 26, 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: PB170426d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 26, 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 Matthew Cheung Phil Lovell Todd Cloutier Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG 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 were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF TWO PARCELS AT 9111 AND 9107 236TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY COORIDOR (EWC) Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report on the proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for two parcels located on 236"' Street SW (near the Edmonds Woodway Corridor) from Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) to Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC). He provided a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the location of the subject properties, noting that the 0 N N �L a El Packet Pg. 3 properties to the west are designated as Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) and the properties to the north, south and east are designated as EWC. He also provided a Zoning Map, noting that the subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential 8 (RS-8), consistent with the properties to the west. The properties to the north, south and east are currently zoned Multi -Family Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW). The 9701 property is currently developed with a single-family residence; and the 9111 property is currently developed as a legal, non -conforming, multi -family residence. The properties to the west are primarily developed with Single -Family Residential (SR) homes, with a more intense development pattern east of the site ranging from Multi -Family Residential (RM) to commercial (C). Mr. Shipley explained that he application is a Type V Legislative Action, which means that Planning Board must conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. He emphasized that, at this time, there is no proposed change to the zoning designation. However, if the proposed amendment is approved, the owners would be able to seek a rezone of the properties to something compatible with the new designation. He advised that there are three Comprehensive Plan designations consistent with RM zoning: Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC), Multi -Family — High Density (RM-HD), and Multi -Family — Medium Density (RM-MD). The EWC designation would be compatible with the following zones: Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (NB), Community Business (CB) and c RM. The RM-MD designation would be compatible with the RM-2.4 and RM-3 zones and the RM-HD designation would N be compatible with the RM-1.5 and RM-2.4 zones. N L Mr. Shipley advised that the applicant has requested that the land use designation be changed to EWC, which is consistent C with the designation of properties to the east, north and south. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed as proposed, the applicant has indicated a desire to rezone the properties to RM. The two parcels comprise approximately .75 r acres of land. If they were developed under RM-1.5 zoning, a maximum number of 21 units would be allowed. RM-2.4 zoning would allow a maximum of 13 units, and RM-3 would allow a maximum of 10 units. Another alternative would be to designate the property as RM-HD or RM-MD, which would allow for multi -family development, but not commercial development. Mr. Shipley explained that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can only be adopted if the following findings are made: Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? As the cost of housing rises and housing options become more constrained, providing more opportunities for multi -family residential development would be in the public interest. The Comprehensive Plan calls out the need for RM development to blend into the surrounding neighborhood while preserving the natural features of the site. He noted that the subject properties slope slightly to the east, but the RS properties to the west are only about five feet higher in elevation than the subject parcels. Both the RM and RS zones have a height limit of 25 feet, but an additional 5 feet is allowed with a 4-12 pitched roof. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies state that "multi family uses should be located near arterial and collector streets. " Although the subject properties do not abut Edmonds Way, they are in close proximity, and there is easy access to the bus stations and transit service available along the corridor. He acknowledged that 236th Street is already a high -traffic street during specific times of the day due to Madrona School. Therefore, any future small-scale development should be designated to not interfere with congestion along the road. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? This proposal is simply an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Subsequent review of a rezone application would include an analysis of existing land uses and consider economic and physical compatibility. • Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? The EWC zone makes up about 1.3% of the City's land, while SFU1 zoning makes up approximately 43.5%. A shift of a cumulative .75 acres from SFU1 to EWC would not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. • Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use designation, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The subject sites are physically suitable for the proposed designation change. They are adjacent to the border of the more intense EWC designation, and the adjoining land uses are both RS (west) and RM (north and east). It is important to note that in 2011 the City Council approved a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation for property south of the subject parcels from SFU1 to RM-MD, and the properties were subsequently Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a rezoned to RS-8 and RM-2.4. Other properties situated between the EWC and SFU1, along 238th Street near Edmonds Way, were recently re -designated and rezoned, as well. Board Member Lovell reviewed that the total area of the two properties is about .75 acres. An RS unit is currently located on one of the lots, and the other is developed with legal, non -conforming RM units. Mr. Shipley added that the current structures were developed in the 50s and 70s, and the parcels were annexed into the City in 1997. Board Member Lovell further reviewed that, at this time, the applicant is only proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Subsequent action would need to be taken by the property owner to create an RM zoning designation for the site. He asked if the property owner intends to combine the two lots. Mr. Shipley answered that there is no application to combine the two lots at this time; the proposal before the Board at this time is for a land use designation change. Rezoning the properties would require a separate action. To clarify for Chair Rubenkonig, Mr. Shipley advised that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once each year unless an emergency situation comes up. Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally combined into one package for the City Council's review and approval at the end of the year. Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Shipley to review the process for c reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Shipley advised that, once an application is submitted, the Planning N Director reviews the application and staff prepares it to come before the Planning Board for review. The Planning Board N conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. a Q Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City received any comments from citizens regarding the proposed application. Mr. Shipley answered that the City received one email from Tammara Bandy, an adjacent property owner at 23507 — 92"d Avenue West, who voiced concern that new high-rise development on the subject properties would look down into your backyard and/or windows and block light access to her property. She also voiced concern about adding more traffic to an area that is already congested due to Madrona School. M L Chair Rubenkonig asked when the City would consider the balance of land uses. Mr. Shipley explained that .75 acre would have a negligible impact considering the overall scheme of the City. If the proposal involved a larger area, then the balance G of land uses would be more of an issue. Because the subject parcels are small, the balance of land uses would remain nearly > the same. a a Martin Reimers, Concept Architecture, Everett, expressed his belief that the Staff Report and Mr. Shipley's presentation Q were quite thorough, and he was present to answer the Board's questions. Board Member Lovell asked if the property owner intends to redevelop the subject parcels into RM units. Mr. Reimers said 0 that is the ultimate goal. The owners have expressed interest in an RM-1.5 zoning designation, but that is an entirelyto different action. No work will be done on a preliminary site design until they find out what will be acceptable to the City in a v broader sense. Board Member Lovell asked if the property is owned by a developer, and Mr. Reimers answered that the CD person who wants to improve the property is also the owner, but he is not a developer. Board Member Lovell asked if the op applicant has expressed any desire to develop the property with affordable housing. Mr. Reimers again said there is no plan a for what would be built on the property at this time, and all ideas would be considered. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that potential impacts to the property at 23507 — 92"d Avenue West would be addressed if and d when a rezone application is submitted, and the written comments submitted by the property owner would be included as part of the record for the rezone application. Mr. Reimers reminded the Board that the Development Code already addresses what Q must happen when an RM development is located adjacent to an RS development, and any new development on the subject parcels would have to meet these requirements. At this time, they are only prepared to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Chair Rubenkonig said she just wants to make sure that the concerns raised by adjacent property owners are addressed as part of the rezone application, too. Prior to opening the hearing, Chair Rubenkonig advised that the company she works for does work for the applicant, but they are not involved with this particular proposal. Jeff Bandy, 23507 — 92"d Avenue West, said he and his wife own the property adjacent to the subject parcels, and they are concerned about how the proposed change might impact them. He pointed out that the subject parcels are located on a hill Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 3 11 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a where there are already a lot of traffic problems. Developing the property as RM-1.5 would result in a lot of additional traffic. He also voiced concern about the idea of developing the subject parcels as affordable housing. He recalled that when an apartment complex nearby was converted to affordable housing, the neighborhood environment changed drastically for the worse. He and his wife do not support more of this type of development in the neighborhood. Chair Rubenkonig commented that Mr. Bandy's concerns would be added to the record for the subject parcels, and will be more pertinent if and when the applicant comes in with a rezone application. The rezone application will also come before the Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, and the public will be invited to provide comment. Tonight, the Board is just looking at the proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. For the Board's clarification, Mr. Shipley once again reviewed the difference between the EWC and RM-HD/RM-MD designations. Although the applicant has requested that the property be designated EWC, an RM-HD or RM-MD designation would also be acceptable. However, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments in the Staff Report, staff is recommending that the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve a change in designation from SFU1 to EWC. c N Mr. Bandy pointed out that the subject parcels are bordered on three sides by RM development, yet the proposed land use N designation for the properties is EWC. Mr. Shipley explained that each Comprehensive Plan land use designation has certain zones that are compatible. The difference between the EWC and RM-HD designations is that the EWC designation allows C for a mixture of both commercial and residential uses, and development in the RM-HD zone is limited to residential. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that if the subject parcels were changed to an RM designation, it would result in an island of RM surrounded by EWC. Mr. Shipley emphasized that another review and public process would be required before the property could be rezoned. The EWC designation would allow for long-term alternatives as the Edmonds Way Corridor changes, but it would not grant the property owner permission to automatically rezone the property to a commercial zone. He does not believe that staff would support a commercial zone at this point in time because the parcels are surrounded by RM and RS development. Mr. Clugston explained that, typically, some sort of transition is created between commercial and RS uses. Regardless of the Comprehensive Plan designation, the intent will be that the property be developed as RM to keep with the character of the northwest corner of the intersection. He pointed out that further to the south is commercial development, which could creep north over the next several decades. Designating the properties as EWC would allow flexibility for changes to occur in the future. He agreed with Mr. Shipley that staff would not likely support a commercial zone for the subject parcels at this time. Board Member Lovell agreed that RM would be the appropriate zoning for the subject parcels. However, if the land use designation is changed to EWC, nothing would prevent the property owner from submitting an application for commercial zoning. Mr. Clugston agreed that all of the parcels with the EWC designation could potentially be rezoned to allow commercial development, but one of the criteria for approving a rezone is that there must be change in the area that supports the request, and they are not quite there yet. Board Member Lovell said he supports the staff s recommendation, which would allow flexibility for the property owner to combine the two lots. It would also allow maximum flexibility for future redevelopment. If someone in the future wants to push for commercial zoning, the proposal could be studied to determine whether or not it is appropriate. If the applicant is interested in rezoning the properties to an RM designation, the request would be consistent with what exists there now and would likely be approved. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR (EWC). BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) Mr. Clugston advised that a private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V Legislative Decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposal. The City Council will make the final decision. He reminded the Board that they initially reviewed the proposal at their March 22°d meeting. Mr. Clugston explained that the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multi -family development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision would not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multi -family project. It would simply overlay property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multi -family development or with a new multi -family proposal. The process could be applied in the Multi -family Residential (RM) and General Commercial (CG) zones and portions of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. All of these zones c allow for multi -family development on the ground floor of a site, whereas several other zones, such as Community Business N (CB), Planned Business (BP) and Neighborhood Business (NB) require that the residential component be above a ground N floor commercial use. The unit lot subdivision would not be applicable to residential development located above ground floor commercial space. Q' Q Mr. Clugston referred to a letter from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County expressing support for the proposed amendment, which would provide an alternative method of lot creation for certain types of RM development. He also referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which inserts the applicant's proposed language into the existing subdivision ordinance, along with additions and clarification made by the City Attorney and staff. 0 L Mr. Clugston highlighted that three new definitions were added in ECDC 20.75.030: 0 • "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045, where > compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. 0 • "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status, which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. 0. Q • "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston reemphasized that the RM development would look exactly the same, regardless of whether it is subdivided or not. There would be no difference in how the standards are applied for the development of the structures. Only the property lines would be created through the unit lot subdivision process. Mr. Clugston explained that the language proposed in ECDC 20.75.045 was altered by staff and the City Attorney to provide more details and clarify the intent of the unit subdivision process. The changes were not intended to alter the applicant's overall goal. As a result of concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting, Subsection E was added to require that homeowner's associations (HOA) be funded to manage the areas on the parent lot that are common to all unit owners in the development. Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that a unit lot subdivision would be subject to the subdivision regulations, which is no different than any other type of development. Mr. Clugston said all RM development must meet the development standards of the zone, including parking, height, bulk and design. From the sidewalk, the development would not look any different after the separate lot lines are dropped over it. There would be no physical change. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He commended Mr. Clugston for his thorough Staff Report. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board Members raised some concern about why a private property owner was requesting a code amendment. He acknowledged that most code amendments are generated by staff, but the code also allows any citizen to make an application for a code amendment. He explained that the proposed change is not controversial. In fact, City staff previously utilized an interpretation to accomplish Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a this same thing and was considering a code amendment at some point in the future to codify the process. However, the applicant did not want to wait for the City to move the amendment forward. Mr. Bissell recalled that, at their last meeting, there were questions about how the unit lot subdivision process would impact a development. When you think of a subdivision, you think of houses with lots that meet the standard size required for the zone. A subdivision is simply a method of dividing property so that someone can have a fee simple deed. In the case of RM development, a unit lot subdivision would simply put lot lines around each of the units. He provided some pictures to illustrate developments both before and after a unit lot subdivision, emphasizing that there is absolutely no difference. The developments do not look or function any differently after a unit lot subdivision has been applied, and the exact same code standards apply. He reiterated that the proposed amendment would not change the built environment in any way. Mr. Bissell commented that, when proposing code language, it is tricky to get it just right. He noted that staff and the City Attorney made some adjustments to the language he initially presented. Subsequently, he also made some changes to the language put forward by the City Attorney and staff in the Staff Report. He advised that staff has reviewed the proposed changes and indicated support. Specifically, he recommended that: c N • The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.A be changed to read, `A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain N multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which Q flats are located. " The intent of this provision is to allow a unit lot subdivision to separate buildings with multiple units. The proposed change makes it clear that the provision could apply to flats, as long as they are located on a single lot. For r example, a property with four buildings, each with six units, could be subdivided into four lots (one for each of the buildings), and it wouldn't matter if the individual units were townhomes or flats. • The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.D be changed to read, `Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. " It doesn't make sense to require authorization from all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot if an external change would not impact the other units. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to require authorization from the owner if the work will impact his/her unit. It is also appropriate to require authorization from the HOA if a change will impact all units within the development. Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she has a background in unit lot subdivisions because she did them for the City of Seattle for eight years. A lot of questions came up as the process was refined over several years, and attorney's reviewing the applications were not consistent. From her experience, she urged the Board to carefully consider the following: • Who will do the consumer protection review, and how will the City ensure that both sellers and buyers have all the information they need? • Who will review the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the HOA to make sure there is adequate review when documents are filed with the assessor's office? • Are the processes and the decisions that are made transparent? All reviews done by attorneys need to be honest and somewhat independent. • Will the City allow unit lots to be further subdivided? • Is there a definition for the term "flat?" • What are the review standards for unit lot subdivisions, and will fire protection and emergency access be part of the process? • How will the City ensure that there is adequate parking that is easily accessible so that parking for the individual units will not spill out onto the streets? The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Lovell commented that most of the questions raised by Ms. Payne pertain to legal or building standard matters that will be addressed during the design and permitting phase of the project. He asked Mr. Clugston to explain the review process for a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston said the review process for a unit lot subdivision would be the same Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a as for a short or regular plat subdivision. The development permit review process would also be the same as any other project in a CG or RM zone. Applicants would start by applying for design review and the building permits. As the building permits are moving through the review process, an applicant could apply for a unit lot subdivision. All applications would be reviewed by staff. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit CCRs as part of the application, and they would be reviewed by the City Attorney. This would be similar to the process that is used for planned residential developments. Relative to parking, Mr. Clugston said there would be no specific requirements for parking and ingress/egress attached to a unit lot subdivision. The parking standards would be based on the zone, and would be the same regardless of whether the development is subdivided or not. The same is true for ingress and egress requirements. He noted that the City's current code does not require a lot of guest parking, but this is parking code issue that is unrelated to the unit lot subdivision provision. Mr. Clugston advised that it is not likely that a unit lot subdivision could be further subdivided, however, it might be possible if the initial unit lot subdivision created lots for buildings with multiple units and a subsequent application sought to subdivide each of the individual units in the building. Regarding the concern about lot line adjustments, Mr. Clugston c explained that these would be internal to the site and do not need to be addressed in the unit lot subdivision provision. ECDC N 20.75.045.I will limit the need for subsequent lot line adjustments by requiring that "an application for a final unit lot plat N will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. " This provision will require that the foundations be poured and the walls built C before a surveyor identifies the lines on the plat. in d Chair Rubenkonig noted that, generally, there is language included on a final plat that addresses the parent lot. Mr. Clugston r referred to ECDC 207.75.045.H, which requires a notice on the final plat that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot. He explained that the unit lot subdivision provision could be used to separate a property into four lots, each Q with a six -unit townhome development. A subsequent application could subdivide each of the buildings into six separate lots. However, no further subdivision would be allowed beyond that point. G Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that language was added to require HOAs and CCRs for maintenance of the o common areas. He said he did not feel comfortable with how the Board's last conversation ended relative to this issue, but he Q is comfortable that the proposed new language would address his concerns. He commented that higher density development tends to bring people closer together and HOAs can provide an internal mitigation system where the community can work out problems. In the absence of this, the City would have to mitigate the problems. That means that the taxpayers would be N subsidizing the idea of fee simple lots. He suggested that the wording in ECDC 20.75.045.E could be even more inclusive if it referred to "common issues" in addition to "common properties." to N Board Member Lovell asked if Mr. Bissell knows of any specific building or parcel in Edmonds where the provision could be CD applied. Mr. Bissell answered that he knows of several properties where the provision could be applicable. Although the op amendment is being proposed by a private property owner, the Board should keep in mind that it could be applied in all other a RM and CG zones, as well as the MU zone at Westgate. To further clarify, Mr. Bissell advised that the provision could only be utilized by development that is entirely residential. It would not be applicable to mixed -use development that has a) commercial space on the ground floor. M Board Member Lovell requested clarification for when the provision could be applied to flats. Mr. Bissell answered that the Q provision could be applied to a subdivision that creates lots that contain entire buildings where flats are located. However, it would not be possible to further subdivide a building with flats into separate lots for each unit. To further clarify, he explained that a subdivision is a two-dimensional projection that draws a line from the center of the earth up to the sky. If units are stacked on top of each other, it would be impossible to do a subdivision because you cannot draw a line through the units below or above. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed language would allow a development that contains flats to be subdivided if the vertical boundaries of the flats coincide with each other. Mr. Bissell said that is definitely one option, but the proposed amendment would not allow this to occur. Board Member Lovell noted that the application materials provided a drawing of a building that is divided in half and each half was designated as a lot. Mr. Bissell pointed out that the example was of a townhouse development that had separate entrances for each unit. He advised that the code defines "flats" as units that are stacked on top of each other and "Townhouses" as units that are side -by -side. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Board Member Lovell referred to the proposed provision that would allow a developer to sell individual buildings to separate property managers, who would lease out the units within each building. If this were to occur, he asked how a common construction design defect in all of the buildings within the project could be resolve? Would each building owner be on their own? Mr. Bissell answered that the entire development (parent lot) would be governed by a single HOA regardless of how it is subdivided. Board Member Robles asked if the unit lot subdivision provision would relieve a contractor's liability for construction defects in any way. Mr. Clugston answered that a contractor's responsibility would remain the same regardless of whether the lot is subdivided or not. He referred to the last sentence of ECDC 20.75.045.17, which requires all common wall construction to meet the currently adopted building codes, regardless of how the property is subdivided. The proposed amendment is not intended to absolve a developer of any responsibility going forward. Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff and the City Attorney have had an opportunity to review the new language proposed by Mr. Bissell. Mr. Clugston answered that he had a discussion with Mr. Bissell prior to the meeting relative to the proposed c changes. He said he does not have a problem with the suggested revisions as they seem to be consistent with the intent of the N amendment. He pointed out that the Board could also propose revisions to the draft language as part of its recommendation N to the City Council. a Q Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board could table its recommendation to a future meeting if deemed appropriate. Mr. Clugston agreed that is one option. He said staff is recommending that the amendment be forwarded to the City Council with r a recommendation of approval as presented in the Staff Report and with the applicant's proposed revisions. Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that, following the Board's recommendation, the City Council will conduct a separate public hearing prior to making a final decision. The Board's role is to determine if the proposal has enough substance to move it forward to the City Council. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT G FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF > APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED o BY THE APPLICANT TO ECDC 20.75.045.A AND 20.75.045.D. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE 0. MOTION. a • • Board Member Lovell asked if staff feels confident that the concerns expressed by Ms. Payne during the public hearing are N adequately addressed by the proposed amendment. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and reminded the Board that the '-' amendment would not alter any of the existing development standards that are in place. While issues related to parking andto housing affordability are important, they do not have any impact on the current proposal. The parent lot would be developed v exactly the same whether or not a unit lot subdivision happens. Board Member Lovell thanked Ms. Payne for sharing her n experience working with unit lot subdivisions in Seattle. Her questions were good, and he feels comfortable that they are op addressed in the proposed language. a THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA z M Q Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board Members to the extended agenda, but there were no comments. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that their retreat is scheduled for May 24th. There was some discussion about having a potluck dinner prior to the retreat, which would start at 7:00 p.m., but no decision was made. Chair Rubenkonig expressed appreciation to the Board's Student Representative, Malia Clark, for the insightful comments she provided over the past several months. She noted that Ms. Clark will not be present at the Board's May meetings as she prepares for graduation. However, she may rejoin the Board in June. Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the Housing Instability Seminar on April 24th. Between 150 and 200 people were in attendance, including 5 City Council Members, two State representatives, and officers from Snohomish County. The meeting was productive, and there was a lot of enthusiasm about the concept of doing something more in the City to further the matter of affordable housing. He said he sent his notes to Chair Rubenkonig via email, and she should feel free to share them with the rest of the Board. He suggested that the Board needs to have more discussion about the topic at some point in the near future, and there has been some discussion about meeting jointly with the City Council to discuss the matter. Given the results of the meeting, the City Council may want to form an oversight committee to study the issue, maintain the network, write articles and report progress to the City Council and citizens. He suggested that three aspects the City may want to consider are: • Identifying and tracking potential land parcels or properties that may be targeted for this type of development. • Considering adjustments in the land use and zoning codes to facilitate the development of more affordable housing in o Edmonds. N • Considering the potential of the City, itself, undertaking a project sponsored by the City. That would mean the City N would purchase a parcel and obtain funding to construct a project that could become a catalyst for future affordable Q housing development in the community. a Board Member Lovell reminded the Board that the concept of affordable housing is based on income levels. However, due to the significant increase in housing costs, the issue has turned from affordable housing to low-cost housing and homelessness. There needs to be a lot more discussion and planning if the City wants to address these issues, and it will be a big task. One of the final discussions at the meeting was if you do something to provide a place for the homeless now, you may save a lot of money when it comes to addressing future medical and correctional problems. These situations can be countered by providing low-cost housing for the homeless. He summarized that there was no set direction from the meeting, c and the City Council and Planning Board should probably join in the discussion at some point. M Board Member Robles pointed out that the Board's page on the City's website needs to be updated with the Board's 2017 0 a officers. Mr. Clugston agreed to pursue the update. Q- a Chair Rubenkonig asked if any progress has been made in filling the vacant Planning Board position, and Mr. Clugstonle indicated he did not have any new information to report. N ADJOURNMENT to N The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. n Planning Board Minutes April 26, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 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.05.05.17 Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a L C7ti E M0 MEMORANDUM ���c V 4yLl Date: May 5, 2017 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report Did you know that......... Cinco de Mayo is a holiday that commemorates the victory of the Mexican army over a far larger French force in the Battle of Puebla, on May 5, 1862. Next Planning Board Meeting The next Planning Board meeting is on May 10. It will include two public hearings, one for a rezone of property under a contract rezone and one for an update to the CG code to help implement the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. See the packet for more details. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board met May 4. Discussion included Regional Growth Center Alternatives, including the extent to which military installations should be related to Regional Growth Center designations. The subject of Regional Growth Centers will be back on the Board's June agenda. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) The SCT Steering Committee, which is comprised primarily of elected officials, met April 26 and heard a presentation from Lorena Eng., a WSDOT manager, and had discussion about congestion management in our region. SCT members also discussed a draft strategic plan for the organization. LOCAL NEWS Shoreline Management Program The state Department of Ecology sent a letter stating its approval of the City's proposal for revising the final aspects of the Shoreline Management Program. A 60-day appeal period begins from the date of the letter (April 26). City staff members are conferring with Ecology on the next steps in the process, which will include City Council action on an ordinance adopting the new SMP. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a State Transportation $ for Edmonds Positive signs for Edmonds came from the state House and Senate approving a transportation budget that includes funding for the next steps on two important projects: the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector ($700,000) and Highway 99 corridor enhancements ($1,000,000). Forum on Low -Income Housing A forum on local low-income housing needs was held on April 24, at the Edmonds Library Plaza Room. It was sponsored by the Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition in cooperation with the City of Edmonds. Panelists provided information and responded to questions and comments. The room was well -filled and the dialogue was energetic. Architectural Design Board The Architectural Design Board held two public hearings on May 3, 2017. The first public hearing was on the Westgate Village Mixed -Use Building located at 10032 Edmonds Way (PLN20160054), which was approved by the ADB with conditions. This was first project under the new Westgate Mixed Use zone (ECDC16.110) and design standards (ECDC 22.110). The building will contain 91 residential units and 3,100 of commercial space. The property owners have also applied for the Multi -Family Housing Tax Exemption (ECC 3.38) for the project and 19 of the 91 units will be priced for affordable to low- income households. The second public hearing was a Phase I public hearing for "Graphite," which is a new building to be located at the Marvel Marble site at 202 Main Street (PLN20170016). Graphite will be a two-story building containing art studios, an art gallery, cafe, and three residential units as well as 20 underground parking spaces. The Phase 11 public hearing for Graphite building is tentatively scheduled for June 215t Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission held a meeting on May 3. Items of discussion included Commission response to swastika graffiti incidents, 2017 Work Plan, and Indigenous Day resolution. The next meeting is Wednesday, June 7. Economic Development Commission The Economic Development Commission's next meeting is May 17. An agenda will be posted online when available. Edmonds Sister City Commission The Edmonds Sister City Commission is providing students with a new 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. 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 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a 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 at this time has no meetings scheduled for May. Historic Preservation The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting will be May 11. An agenda will be posted online when available. Tree Board The Tree Board met on May 4. Davey Resource Group, The consultant team for developing the Urban Forest Management Plan attended the meeting to seek Tree Board member input on the project. City Council Topics for the Council's April 25 meeting included: ❑ Ordinance adopting amendments to Tree Board appointment process ❑ YWCA Stand Against Racism Day Proclamation ❑ Contract & Purchasing Policies update ❑ Edmonds Veterans' Plaza update & request ❑ Development Activities presentation ❑ Authorization for design services for waterfront redevelopment project (city park area) ❑ Report on construction bids for 2017 Waterline Replacement Project ❑ Meadowdale Fields ILA Agenda topics for the Council's May 2 meeting include: ❑ Authorization for design services for waterfront redevelopment project ❑ Resolution 1387 Amending the City's Contracting & Purchasing Policies ❑ Meadowdale Fields ILA ❑ Puget Sound Starts Here Month ❑ Memorial Day Public Service Announcement COMMUNITY CALENDAR ❑ May 5-6: Sculptors Workshop Spring Pottery Sale, Frances Anderson Center, 1:00 pm ❑ May 6: Floretum's Annual Plant Sale: United Methodist Church — 828 Casper's St, 9 am — 12 pm ❑ May 6: Watershed Fun Fair, Willow Creek Hatchery, 11 am ❑ May 6-June 10: Garden Market, 5t" & Bell St, 9:00 am — 2:00 pm ❑ May 7: Historical Museum, Salish Bounty, Traditional Foods of the Native American People 31Pac9. Packet Pg. 15 5.A.a 41 ❑ May 13: 8t" Annual Fairy Parade, Meet at Library at noon ❑ May 18: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown, 5:00 — 8:00 pm ❑ May 20: Health & Fitness Expo, Edmonds School District Stadium, 9:00 am ❑ May 29: Memorial Day Program, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium, 11:00 am ❑ June 16-18: Edmonds Arts Festival, 700 Main St. Packet Pg. 16 5.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 Development Activities Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope / Leif Bjorback Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History This is an annual report from Development Services on permitting and development activity in the city. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The attached report was given to the City Council on April 25, 2017. The presentation is contained in Attachment 1 with the Council minutes in Attachment 2. The report is being provided for Planning Board information. The vido of the presentation before the Council can be viewed on the city website by looking at the City Council meeting of April 25th, agenda item 8.3 (see the link in Attachment 3). Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Activities Presentation Attachment 2: City Council Minutes Attachment 3: Link to Council meeting video Packet Pg. 17 PROJECTS t P., TIVITIE N ma DEVELOPMENT-,O00,F�' RVI S-It. ''F 7 Ift dik AIL ; . . S AFF FAMWORK building community behind the scenes. t LO 0 Packet Pg. 19 m S AFF EAMWORK customer assistance Packet Pg. 20 ==OM� IVAILIJUIMINI \X\T �q M L\VJIIL L__JIOL\Iql M\ development review committee 5.B.a Packet Pg. 21 $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT HISTORY Ln to 1, W m O ri N M -zT m l0 1� W m O ri N M �zt Ln Lo 1� w m O ri N M T Ln Lo 00 00 00 00 00 Q1 01 Q1 01 Q1 Q1 Q1 O1 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O r-I r-I � r-I r-I r-I � T M M T T M M T M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r-1 ri r-1 r-1 r-1 ri r-1 r-1 r-1 e 1 r-1 r-1 ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MTotal Devel Svc Revenue # Building Permits 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 New Single Family Duplex Apartment/Condo Commercial Mixed Use (Office/condo) Additions / Alterations Single Family Apartment / Condo Commercial Other Mechanical / Plumbing Demolition Miscellaneous 53 41 $19,078,711 $17,185,087 0 0 $0 $0 1(4Units) 8 (97units) 708,649 $14,948,238 0 3 $0 $7,670,767 0 0 $0 $0 132 134 $7,736,525 $8,469,012 21 22 $1,068,935 $613,766 59 53 $8,952,038 $8,601,224 318/368 350/382 $2,500 15 10 $0 592 634 $3,515,200 0 N $200 $03-926-91 a Packet Pg. 23 ENGINEERING DIVISIOTT' T right-of-way, street use, encroachment, & side sewer activi- N d ad ' r Permits Issued 429 k =� Permit Revenue $58,082 Inspection & Review Revenue $214,337 o Transportation Impact Fees $139,031 .� Franchise Fees $91,861 - a .. Q Packet Pg. 24 SOLAR PERMI S 2012 3 0 0% 11 2013 6 5 83 % 41 2014 39 35 90 % 241 2015 32 29 91% 211 2016 17 16 94 % 137 0 eid� 5.B.a 0 N C O r co r - C d N d A) r 2 . o !i > 0 u Q E �a Packet Pg. 25 i 120 100 We 411 Ic BDUILDING PEPER FIDEVELOPMENT SERVICES EMPLOYEE V1 %D I" w M O c-I N M zJ- Ln %D r� W M O N M V1 W r� W M O N M -;t V1 W Q1 d> 01 01 al Q1 Q1 D1 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ol O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� a -I a-i r-I r-I r-I a --I a --I r-I r-I r-I r-I a --I rl ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 30 25 OFF 15 411 �i MTotal Employees —Building Permits per Employee �� INSPEC IONS 2016 5.B.a over 9, o o o field inspections were performed by developmE services staff. Packet Pg. 27 0 t N M KEY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTPE:l *Seabrook Estates Mueller Short Plat Glen Street * * Condos i Post Office Mixed Us1� Top Pot *Gra hite Art MMMM 1 Salish Crossing Point «1E11 * MHn, Edwards ■■� .� �� . out �tt pyi I Willowdale�i "" WIN Memory Care* II'11 Magic Toyota JIII�'�II y9Y'- 1_ ri * Westgate int. *Village Brackel Court L- ina MW� hmi/Ifl., i- r AS d, Edmonds) Village LO 0 Packet Pg. 28 1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEINE" The Development Services Department currently has active new Single Family Residence permits U W-' 1jjMj[(Ojj'jA'L\jMj§jWA I I I - MOO. Li M M\jLj" 301 Caspers Street — J- - Four new single family homes �' .. 53' 3 I. ox r °' �•.: RA. vim, y. 5.B.a R IRS ii 1 m a Packet Pg. 31 HIGHPOIN HOMES 22920-22926 102nd pl. W — Four lot short plat � \�� /• \ \� ,�� �|�_ /'�� \�\ ���, a_|�© , . 77w-v IjWJA\kj*4)jK\(OT(0jjM\j&IjjM\ 1§1&100" 86o Caspers Street — Seven new single family homes ' RESIDENTIAL CONS-TRUCrIO�N 5.B.a Various locations Main St. - ':47 s ADUL FAMILY HOM-P3 Various locations u 'F'"OST OFFICE MIXED USF�_ Phase II — 28 new residential units +7,600 sf commercial Good-bye to an old friend... ...and welcome to a new inviting street front le Main Street view tow 1# "4A►f VA� .. = V f + Moll I I SIMAMI 10MCM I AS 141911 1 RIVA � all nk AM IS W�(, MAN "1,Dwh\L �; 2loo6 72nd Ave W— 70,897 sf 62 units with 8o beds 5.B.a Oo 21940 A LO 0 N Packet Pg. 38 150 Pine St.— 68 new residential units +structured parki M IX 9 . i i � — �� ■■nfy A �f �uf� - _ f _ � i+ I_ 4 1, i11 i1i111I1#t 11," �ni,� 11916 ii _ r+ s -wr .. - 303 Edmonds St. — nine new apartments wl M F-r MADRONA K-8 9300 236th Street SW WA I 2130o HVVY 99 — 47,000-sf showroom and service dept. ■ 1-10S, AT AUR���W,----)AINLV,,m W\ 8431 2441h St. SW— 1o,000-sf new retail RETAIL WESTGATE VILLAGE 10032 Edmonds way— 91 new residential units +3,100 sf retai IL mo� ri ��_�^ �—• �.*•� �®y f4�•";ice..'' 0 d ti � �. rNot-.. 'I�•�e� s '~'•��__ 37' _I� � 1 -II.��": 1�,� ( , 4 �,. ,,�,y;; .;►� v,'-F 96_- �jy��• p •.g1Y� wNe A �. ", � � � - i .� 44p��k 5.+•f. '3c, ,. +,;,r�r �rn�''! ,, vyt. � � w ""'�F - �_ ,�W r-. , � . chi' � �{�` �e�` s �! �I• '."�T� ��a" �� �f � � ,7� I • e _ su ! y, {_ _ �- :,F!. T''` r � �.7°T 0 Cj+SR• ;' _l' 7'1hs�9�t i� GRAPHITE STUDIOS 202 Main St. — artist studios, art gallery, cafe, three apartmen Ifitawl � Imo; �_ 5.B.a b / / e / BUILDING -A- % PtTA1L RUAILG 1-STGP1' • / / &TILAIHG Ill 11 111%, Y . .--.u�lrr� 1-sroxv PErnn. Buaonvc e� err. 4 b T i i i l/ uiwava v� � ImNc 1- � FAIL Pill � u¢Pmtt. tf �p. a EDMONDS VILLAGE RETAIL BUILDING SITE PLAN SCALE I" = 30' eo a w w 1 Pry - >a esr Packet Pg. 46 ovirIIII Us 11,1!1111 1 1 1 liq ON I El ) I ffbhl\, I � glul "I _ _ �_. RRE[ffdYUTM1I'1I00A SALISH SEA E3:A; J. Y• w f a ry ww Bge Animal Center art. a wE pRE [o [ OPEN1 .ICE �I lei I c.i Packet Pg. 47 CITY PROJECTS ��-7 IIIIMC IWWIt\LIIqU(O3I T �Ij I N I U, AN I I B.a ❑ All Street Files have been scanned and converted to electronic records. ❑ All Microfilm archives have been digitized and imported into Laserfiche. ❑ Over 92,000 files imported into Laserfiche repository. That's over 617,000 pages of documents! ❑ More than 30 file cabinets from the end floor of City Hall have been emptied. ❑ Currently working on scanning of large Commercial and Residential Plan sets SPECIAL PROJECTS EXAMPLES: ❑ New Stormwater Code went into effect Jan 1, 2017 ❑ Adjustment of Transportation Impact Fees — Jan 1, 2017 ❑ Adjustment of Permit Fees — Jan 1, 2017 ❑ Edmonds Community Development Code Update ■ Critical Areas I Signs I LID Integration I Subdivisions ❑ Shoreline Master Program ❑ Street Tree Plan Update & Urban Forest Mgm't Plan ❑ Highway 99 Subarea Plan & Code ❑ Public Works Standard Details Update ❑ Many others! SPECIAL PROJECTS Remodeled Permit & Green Resource Center opened June `16 I DEVELOPMENT SFRVICE� Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions Are available daily at Permit Counter & on phone ❑ City website has many resources ❑ Some permits can be applied for online City web map provides property and utility information, as-builts, zoning etc., 24-7 _J 1 i r I N..o w I . rrfze w. 04 4 ri Packet Pg. 53 5.B.b Ronald Wastewater District. When this agreement was approved in 1988, the primary goal was provide funding to upgrade the existing treatment plant to secondary treatment. It also set up the framework for the costs of running plant to be recouped and distributed among the partners based on their annual flow rates. A replacement of the agreement has been under negotiation for 2% years. Ronald Wastewater is being taken over by the City of Shoreline in October 2017; the negotiations became more difficult closer to that date. Shoreline's views on how utility services should be provided, specifically sewer, to the potential Point Wells development differs from the City of Edmonds and its other partners. Ronald's Board was in agreement with the other partners in the past but their Board has changed due to recent elections and now a majority of the Ronald Board sides with the City of Shoreline which brought negotiations to a halt. Mr. Williams relayed the proposal is for all parties to sign a two-year extension of the existing terms and conditions while the issues are sorted out via pending actions in King County and Snohomish County Boundary Review Boards, a King County Court and ultimately a Snohomish County Court. He recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign a two-year extension of the existing agreement. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the other cities were agreeable to the two-year extension. Mr. Williams said they are. Councilmember Johnson asked if this was related to the development proposed at Point Wells. Mr. Williams answered absolutely. It was the consensus of the Council to forward this item to the Consent Agenda for approval. 3. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed: • Staff teamwork: o Building community behind the scenes o Customer assistance o Development review committee Graph of development services permit history, total development services revenue compared to building permits 1985-2016 Building permits reviewed by development services 2015 versus 2016 Type of Permit 2015 # issued 2016 # issues 2015 Valuation 2016 Valuation New Single Family 53 41 $10,078,711 $17,185,087 Duplex 0 0 $0 $0 Apartment/Condo 1 (4 units) 8 (97 units) $708,649 $14,948,238 Commercial 0 3 $0 $7,670,767 Mixed Use (office/condo) 0 0 $0 $0 Additions/Alterations Single Family 132 134 $7,736,525 $8,469,012 Apartment/Condo 21 22 $1,068,935 $613,766 Commercial 59 53 $83,952,038 $8,601,224 Other Mechanical/Plumbing 318/368 350/382 $2,500 $200 Demolition 15 10 $0 $0 Miscellaneous 592 634 $3,515,200 $3,926,913 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 54 5.B.b Total 1 1559 1 1637 1 $41,062,558 1 $61,415,207 Engineering Division - right-of-way, street use, encroachment & side sewer activity Activity # in 2016 Permits Issued 429 Permit Revenue $58,082 Inspection & Review Revenue $214,337 Transportation Impact Fees $139,031 Franchise Fees $91,861 Solar permits Year # of Permits # of Permits Online % Online kW 2012 3 0 0% 11 2013 6 5 83% 41 2014 39 35 90% 241 2015 1 32 29 91% 1 211 2016 17 16 91% 137 Total 97 85 88% 641 Graph of building permits per development services employee Inspections 2016 o Over 9,000 field inspections were performed by development services staff Building Official Leif Bjorback reviewed: • Map of key development projects o Residential Development - Development Services Department currently has 41 active new Single Family Residence permits ■ Mueller Short Plat, 301 Caspers Street - four new single family homes ■ Willowdale Townhomes, 20732 76th Ave W - adding 13 new units ■ Highpoint Homes, 22920-22926 102°d PI W - four lot short plat ■ Seabrook Estates (PRD), 860 Caspers Street - seven new single family homes ■ Other single family - Talbot Road (20,000 square feet) - Main Street - 3rd Ave N Adult Family Homes - various locations o City issues building permit and does inspections, DSHS regulates activity o Code allows up to six residents receiving care Commercial Projects o Post office Mixed Use - Phase II - 28 new residential units + 7600 square feet commercial o Cedar Creek Memory Care, 21006 72"d Ave W - 70,897 62 units with 80 beds o MGP Retail Building, 21940 Hwy 99 (WinCo parking lot), 6,162 square feet, 4 tenant spaces o Pt. Edwards Building #10, 150 Pine St. 68 new residential units + structured parking o Beach Walk Apartments, 303 Edmonds St - 9 new apartments o Madrona K-8, 9300 236th Street SW o Magic Toyota, 21300 Hwy 99 - 47,000 square feet showroom and service department o The Shops at Aurora Village, 8431 244t1i St SW - 10,000 square feet new retail o Westgate Village, 10032 Edmonds Way (adjacent to Bartell) - 91 new residential units + 3,100 square feet retail o Graphite Studio, 202 Main Street - artist studios, art gallery, cafe, 3 apartments o Edmonds Village, 22019 Hwy 99 - 5,300 square feet new retail Tenant improvement projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 55 5.B.b o Bridge Animal Center o Salish Sea Brewing o Ono Poke o IGA/ACE Hardware o House converted to office • City projects o Bandshell at Frances Anderson Center o Restroom facility adjacent to City Hall o Repairs to fishing pier o Veterans Plaza Ms. Hope reviewed: • Technology update o All Street Files have been scanned and converted to electronic records. o All Microfilm archives have been digitized and imported into Laserfiche. o Over 92,000 files imported into Laserfiche repository. That's over 617,000 pages of documents! o More than 30 file cabinets from the 2nd floor of City Hall have been emptied. o Currently working on scanning of large Commercial and Residential Plan sets • Special projects o New Stormwater Code went into effect Jan 1, 2017 o Increased Transportation Impact Fees — Jan 1, 2017 o Increased Permit Fees — Jan 1, 2017 o Edmonds Community Development Code Update ■ LID Integration I Signs I Subdivisions o Critical Areas Ordinance o Shoreline Master Program o Street Tree Plan Update o Highway 99 Subarea Plan o Public Works Standard Details Update o Remodeled Permit & Green Resource Center opened June ` 16 • Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions are available Daily at the Permit Counter o M, T, Th, F 8:00am — 4:30pm o Wednesdays 8:30am —noon • Many resources can be found on City website and some permits can be applied for online o www.edmondswa.gov • City web map provides property and utility information, as-builts, zoning etc. o www.maps.edmondswa.gov Councilmember Teitzel said he was impressed with all the work Development Services is doing. With regard to solar permits, he relayed Tesla has a new solar product, a roofing shingle that looks like a standard roof and is priced about the same as a standard roof. He asked if that product would require a special permit. Mr. Bjorback answered the building code includes language regarding photo opaque panels used as roofing. Once a product goes through the listing process by an approved agency such as UL, it is easy to approve at the City level as long as the manufacturer's instructions for installation are followed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Post Office building will be condos or apartments. Mr. Bjorback answered they will be apartments. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Point Edwards was condos. Mr. Bjorback relayed the building permit says condos. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if some Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 56 5.B.b of the 91 units in Westgate Village would be affordable. Ms. Hope advised if they want to utilize the Multifamily Tax Exempt Program, 25% must be affordable. Councilmember Tibbott appreciated the year-to-year comparisons. He noted commercial projects are a source of revenue for the City and it was great to see ongoing commercial activity. He asked about future commercial opportunities. Mr. Bjorback answered there are a number in the pipeline. Councilmember Tibbott asked if 2016 with $7 million in projects was a banner year. Mr. Bjorback said the last three years have been banner years and it was not slowing down. With the developing occurring in Westgate and on Highway 99, Councilmember Tibbott asked how parks and recreation activities could be integrated with residential units, especially now Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered that would be addressed with the code for Highway 99; one of the proposals is to require a certain amount of open space for recreational purposes in mixed use developments. Councilmember Tibbott asked about opportunities for recreation such as a pool. Ms. Hope answered it remains to be seen what the market brings; a pool would not be required but it would be nice to see one in some places. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Magic Toyota has dramatically expanded across the street. She asked about the location of the new car lot. Mr. Bjorback answered the showroom will be in the same place as the current showroom on their main lot south of 212`h. The parking structure on that lot will remain and the rest of the site will be under construction for the new showroom. Magic purchased the PUD site and plans to conduct business and sales activities on that site as well. They also have a lot in Lynnwood but transactions will occur on the PUD lot so Edmonds will receive the sales tax. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the Shops at Aurora Village. Mr. Bjorback advised the old Denny's building will be demolished and replaced by the new shops. Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Bjorback for highlighting solar permits. He recalled the county and state previously assisted with solar projects and asked about plans for partnering on solar projects in the future. Mr. Bjorback said previous solar campaigns were the reason for increased solar permits but having 17 permits last year, compared to 1 or none 8 years ago was a good growth. That was also due to the streamlined process for residential rooftop solar on online. Councilmember Nelson asked if there were any commercial solar installations. Mr. Bjorback answered occasionally, for example, the Frances Anderson Center received two permits for two phases. Councilmember Nelson recalled one of the benchmark measurements for the Comprehensive Plan Utility element was overall residential electricity use had decreased, commercial stayed the same. He asked if there were incentives to encourage businesses to utilize alternative forms of energy including solar power. Mr. Bjorback answered other regional code barriers are being lowered in order to get and afford solar permits. An appendix recently became available for adoption in the Building Code that requires features such as solar readiness to allow for future and easier installation of solar systems. The department is also having discussions regarding ways to encourage solar projects. Mayor Earling recall when he was first elected in 2012, some said the 2"a floor had nothing to do; that was not true then and there is a high level of activity now. At Council President Mesaros' request, the Council agreed to consider Items take 8.6 and 8.7 out of order. 6. REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE 2017 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English reported construction bids were opened today. Four bids were received, ranging from $2 million to $2.6 million. The low bid, $2,003,518, was provided by B&G Backhoe; the engineer's estimate was $2.49 million. The project will replace approximately 7,500 feet of water main Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 57 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 Public Hearing on Rezone for property under Contract Rezone R-97-28 (contract RS-8 to RS-12) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History The subject property has a long procedural history dating back to the 1990's, part of which included a contract rezone (R-97-28). All this history (including contract rezone R-97-28) was leading towards a specific development that never came to fruition and all associated applications related to the proposed development have since expired. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1384 on March 14, 2017 to initiate a rezone of the property from contract RS-8 to RS-12. Staff Recommendation Provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve a rezone for the subject property from contract RS-8 to RS-12. Narrative The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1384 on March 14, 2017 initiating a rezone for the subject property. The property is currently zoned RS-8 subject to the conditions in the associated contract approved as part of R-97-28. RS-8 is a single-family residential zone with a 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. If approved, a rezone to RS-12 would result in a similar single family zone with a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size. The rezone would also remove the contract so that its conditions would no longer apply to the property. R-97-28 applies to five parcels; one is owned by the City of Edmonds, while the other four are in private ownership. The property owner has submitted an email in support of rezoning the property. A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV-B" application. The Planning Board conducts a public hearing, reviews the proposal for consistency with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40 (Rezones) and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. Attached is the staff report evaluating the proposal to rezone the property from contract RS-8 to RS-12. Attachments: PLN20170013 Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 58 6.A.a Inc. 189'i CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION To: I dknonds Planni Board From: Kernen Lien Senior Planner Date: May 5, 2017 File: PLN20170013 Hearing Date, Time, and Place: Ma 10 2017 at 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5th Avenue North I. INTRODUCTION A. Applicants The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1384 (Attachment 1) on March 14, 2017 initiating a rezone for the property subject to contract rezone R-97-28 (Attachment 2) from contract RS-8 (single-family residential; 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) to RS-12 (single-family residential; 12,000 square foot minimum lot size). R-97-28 applies to five parcels; one is owned by the City of Edmonds, while the other four are in private ownership. The property owner has submitted an email in support of rezoning the property (Attachment 3). B. Location Five parcels within the Perrinville area of Edmonds between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive with tax parcel numbers 00370800100900, 00370800101200, 00370800101100, 00370800101000, and 00434600010601 (Attachment 4). One of the parcels (00370800101200) is owned by the City of Edmonds. The other four parcels are in private ownership. C. Request Resolution No. 1384 directs the initiation of a rezone to change the zoning designation from contract RS-8 (single-family residential; 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) which was established by contract rezone R-97-28 to RS-12 (single-family residential; 12,000 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.a square foot minimum lot size) no contract. The intent of the rezone is to eliminate the contract rezone and revert to the RS-12 zoning classification which was the zone of the property prior to the contract rezone. D. Review Process A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV-B" application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. T lie Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. A combined Notice of Application and Public hearing was issued on April 25, 2017. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the notice requirements of ECDC 20.03 are provided in Attachment 8. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS A. Site Context This property has a long procedural history. A rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 was first proposed for a portion of this property in 1992 (R-92-39). The Planning Board recommended denial. This application was ultimately withdrawn. In 1996 the previous property owner applied for a street map amendment and street vacation (ST-96-77 & 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), but held final approval until such time that development plan was approved providing for adequate alternative connections for roads, pedestrian and bike ways, and utilities in the area. In 1997, the previous property owners applied for a contract rezone (R-97-28) to this property (including a City owned parcel for which the City had entered into a conditional sale agreement) from RS-12 to RS-8. This contract rezone was approved with eight conditions including requiring development of the site to be approved through a Planned Residential Development (PRD) process, incorporating the requirements of ST-96-77 & ST-96-78, and limiting the percent of buildable area to 21 % of net buildable area (Attachment 2). In 2001, the City of Edmonds initiated a rezone from the contract RS-8 back to RS-12 (R-01-168). The rezone was initiated because the property owner had yet to apply for the PRD or meet other requirements of the contract rezone. Ultimately, the City and property owners came to a settlement agreement which 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 prevision that limited building pads to 21 % of the net buildable area (R-02-5). The City Council denied the contract rezone amendment. PLN20170013 —Rezone Staff Report Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 60 6.A.a In 2005, the previous property owners applied to amend the contract rezone provisions as to which ordinances were applicable to development at the site (R-05-135). Staff had recommended denial. The rezone application was withdrawn. In 2005, an application for a 27-lot formal plat and PRD was submitted (P-05-135/PRD- 05-137). The Plat/PRD received preliminary approval in January 2007. The preliminary approval of the 27-lot Plat/PRD was never finalized and preliminary approval expired in January 2017. B. Neighboring Development and Zoning The neighborhood is comprised of a variety of different zones and comprehensive plan designations — see Attachments 4 & 5. The subject property is on the western edge of the Perrinville Commercial area and across the Olympic View Drive from the Perrinville Post Office. North, south and west are single-family neighborhoods with different zoning and comprehensive plan designations. North of the property are single family properties zoned RS-12 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource. The neighboring properties to the south are zoned RS-8 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Urban-1. While west of the site across 80th Avenue West is a RS-10 zone and Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Urban-3. The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) SEPA review for this site specific rezone is exempt pursuant WAC 197-11-800(6)(c) because the site is located within an urban growth area, the rezone does not require a comprehensive plan change, and the applicable comprehensive plan was previously subjected to environmental review and analysis. D. Technical Review Committee This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division (Attachment 9). The Engineering Division noted that the City Council tentatively approved ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 subject to development of the property (Attachment 7). This tentative approval and conditions associated with ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 were subsequently incorporated into contract rezone R-97-28. The envisioned development was never completed. With elimination of the contract rezone, previous decisions related to existing right-of-way and planned right-of-way lines become invalid. Any future development of the subject property, including associated street vacations and street map changes will be evaluated through current processes. E. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. F. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance PLN20170013 — Rezone Staff Report Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.a According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; When contract rezone R-97-28 was approved by the City of Edmonds, the Comprehensive Plan map for this location did not differentiate between small lot and large lot single family designations. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan was the first Comprehensive Plan to differentiate between small and large single family lots outside of the downtown area and the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was the first to include the current five categories for single family designations of Single Family - Urban 1, 2, and 3; Single Family - Resource; and Single Family Master Plan. In 2003 the subject site was designated as Single Family - Large Lot and in 2004, it was assigned with the Single Family - Resource designation, which it remains under today (Attachment 5). The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations (Attachment 6). For the Single Family - Resource designation the compatible zoning classifications are RSW-12, RS-12, and RS-20. Given the changes to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property, the RS-8 zoning classification is no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Rezoning the property to RS-12 will make the zoning of the site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. B. 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, - According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: A. 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 B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. PLN20170013 — Rezone Staff Report Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.a At the same time, the purposes of the Residential Zones include (ECDC 16.10.000): The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are: A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan; B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; C. To provide for community facilities which complement residential areas and benefit from a residential environment; D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities; E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense, land uses. Finally, the Single -Family Residential (RS) zone district has its own purposes as identified in ECDC 16.20.000: The RS zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas primarily for family living in single- family dwellings; B. To provide for additional nonresidential uses which complements and are compatible with single-family dwelling uses. Two of the zoning purposes relate back to the Comprehensive Plan. ECDC 16.00.010.A notes that one purpose is "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." ECDC 16.10.010.A also provides the following purpose, "To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan." As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Single -Family PLN20170013 — Rezone Staff Report Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.a Resource. One of the reasons the City has large lot comprehensive plan designations and zoning is to protect critical areas. Where combinations of critical areas are present (e.g. slopes and habitat, or streams and wetlands, etc.) or where extensive areas are covered by critical areas the City established large -lot single family designations. Larger lot 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 lots sizes in areas subject to 'landslide hazards also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes, and also reduce the probability that continued slide activity will harm people or residences. The subject property has slopes that exceed 40%, which classifies portions of the property as potential landslide hazard areas; additionally the majority of the remainder of the properties has slopes that fall between 15% and 40% which are potential erosion hazards. The site is also largely covered with a forested canopy. Rezoning the property to RS-12 will provide a density that is more consistent with site constraints and be consistent the purposes of the zoning ordinance. C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; As noted above, the site is surrounded on three sides by single-family neighborhoods with a variety of zoning designations (Attachment 4). The RS-12 zone maintains the site in with a single-family use at a density that would have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the current contract RS-8 zoning classification. D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; The primary change in City policy since the approval of contract rezone R-97-28 is the distinction between small lot and large lot single family designations in the Comprehensive Plan described above. The change in City policy has made the current RS-8 zoning classification inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The rezone to RS-12 will make the zoning classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Another change that has occurred since the approval of contract rezone R-97-28 are changes with the City's Planned Residential Development regulations contained in ECDC 20.35. The contract rezone requires the property to be developed through the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. There have been some changes to the PRD code since the contract rezone where the property might no longer be able to meet some PRD requirements. In particular, the PRD code (ECDC 20.35) requires PRD to have at least 10% of the gross lot area in "usable open space." However, required landscape buffers and critical areas except for trails cannot be counted toward the usable open space requirements. Much of the site contains critical areas including potential PLN20170013 —Rezone Staff Report Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.a landslide hazard areas, erosion hazards and a small wetland. It is not likely that 10% of usable open space outside of critical areas could be achieved. Development outside of a PRD process would still protect critical areas and new additions to the critical area regulations such as the 30% native vegetation requirement of (ECDC 23.90.040.C) will provide extra protections that where not in place when the contract rezone was approved in 1998. Changes in City of Edmonds policy since the approval of contract rezone R-97-28 are significant and rezoning the property back to RS-12 is necessary for the property to be consistent with current policies. E. 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 with the same zoning, The history outlined above regarding this site and the contract rezone was leading towards a specific proposed development that expired and has not come to fruition. Given that the procedural history and contract rezone was for a specific development that has expired and changes to the Comprehensive Plan make the existing zoning inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, now is an appropriate time to hit the reset button for this site. Prior to the contract rezone, the site was zoned RS-12 and currently properties to the north of the site are zoned RS-12 (Attachment 4). F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Under the contract rezone the site must be developed through the Planned Residential Development process. Given the changes to the PRD code noted above, the site could not likely be development under the current PRD regulations contained in ECDC 20.35. Rezoning the site to RS-12 will allow the property to be developed at densities appropriate for the constraints on the property and other existing regulations (e.g. critical area and storm water regulations) will provide a relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare over the existing contract RS-8 zoning classification. PLN20170013 — Rezone Staff Report Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.a III. CONCLUSIONS A. The current zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The proposal to rezone the site back to the "RS-12" zoning classification will make the zoning consistent with the Single Family — Resource designation. B. The development envisioned when contract rezone R-97-28 was approved has not been implemented. Changes to PRD regulations since the approval of R-97-28 are such that the site could not likely be developed via a PRD process as required by R-97-28. C. With elimination of the contract rezone, previous decisions related to existing right-of- way and planned right-of-way lines under ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 become invalid. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff proposes that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the rezone from contract RS-8 to RS-12. V. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 1384 2. Contract Rezone R-97-28 3. Manjinder Josan March 7, 2017 Email 4. Zoning and Vicinity Map 5. Comprehensive Plan Map 6. Comprehensive Plan Excerpt — Compatible Zoning Classifications 7. ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 8. Public Notice Documentation 9. Engineering Division Comments VI. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN20170013 — Rezone Staff Report Page 8 of 8 Manjinder Josan PD NW Investment LLC 800 NW 85th Street Seattle, WA 98117 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.a RESOLUTION NO. 1384 A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE A REZONE FOR PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT REZONE R-97-28 FROM RS-8 TO RS-12 WHEREAS, certain property with the Snohomish County tax parcel numbers of 00370800100900,00370800101200,00370800101100,00370800101000,and 00434600010601 were rezoned from under file number R-97-28 RS-12 to contract RS-8 by Ordinance No. 3217; and WHEREAS, the applications for a formal plat (P-5-136) and planned residential development (PRD-05-137) intended to implement contract rezone R-97-28 expired on January 22, 2017; and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Edmonds development regulations have been changed since 1997 so that conditions of contract rezone R-97-28 may no longer be met; and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan have changed so that the RS-8 zoning classification is not consistent with the Single Family — Resource designation for the site; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A rezone of the property under contract rezone R-97-28 shall be initiated to evaluate rezoning the subject property from contract RS-8 to RS-12 consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. RESOLVED this 14th day of March, 2017. AP OVED: L MAYOR, bAVE O. �A L G ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, S ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 10, 2017 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 14, 2017 RESOLUTION NO.: 1384 Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 67 CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NO. F-Dmc-Nos, WA 08020 0006.150.04B WSS/gjZ 07/07/98 COPY 03/25/99 16:35 P.001Q Recorded Snohomish County COPY ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE ORDINANCE NO. 3217 AN ORDINANCE OF TILE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PARK REZONE, NO. R-97-28, FROM RS-12 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 1000 SQUARE FEET) TO RS-8 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET); AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board at a public hearing, considered the following amendments to the Official Zoning Map and made their findings and recommendations which were forwarded to the City Council, and WHEREAS, _ the City Council after a public hearing reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and determined that the proposed amendment and agreement. should be approved and hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions of its Planning Board amended to acknowledge the withdrawal of property located at 18305 - 80th Ave. W., Edmonds, Washington, owned by Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson, husband and wife, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 198910 I Attachment: PLN20170013 Staff Report with Attachments (2055 : Public Hearing on Rezone for property Apedoid ao} auozeH uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uauayoepV y;Inn podeN tte;S £OOLWN-ld .;uauayoe;;V f rvn i ivwo yr IJ a : DOCUMENT ARE POOR a, t° e, QUALITY FOR SCANNING. a a Y Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds, as adopted by a Section 17.00.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of certain property hereinafter described from RS-12 (single family residential 12,000 sq. ft.) to RS-8 (single-family residential 8,000 sq. ft.), subject to the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, Exhibit A executed and recorded as provided herein. The legal description of the property rezoned is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby instructed to effectuate the necessary amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds pursuant to this ordinance. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest to that certain document entitled "Agreement and Covenants," attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The City Clerk is further directed to record said Concomitant Zoning Agreement in the land records of Snohomish County as a covenant running with the land. The cost of said recordation shall be paid by the owners. Section 4. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after its publication, or publication of a summary thereof consisting of its title, in the City's official newspaper. APPROVED: -7S. �AHET •• •• 1"910 2 Attachment 2 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : 99OZ) s;u9wLjoe;;V y;Inn }aodeN 11e;s £OOLWN-ld :;uawLj3e;;v �D a r aD Y V ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: I a CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE CtF,2PfA CHAT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/17/98 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/21 /98 PUBLISHED: 07/26/98 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/31 /98 ORDINANCE NO. 3217 1"910 3 A:pedo.id aol euozaN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : 550Z) s;uawLi3eliv t41!m :poda2l .Ide;S £�OOL60ZN-ld :;uauayoeJJV Q co AGREEMENT AND COVENANT CONSTITUTING A CONTRACT REZONE This agreement contain the covenants entered into between Dr. and Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. and Mrs. Russell C. Kim, and City of Edmonds, Washington A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred as "The Owners" and City of Edmonds, A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "The City", Whereas, The Owners proposes the development of approximately 5.8 acres of real property in Edmonds, generally located at 7704 Olympic View Dr., 18408 79th Pl. W., and a vacant parcel between 18305 and 18325 80td Ave. W. in the City of Edmonds, all being more specially described by Exhibit A attached hereto. Whereas, The Owners have applied for a change in zoning of the subject property from its current Single Family Residential 12,000 sq. ft. ( RS-12 ) classification to Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. ( RS-8 ); and Whereas The City has caused the application in its entirety, including, but not limited to the environmental check list, to be reviewed by its Planning and Engineering Department and by its Planning Board, and has fully considered recommendation made after such review; and Whereas, on April 21, 1998, the City Council of Edmonds found that the rezone request specified above and modified pursuant to the conditions set forth in this agreement does not adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare and also not sufficiently change the character of the surround areas; and Whereas, The Owners voluntarily tender this agreement and are willing and able.to implement the terms of this agreement in the course of development; and Whereas, The Owners and The City are willing to enter into an Agreement for a Contract Rezone; and Now, Therefore, It is hereby agreed as follows: ttachment 2 Aliedoid aol auozeM uo 6ulaeaH ollcind : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oe11V y1Inn;aod9N 11e;S £l,00Li,0ZN-Jd :;uauayoe;;V fC N Q � �D a r aD Y V 1. In Consideration of the City reclassifying the subject property from RS-12 to RS-8, and for so long a as the property remains so classified, The Owners covenant as follows: 1.1 To limit the use of such property to Single Family Residential uses as defined under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as the same exists or is hereafter amended; and that development of the subject property shall be consistent with an approved Planned Residential Development (PRD) application. 1.2 The building pads shall occupy a maximum of 21 % of the net buildable area. Net buildable area means the total area of property minus right of way area in accordance with Edmonds City Development Code ( ECDC ). 13 A landscaping plan shall be implemented for both entrances. The landscaping shall be maintained by a Homeowner's Association to be formed. 1.4 The Owners shall pay for the widening of preexisting 20 feet wide 1841h Street SW to width of 40 feet. The street shall connect 80' Ave. W. to Olympic View Dr. The easterly half of 1841h Street, which is currently closed, shall be relocated to fit a newly created contour and grading as depicted and in accordance with Findings of ST 96-77 and ST 96-78. The finished street shall be dedicated to The City upon its completion. 1.5 A private cul-de-sac as depicted in ST 96-77 and ST 96-78 shall be constructed and it's north end shall be connected to a revised 184`h Street SW. 1.6 All residential structures shall be designed and constructed in a style and theme consistent with the approved PRD. 1.7 The maximum height of any permitted structure shall be 25 feet measured from average grade in accordance with ECDC. 1.8 Sidewalks, gutters, street lights and signs required by ECDC and the approval process shall be supplied and constructed by The Owners. 2. Expect as provided in paragraph 1.1, no amendment to this agreement may be made by The Owners, or their heirs, successors or their assigns to amend the underlying zoning of RS 8 for a period of two years from date of this agreement. Thereafter, either The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns may, upon application filed in the same manner as rezone application, apply to amend or terminate the provisions of this agreement or to change the zoning on said property. Said application shall be heard in accordance with application requirements for any other rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. 3. The City shall be under no obligation to issue The Owners or their heirs, successors or their assigns a building permit unless The Owners fully comply with the terms of this agreement and the applicable ordinance in effect at the time of approval of this rezone. w f 111]]] Attachment 2 Aliedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uauayoe;;V y;Inn:pod9N IIe;S £I.00LWN-ld :;uauayoe;;V fC Q tD 4. This agreement and each part of it shall be considered as covenants running with the land covered hereby above and shall be binding upon The Owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. It shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor in the Grantor/Grantee index with The Owners being listed as Grantor and The City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall be a condition precedent to the exercise of development by The Owner. In the event of transfer of ownership, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall be assumed by the new Owner. 5. The term of this agreement may be specifically enforced. If either party shall bring suit to enforce any of the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled reimbursement for all cost of said litigation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. Attachment 2 Apedo.td ao} auozeN uo 6ul.teaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uautyoe;;V 4;Inn podeN jje;S £1,00L1,0ZN-ld :;uauayoe;;v q FEB-15- N.Z.PORK ZU 14Pi134 F.A4 Q tD ' q, This ngrermcni and each part of it shall be cnnsldcretl as caventntg runping with the i®nd covkrcd hereby above and vhall be minding upon The owners, thtir heirs, successors and a..igns. tt shalt he recorded with the. Snohomish County Auditor In the (irAutor/Grantee index with The, Owners being listed as Grantor and Thv City as Grantee. Such recordation and payment of said costs shall be a comlition precedent to the excrcime of development !ry Tbc Owner. In the tvtnt of transfer of owner Atip, the rights and obligations of this Agreement mhatl be a.ssumed by file new Ott tier. S, The term of this agrccn ent May he spctifte.alty unforced. If either petty shall bring quit to enforce arty of the prov'isloom of this agreement, the prev'atline party shall be entitled reimbursetncttt for all cmt of said lttleation together with a sum for reasonable attorney fees. TN N'I' NTg4,; Al I RF.OF, qsc aeries have expressed this uYrecrncaf This _da; or'tJ"'�' , 1998. Fro 9 tat.+�K-p '• ITNA ��RK Mot. p�tSSFi.L C', Kf'11 MKS. GH1ii i'1'1N_'1 IN Kim Tar rav OFFnMt)tiDS, u% )miner MAYOR sIARUMLA S. FAHEY Attachment 2 Aliecloid aol auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd SSOZ) s;u9wLloe;;V y;Inn;aod9N Ile;S £l,00LWZN-jd :;uauayoe;;V �D a r aD Y V ATTEST/ A1UTIIEI*,MCATE�D::, a City Clerk, SANDRA S. CHASE Ap R AS TO FORM: O C F THE T TTORNEY: OW W. SCOTf SNYD R — T STATE OF WASHINGTON ss• COUNTY OF V>Mi'9 ) On this � day of 0 V-,a Z , 1998, before me a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Dr. HAN Z. PARK AND MRS. REGINA K. PARK, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. Dated f�l0"'1/' Xz'y STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF D ss. d4 i ( print or type name ) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat of Washington, residing at N n - + L✓Ly Gig �/� My Commission expires: 2 �� UoL. On THIS 6 day of , 1998, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared MR. RUSSELL C. KIM AND MRS. CHRISTINA P. KIM, husband and wife, appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and year first above written. 4 t ent2 Aliedoid ao} auozeH uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uauryoe;;V y;Inn Irod9N IIe;S £00LI UN-ld :;uauayoe;;V Q , co ,�1 ( Print or type name) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the _ ... . K' State of Okl oma, residin✓ - l y o H b�H p My Commission expires l z- STATE OF WASHINGTON 1SlS}y!S. COUNTY OF ,�_%rn�c5�-) q On this day of c,.YCk-Y 199y, before me a Notary Public in and for the City of Edmonds, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared aq MAYOR of the CITY OF EDMONDS, the municipal cooperation that executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledged the instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of that corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal affixed the day and -year above written. ( print or type name ) v NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing My C.- .0ilexpires - I g - ® 3 74achment 2 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uauayoe;;V y;Inn:pod9N 11e;S £OOLMM-1d :;uauayoe;;V o � a� Y LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: a Park property. EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: Tax Account No. 3708-001-009-0008 Lot 9, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats on page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohornish, State of Washington. PARCEL 8: Tax Account No. 3708-001-010-0005 Lot 10, Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish. State of Washington. PARCEL C: Tax Account No. 4346-000-106-0107 All that portion of Tract 106, Edmonds, Sea View Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats on page 76, records of Snohomish County, lying Southwesterly of Beverly Park —Edmonds Road; EXCEPT the East 212 feet thereof as measured along south line of said Tract 106 and EXCEPT any portion lying within Beverly Park —Edmonds Road. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Kim Property. PARCEL A Tax Account No. 3708-001-011-0004 Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County, EXCEPT the east 120 feet thereof. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. PARCEL 8 Tax Account No. 3708-001-011-0004(some as A) The East 120 of Lot 11, Block 1, Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of. Snohomish, State of Washington. City-cf,Edmonds property. Tax Account No. 3708-001-0120003 Lot 12. Block 1, Plat of Admiralty Acres, as per plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats page 48, records of Snohomish County. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. .Attachment 2 6.A.a Lien, Kernen From: manjinder josan <mjosan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:28 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Edmonds property Dear kernan, It was very nice speaking to you over the phone today. I do support the rezoning of my property and I look forward to supporting anything I need to in order for this rezoning to go through. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns from my side. Sincerely, Manjinder Josan Miosan@gmail.coin (425) 750-6606 Attachment 3 1 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.a 1 ' J 1 1 D LM TH PL S 1 � ti 18104 j o N pp rn c allo 0 Oy 0`y 8 p2 `�j om om 181Q 6 14 Q 181ST PL 8201 3 181ST PL SW 8?oy 802 A 18120 18119 0^� 4 0 0 0 0 rn 18228 q 8110 8111 18208 18232 182ND PL 3 8112 8115 18218 ' 18236 R 1'0 I 1 :0 1 2 8117 18226 18300 18306 n v Nf N Nf 0 rD 8332 q18312 18303 N80418133 1832 8001 .Q 18325 18408 G m 7423 o 790 IN 9S3 0 119�6 s�S 11 S9 �pti `� Z n g24 �1 oDD 1T 1515 o��v SA ^ ^ H ST SW 18001 M M M LO 18011 n n n n n o aAj A G POST- 0 0 1841 n OFFICE cm 1841 7601 � P 1 6 18419 BC 1850: 18427 18432 18501 f . 505 18504 3 c 0 m 18508 ! 1R519 g505 n 9;11 n n 100^ 1 515 18514 ¢ Contract Rezone 185TH PL SW 7800 18 1 $ •�� 185,E N CO �� 7530 527 8209 N ,� R-1997-28 rn M CO CO'o p? 18530 j 7528 0 ^ 186TH ^ ^ ST SW 7805 185.E 18521 N N N fD O N N N N N N O W 0 0 0 ao ao r 07 r p) N N N N N N to aD a0 aD aD aD 18603 18604 18603 1860 1860518604 18601 •18604 18603 18615 18612 1861 18616 3 u, 1860 1 m �Q, 0 18625 18622 1862718624 - 86+ g v 1861 18614 18627 18630 1862 18624 1 18609 ST SW 1863118632 2 18629 18630 0 O N 18701 18704 m 1863 ?? 1 N N 1870 18706 ^ 1870318702 RM-J. 0 0 11 CO CO O 00 m 1870 00 c^D 18703 18714 7925 18714 1871518714 1871 Ln 0 18715 18718 18720 di N M O NNN 3 187TH PL SW 7 18730 18717 ao ao °rD , 8029 ro 18728 w N �D o o N CO ,p873 Q 188TH ST SW a ^ ^ ^ N N 8128 18807 8016 '88oe c 18801 c ^a� 7801 �^y I'!• Epp' S$. 0� °p °D 18818 18813 18816 0 18811 ^ ^ n Co ^ 00 18811 �887 p AZ n g21 1 4 �$ 18823 18824 18823 18824 CD �90 1a 18824 1a 1881918822 188: Zoning and Vicinity Map Contract Rezone R-1997-28 117c, i syl Attachment 4 7512 LYNNDALE PARK 47, 18927 1 0) s Scale Q 1 inch = 400 feet Packet Pg. 79 6.A.a L �j^ 7423 o p p� ^^�� 0 ^ �? Leo A �q22 9S3 0 n � ccc,11 9515 .o��S19ry1 ^ ^ � H ST SW 18001 M M N O M N � O 18011 181 44 j 0- N Q000 0 0`ti 8p2 �'i om 0 6 18114 Q 181ST PL 8201 3 181ST PL SW 8?oy 802 A 18120 18119 0"b 4 0 0 0 0 rn 18228 � � q`� 8110 8111 18208 18232 182ND PL 3 8112 8115 18218 18236 CMpro M =Urban ' 3226 ,$�Single_Family 18312 3 M 8332 18306 uw c 18324 > c M 18303 Q h 8041 1832 °No 8133 8111 ti N � 8001 0 N aAjs A POST o °0 1841 O� O �6 iE 6 7 Open Space 1841 18419 18401 18502 1 6 18427 7 18432 18501 E SO " M KET 505 18504 3 c 0 m d 18508 0 18502 1 1R519 g50 9Tjy 00 n �^ 515 18514 ¢ Contract Rezone 185TH PL SW 7800F18530 N I r(�] �n 18516 0 �p0 F7530 0 N °D R-1997-28 rn n n rn =^?7528 0 186TH ^ ^ ST ^ SW 7805 18596 j21 N N N fD O N N N N N N O 0 0 000 °o O r p) N N N N N N W 0 0 18603 18604 18603 1860 18605 F18607 18604 18604 18603 18615 18612 1 1°S1 fi1fi o + o Single-Family'-1 Urbbmt i 18625 1862� ,8627 18624 8622 18614 a 18621 18627 18624 1 18609 ST SW 18627 18630 1863118632 2 18629 18630 0 O N (0 18701 18704 0) 18633 j O N N o 1870 18706 ^ 1870318702 'g7'� °; ,� 18703 18714 18707 Multifamily - High D 7925 18714 1871518714 18719 M h rn o 18715 18718 720 N O N N N 3 N 3 187TH PL SW 7 30 00 00 � co co r° , 8029 00 18728 W N `0 0 0o N 0 ,p8j3 ¢ > 0) r- rn 0) 0 ao t Q 188TH ST SW a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n o ��N- c 8128 18807 8016 �89pe 18801 V .0c 7801 °p a0 18818 18813 18816 18811 ^ ^ n �` ^^ Do g"�6 r �� 18811 7887 g 18823 18824 18823 18824 �, �90 IPA18824 1a 1881918822 188: Comprehensive Plan Designation Contract Rezone R-1997-28 `�c, i syl Attachment 5 7512 LYNNDALE PARK VT 18927 (1 C 0) s Scale Q 1 inch = 400 feet Packet Pg. 80 6.A.a Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density ........................................................................................... Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations within activity center Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations within corridor See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion in plan See appropriate category below; also refer to specific corridor discussion in plan Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible with neighborhood. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 < 4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG, CG2; transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification Land Use 37 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 81 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld :;uawL13e;;V N q 00 tD � a r a� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW U �a a BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Consolidated Hearing Application of Charles Maki to vacate unused right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive north of 184th Street, to amend the official street map to remove plan lined rights -of -way of 184th Street S.W. 253 feet of right-of-way of 184th Street S.W., to vacate public right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W. and an approximately 10 to 20-foot-wide portion of the public right-of-way on the west side of Olympic View Drive north of 184th Street. File No.: ST-96-77, ST-96-78 PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter came on for a consolidated hearing before the Edmonds City Council on September 3, 1996. Applications to amend the City's official street map to remove 60-foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. commencing just north of 184th Street S.W., to vacate an unopened portion of a 20-foot-wide public right-of-way line between Olympic View Drive and approximately 176th Avenue W. and to vacate approximately 10 to 20-foot-wide portion of the public right-of-way located on the west side of Olympic View Drive running north approximately 184th Street S.W. for approximately 270 feet, were combined with an application to amend the City's official street map to remove plan lined 60-foot-wide right-of- way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. starting just north of 184th Street S.W., reduce the plan lined right-of-way for 184th Street S.W. commencing at Olympic View Drive westerly for approximately 253 feet, and to remove a plan lined right-of-way lying west of Olympic View Drive and north of 184th Street S.W. All the proposed requests are located either adjacent to or across the following property addresses: 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 80th Avenue W., and 18408 79th Pl. W. This decision is based upon the record before the Edmonds City Council and the record and recommendation of the City's Hearing Examiner. The recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated July 26, 1996, are adopted as the Council's findings and conclusions except as specifically amended herein. At the City Council hearing, the staff recommendation was amended and differed from that presented to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner in his findings at page 10, recommendation 4, recommends denial of the request to remove from the official street map of the plan lined right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. Staff recommended to the City Council that, in conjunction with the platting process, the City's interest of providing slope stability could be achieved through the creation of a native growth protection easement for slope -1- Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld .;uawLJ3e;;V M q co tD � a r a Y stability rather than a full taking of the property as right-of-way. The purpose for the additional a right-of-way was to control vegetation on the slope to enhance stability and that same objective can be achieved through the less intrusive means of a native growth protection easement. In the course of the hearings, the applicant acknowledged his willingness to await final approval of the vacations and street map amendment until such time as development approval for the property located at 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 80th Avenue W. and 18408 79th Pl. W. is finally granted. The exact location of interior streets, connections and other required mitigations cannot be finally ascertained until such approvals are complete. CONCLUSIONS The Edmonds City Council therefore concludes that the purposes and objectives of the Edmonds Community Development Code will be met by: 1. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan line for 60 feet of right- of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue W. in accordance with Exhibit A, Attachment 5, to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 2. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan lined extension of 184th Street S.W. lying east of the proposed plat road, retaining any existing utility easement and to maintain future provisions for utilities. See Exhibit A, Attachment 5, to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 3. Deny amendment of the official street map to delete the plan lined extension of 184th St. S.W. lying west of the proposed plat road. In conjunction with the subdivision and development approval for the subject property, that section of right-of-way may be required to be widened and relocated to accommodate a future 184th St. S.W. street extension between the unopened right-of-way south of lot 11 and the future plat road. 4. Approval of the amendment of the official street map to remove 20 feet of right- of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive contingent upon: a. Approval of a 20-foot-wide native growth protection easement along the applicant's frontage along Olympic View Drive, the extent and nature of which will be determined as a part of the platting approval process. b. The provision to the City within 21 calendar days to the date of approval of a legal description for the native growth protection easement. C. The payment of compensation for the vacated property in accordance with the submitted appraisal adjusted in accordance with provisions of state law and City ordinance. -2- Attachment 7 kpedwd aol euozaN uo 6ulaeaH allgnd : 550Z) s;uawLi3eliv t inn podem ,}}e;S £W0L60ZN-Jd :;uauayaeJJV d 5. The future application to develop the property owned by the applicant is and shall be subject to all applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in those ordinances. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prejudge or limit the discretion of the City Council in reviewing such application(s) to finally determine the placement and appropriate route of interior roads and utilities and to mitigate the impacts, if any, from the development. In order to provide for a orderly process, the City Council directs that the City Attorney prepare ordinances for vacation and ordinances amending the official street map. These ordinances shall be held and presented to the City Council only in conjunction with an approved development plan providing for adequate alternative connections for roads, pedestrian and bike ways, and utilities in the area. Part of the City Council's required Findings and Hearing Examiner's Recommendations regarding the proposed vacations and amendments to the Official Street Map are a finding that the actions are in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the Community Development Code. This finding is based in part upon the assumption that future access will be provided during development of the property. Therefore, it is inappropriate to finally adopt ordinances of vacation or amending the Master Street Map until such time as a platting or other development process makes provision for access. DONE this 27th day of September , 1996. Attest: 1zS✓ • C��e.�.� Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk WSS143050.1X/0006.15071 Mayor Barbara S. Fahey _3e v 00 6 a. r a� Y a. Attachment 7 kpedwd aol euozaN uo 6ulaeaH allgnd : 550Z) s;uawLi3eliv t inn podem ,}}e;S £W0L60ZN-1d :;uauayaeJJV 4CS t 189v CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Charles Maki CASE NO.: ST 96-77 LOCATION: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4) APPLICATION: This application is to amend the City's Official Street Map to remove that portion of proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West starting just north of 184th Street Southwest. Additionally, the applicant wants to: a. remove the designation of the existing 20- foot wide right-of-way of 184th Street Southwest starting at Olympic View Drive and proceeding west approximately 253 feet; and b. remove the designation of a portion of the unused right-of- way lying west of Olympic View Drive and north of 184th Street Southwest right-of-way, to allow a vacation of the subject right-of- way pursuant to an application submitted under City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. ST-96-78 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). REVIEW PROCESS: Street Map Amendment; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes recommendation to the City Council. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.65 (STREET MAP CHANGES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.05 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PURPOSES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.40 (COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN - PURPOSES). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.50 (OFFICIAL STREET MAP). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff: Partial approval with conditions Hearing Examiner: Partial approval with conditions LO 00 6 a. Y V R a. • Incoy�?l ��.���n�1�1890 Chip-, • victor Cp-, ntPrnafinna o man .IAnan Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;u9wLjoe;;V y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld :;uawLj3e;;V ca W co q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 a r Page 2 a PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Maki application was opened at 10:51 a.m., July 12, 1996, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5'h Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:50 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. The following is a summary of the testimony offered at the public hearing. From the City: Dirk Vinish, AICP, Planner, reviewed the Planning Division Advisory Report (Exhibit A) and discussed concerns expressed by neighbors about losing a possible connection to Olympic View Drive. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, reviewed the Engineering Division report (Exhibit A, Attachment 6) and said: e When the dotted lines were put on the Official Street Map for rights -of -way designations the roads were not intended to be located exactly within the dotted lines. ® The property where the post office is now located was owned by the City and was considered to be a possible fire station location. ® The dotted lines indicate a rough location for a connection to Olympic View Drive. ® The existing 20 foot wide right-of-way could be used for: ® pedestrian access ® utility access ® emergency access ® A 30 foot wide right-of-way would be needed to allow for a 24 foot wide roadway. From the Applicant: John Mellor, Agent for the Applicant, said: ® It would be very difficult to widen Olympic Drive in this area due to the topography and removing a portion of the unused right-of-way along Olympic Way would help the applicant with lot yield. Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;u9wLjoe;;V y;Inn podeN jje;S £OOLWN-ld :;uawLj3e;;V co q Hearing Examiner Recommendation d, `D Case No. ST 96-77 a r Page 3 It a ® A roadway connection would not work in the configuration of the existing 20 foot wide right -of way. ® The "S" curve shown in dotted lines won't work anymore and should be deleted. From the Community: Earl Smith, neighbor, gave a history of roads in the area and spoke in favor of vacating the 20 foot wide right-of-way. Joe Scialdone, Neighbor Jim Thompson, Neighbor Ed Swanson, Neighbor Katherine Morley, Neighbor Francis LaFond, Neighbor All spoke in favor of keeping an option open to provide an access from 80'h Avenue West to Olympic View Drive. They said: ® They didn't think a road could be built in the location of the "S" curve, but felt a tie to Perrinville is critical. ® They felt a roadway connection from 80`h Avenue West to the proposed cul-de-sac in the approximate location of the existing 20 foot right-of-way is possible. ® Most didn't think the City should give up any right-of-way on Olympic View Drive. ® A lot of traffic now uses 80`h West which is a narrow road. Another connection to Olympic View would reduce some of the traffic volume on 80`h West. ® The 20 foot right-of-way should not be vacated, but rather should be explored as a possible location for a link between the new cul-de-sac and Olympic View Drive. Response from the Applicant: John Mellor said: ® If the right-of-way along Olympic View Drive were vacated as requested, Olympic Drive would still have a 70 foot wide right-of-way. ® It would be possible from an engineering standpoint to connect the new cul-de-sac to 80"' West, but the police and fire departments saw no need during the review of the application. ® The sight distance on 80`h West is tough. ® The applicant does not want a connection from 801h West to Olympic View Drive to go through his new subdivision. Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeM uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;u9wLIoepV y;Inn podeN Ile;S £�00Ll OZN-Jd .;uawLI3e;;V �a q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 Page 4 Response from the City: Dirk Vinish said one option is to remove the right-of-way along Olympic View from the official map, but then have the applicant give the City a maintenance easement. fff.. 1 „�. Joe Scialdone submitted Exhibit B which was signed by 39 persons. The letter expressed no opposition to any part of the application, except the requested vacation of the eastern 1/2 of 180 Ave. S.W. between 80`b and Olympic View Drive. The residents in the area want to make sure the present or future ability to connect 80th West with Olympic View Drive is not eliminated. The letter had a map attached which showed removal of the "S" curve right-of-way lines and retention of the existing 20 foot wide right-of-way. 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The portion of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive and the unopened portion of 184th Street Southwest is approximately 7,304 square feet. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way designation between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West is approximately 33,000 square feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS-12). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property has several steep slopes, with all open areas vegetated (see Exhibit A, Attachments 4 and 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. 2) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12. 3) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS- 12. 4) West: Developed with a U.S. Post Office development and zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeU uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld .;uawL13e;;V ca a) co q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 a r Page 5 a b. Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ACT (SEPA) a. Fact: The application is not exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(6)b. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Edmonds SEPA Responsible Official on June 6, 1996. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Street Map Amendment ECDC Chapter 20.65, states the review criteria for Street Map Amendment Changes. These Criteria include: 1) conformance with the purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2) conformance with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan; and 3) conformance with the purposes of the Official Street Map. a. Facts: ECDC Section 15.05 is the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The plan states in part, "The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted as a preliminary to the establishment, improvement, abandonment, or vacation of any street, and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the city council until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered by the Hearing Examiner with reference to the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner's Report on the same will be at the time and part of his or her action on the vacation and/or dedication". The applicant has not provided in his submittal any discussion of his proposal as it relates to the criteria for a Street Map Amendment. A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Plan follows: 1) To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposed Street Map Amendment, as recommended below, will not adversely affect the ability of the City to utilize the Comprehensive Plan for guidance in the establishment of development regulations. 2) To promote the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare. Hearing Examiner Comments: Removal of the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive would significantly impair the City's ability to protect the street from slope failure and development which might affect the slope. The proposed removal from the Official Street Map Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeU uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;u9wLIoepV y;Inn podeN Ile;S £�00Ll OZN-Jd .;uawLJ3e;;V R q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 Page 6 of the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road as a possible extension of 184"` Street S.W. will adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare. 3) To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposal appears to be consistent and coordinated with development in the immediate vicinity if approved as recommended. 4) To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. Hearing Examiner Comments: The proposal, as recommended below, appears to be coordinated with adjacent development and anticipates the eventual subdividing of the property in a manner that appears to be harmonious with the surrounding development. 5) To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. Hearing Examiner Comments: The unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated provided a utility easement is retained. If the proposal is approved as recommended, public services should not be adversely affected by this proposal. b. Facts: ECDC Section 15.40 Comprehensive Street Plan states, "The Comprehensive Street Plan shall have the following purposes, in addition to the general purpose of the comprehensive plan: A. To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the official street map to implement the comprehensive plan. B. To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. [Ord. 3030 § 3, 19951." The following plans have been repealed: Comprehensive thoroughfare plan and the Changes to the plan. A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan follows: 1) To provide for adoption and enforcement of street and thoroughfare maps and coordinated plan including the official street map to implement the comprehensive plan. Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;u9wLjoe;;V y;Inn podeN 11e;S £�OOLI OZN-jd :;uawLj3e;;V �a q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 Page 7 Hearing Examiner Comments: The Street and Thoroughfare plans have been repealed. If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed The Official Street Map will continue to provide an effective means of implementing City policy with regard to the development of streets in the vicinity of the proposal. 2) To facilitate the provision of utilities and transportation. [Ord. 3030 § 3, 1995]. Hearing Examiner Comments: Utilities and transportation in the immediate vicinity should not be impaired by the proposal if the recommendations are followed. c. Fact: ECDC Section 18.50 Official Street Map states, "The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Implement the comprehensive street plan. B. Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan." A summary of the proposed Street Map Amendment as it relates purposes of the Official Street Map follows: 1) Implement the comprehensive street plan. Hearing Examiner Comments: If the conditions as outlined in the recommendations are followed, the proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2) Regulate the construction of improvements which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. Hearing Examiner Comments: Section 2.b above discusses conformance with the Comprehensive Street Plan. It does not appear that the proposal, as conditioned will prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. d) Conclusions: 1) Part of the proposal generally appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. a. The unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the conceptual plat can be vacated, however a utility easement needs to be retained. b. The proposal, for removal of the proposed 60 foot right-of- way, generally appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. However, it appears that the conditions as recommended in this report are necessary to satisfy the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan. Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s;uauayoepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld .;uauayoe;;V � N q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 a r Page 8 Y a 2) In order to protect the slopes along Olympic View Drive, the right-of- way adjacent to that street should not be removed from the Official Street Map. 3) The proposal to eliminate the 20 foot wide 184" Street Southeast right- of-way extension west of the property plat road appears to be inconsistent with the purposes of the Official Street Map. Lot 11 is adjacent to the west of the subject property has the potential to be subdivided and that subdivision would be served by the 184'h St. S.W. extension. There also appears to be a significant need for a roadway connection from 80'h Avenue West to Olympic View Drive which could provided in the future if the right-of-way to the west of the proposed plat road is relocated and expanded. The applicant has not shown that the entire proposal will meet the criteria of Street Map Amendment. However, if the conditions as outlined below are followed, then a portion of the proposal will be consistent with the criteria. 1. Review by City Departments: a. Fact: The Engineering Division had the following recommendations: Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the proposed right-of- way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained. Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the unopened right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road, provided the plat road is made public and there is a pedestrian/bike access easement and construction between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat. Denial for removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). b. Fact: The Parks & Recreation Department had the following recommendations: Approval with exception of the unopened right-of-way lying west of the conceptual plat unless a pedestrian/bike access easement is provided between the proposed plat road and the westerly boundary of the conceptual plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). c. Fact: The Public Works Department had the following comments and recommendations: A 24-inch water main and a sewer main is located in the right-of-way proposed to be removed from the Official Street Map. At a minimum the Public Works Department recommends that a 10-foot wide easement be required for all locations where City utility lines are located (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £�00Ll OZN-Jd .;uawLJ3e;;V fC q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 Page 9 De COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot" b. Conclusion: The conceptual development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. c. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to 'Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...." d) Conclusion: The conceptual development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. e) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Soils and Topography section, identifies goals and polices which are related to this conceptual development. Specific applicable goals and polices are discussed in detail below. 1) Section C states as a goal of the City that: "Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1.a. Grading, filling and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope of an adjacent property." C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property." M a r a� Y V R a f) Conclusion: A portion of the proposed Street Map Amendment is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City providing the recommendations outlined below are followed. Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £�00Ll OZN-Jd .;uauayoe;;V �a q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 Page 10 Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following is recommended: 1. Approval for removal from the Official Street Map the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 2. Approval for the removal from the Official Street Map the unopened extension 184th Street Southwest 20 foot right-of-way lying east of the proposed plat road, provided that a utility easement is retained (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 3. Denial of removal fiom the Official Street Map the unopened extension of the 184th Street Southwest right-of-way lying west of the proposed plat road. Rather, when the subject property is platted, that section of right-of-way shall be widened and relocated to accommodate a future 184"' Street Southwest street extension between the unopened right-of-way south of Lot 11 and the future plat road. 4. Denial of removal from the Official Street Map the right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. 5. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 6. The approval as noted above is transferable. Entered this 26th day of July, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land Attachment 7 Apedoid ao} auozeN uo 6ulaeaH ollgnd : SSOZ) s1u9wL1oepV y;Inn podeN 11e;S £OOLWN-ld .;uawL13e;;V q Hearing Examiner Recommendation t° Case No. ST 96-77 a r Page 11 a which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Formal Review. The City Council will consider a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner at its next available meeting. The Council may adopt or remand the recommendation at that meeting. 2. Optional Public Hearing. If the Council wishes to consider any change to the recommendation, the Council shall set a public hearing in the manner provided in Chapter 20.90. After the hearing the Council shall approve, modify, conditionally approve, deny or remand the proposal. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 8 attachments B. Letter from Joe Scialdone, dated 7/7/96 and signed by 39 other persons C. Map of proposed road alignment, submitted by Joe Scialdone Charles Maki Han Z. and Regina K. Park. 8235 Talbot Road 7704 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 John Mellor Joe Scialdone 606 Sater Lane 18332 80"' Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Jim Thompson Earl Smith 18305 80'h Avenue West 18325 80'h West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Ed Swanson Katherine Morley 8111 l Vd S.W. 18203 801h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Francis La Fond Planning Division 18227 80'h Avenue West Engineering Division Edmonds, WA 98026 Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department Attachment 7 ((U-SN 0; g-SH Pea;u03) 9Z-L6-H 8U0ZGM oea;uoo aopun Apedoid aol ouozeN uo 6uUeaH o!Ignd : 950Z) s;uempelIV y;inn:podeN j3ejS MOLMNld :;uGwt43ellV 1 8 1 1 6 II 1 W 0 0 D S C R E E K P L A C E I r------------- � J � EX.C.B. II � HV - 259.24-1Y II d'SD I HV - 260-• •4a8' EX.C.B. ! 14 S E A V I E W F I R S,2 II „ I M- M.4272 T R A C T 9 9 9 I a le,aio�. I---------- --- -----� 1 i� Y I 1 III 1 ADMIRALTY ACRES F- I ------------- EAST 2,2�_J'` a I B L 0 C K 2 l 7 EX.MH 165 ' 3 I I I 13 /f g® o rw - 2�3.0o s I z ti; 5 d 10 {------------- 9 J I I NV - 88 ,-A I� \� a--------------� II I 12 / - zs ss 3 y= ` \ IX HMS£ \ / v DECK f I I h Rog EX.C.B. I I HV - 267.01 I I I s. v h� -ram l I I I — J / I `�g � .+ i � • � �', " i INV - 287.08 I 184th ST. S.W. NOT P N i --- ----- 125 I I \ H I D D E G L E N �1 / I 1 1 I 11 12 + I `1 1 EX.CBMH �j I I I10 13 1 0 6 l `\t iL. +� � �\\n-aaraar 1 I � � j 1 \ I � �• �� � � .a \� - ,2z3s• 1 0 5 EX.C.B. TOP - 270.33 I �-- — — — — — — I I , 4 `� \\�`�`\ \ �' ''�` W 267.70 Ex MH ry -28755 27 w i ` j I W I r I I N 89 , 323.8 4 a 1 Q I ICI I i/ IWI EDMI0NDSI SEA /VIEW ITRACTS 0 \ � II 17ZI 18 I 19 I zo 21 I ICI I -I IZI I I I ICI I Iw >I I 5 _— ----_ 185th PLACE I I^ I 1 1 0 4 22 I I I I // 4 / 3 tac ment I `Q) PROJECT: 9000 SCALE: l' - IOW s � o� yor z a Ld Z W LL] w U 0 Z z Q � U Ld ct O a Z Q O j cq DE W Y _ of �w� WZ 00 M = E.. Z Z O Z Q JO J 0- cl 0 I o' W O _ 8 7ii N 6.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20170013 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 25th day of April, 2017, the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of April, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.a 00 N ti 6� d C O N N V R L c O U L 4) L Q O L Q L O W O N N LO LO O N N C N E M V R a+ a+ Q t a+ 3 O a m w r M O O ti O N Z J d C N t V cC r� Q Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 98 6.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20170013 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 25th day of April, 2017, the attached Amended Notice of Application and Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and c rrect this 25th day of April, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. 06 Signed: (BFP747893.DOCJ\00006.900000\ ) Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.a 00 N ti 6� d C O N N V R L c O U L 4) L Q O L Q L O W O N N LO LO O N N C N E M V R a+ a+ Q t a+ 3 O a m w r M O O ti O N Z J d C N t V cC r� Q Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.a Notice of Application and Public Hearing File Number PLN20170013 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Description of Proposal: The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1384 on March 14, 2017 initiating a rezone for the property subject to contract rezone R-97-28 from contract RS-8 to RS-12. The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40 Name of Applicant: City of Edmonds Location: Four parcels within the Perrinville area of Edmonds with tax parcel numbers 00370800100900, 00370800101200, 00370800101100, 00370800101000, and 00434600010601. File No.: PLN20170013 Date of Application: March 14, 2017 Date of Completeness: March 14, 2017 Date of Notice: April 25, 2017 Requested Permits: Site Specific Rezone Other Required Permits: None. Required Studies: None. Existing Environmental Documents: A number of environmental documents were prepared for a previous development proposal for the subject site, but there are no environmental documents specific to this rezone. Comments on Proposal Due: Ma 10, 2017 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to noon or online through the City's website at https:/AerTnimedmonds.wa.us/citizen. erTnimedmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for permit PLN20170013. City Contact: Kernen Lien, (425) 771-0220, kemen.lien@edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION A public hearing before the Planning Board will be held on Wednesday, May I0. 2017 at 7:00 p.tn. in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 101 O C i �A+ M CL N C T� N ic 4 10 k 00 7 n II � CD O 8221 8218 —� 8219 8222 -4n fa�n 8220 8214 8213 8210 8211 8212 W 00 co N _82082 co 205 8202 01 068204 8819 82ND AVE W28128 8129 8126 8125 18505 W 8121 8120 8121 8120 �TQ1188718706 18622 18602 1. AVE W 1106 0o m' w ca o 00 - w w °�° Kj -4-4 M rn rn y 5�1034 CD 8021 iN rr 00 Oo rn '� s 00 m w 00 co M � A A O N N 'P ■F/ 80TH AVE W� N W 00 '� ' Ln m y m Q ao 0 792fi r 939 o AL 7912 7916 01 7925 0D vs 7915 7908 7910 T` "� ti m c 79TH PL W 7909 ' Y x M 7902 7900 r Nj ldS 15 e y iO m m r 2878 7826 W m N sss2a 7831 �s 8ra o W N 7818 7804 Oo gL i pLB. 781 00 M cc M 8�� o �� w� M °' C d c 4� y 18807 t s m m ca w ms rl n A A rFiE a -..-..-.._..-..-..-..-..- W o7AM N�� aC2 ` v 64 t�G w w m m o0 N V V � pmj pmj � a m I I 18601 N 1 II II w co r � Z N z D m D 8215 I I 18601 N 1 II II w co r � Z N z D m D 8215 °' °' � �' 18334 W � W c N m N N N wN � o � a � a _C ,.., RNOOVEfi ST w w 8301 �; w z 8211 � po 8209 R _,, v 8209 ;R 8207 _ q�4 CO8 ,18[ 2� N Q 157 AVE W- 'f81 18325 18335 18303 n0 o N wpm �. .....� a m id 4 � .. � .a `n 8019 0 000 py W O � N W N � ^' 8006 � 8005 00 W 00 N O A O o � 7538 7530 x v+ � -4 � 4 w 7512 `s r�9 "1a dj r� ap 7506 7430 7422 7425 ao . 7414 7415 7416 7415 806LL 1d 8'F; 'DNA 7406 7407 L 7403 C4 ems- R M� Ki4 0 n' Attachment: PLN20170013 Staff Report with Attachments (2055 : Public Hearing on Rezone for property under Contract Rezone R-97-28 6.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH754335 PLN20170013 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 04/25/2017 and ending on 04/25/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $84.28. — a�Ld Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of - e Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My commission Expires October 31, 2017 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.a 00 N ti 6� d C O N N V R L c O U L 4) L Q O L Q L O W O N N LO LO O N N C N E M V R a+ a+ Q t a+ 3 O a m w r M O O ti O N Z J d C N t V cC r� Q Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 11Lnaal�• The Edmonds Oily Council adopted o. 1a an hferch 14, 2017 InrtiI In g a le - for the act to contract reidnd R•f37.2B from conlrs0l R5-B Id review criteria Ior rezones are contained wfttrin wunity Devstoomenl Code 20.40 area of Edmonds with . 00370800101200, 'ah 14, 2017 March 14, 2017 2017 I Specific Rezone None. E]tiS.11flG.1:117L�CS7i!SFLnla1 j�i10158,16: A number of environmental docurno+tls were prepared for a prevlous.der"loprnent proposal for the subjecl site, birt lbere are no environmental documents spedfle to this rezonn. r n salR May 14 2 lsee pubic heariny informa4 on below). Any parson hoe The rfpht to cornmenl on this appikatIon dunng fhe ppuhfic comment period, lacaive ndllce and participate in any lIQ I"Ig nod reauoal a copy of the deeision on The aRPllcatton. The C11y may a,cep, public comm"In at ariy hone prior to the closing a} the recoto of an open redid prodeciV012 hearing, 11 any, or, tl no open record predecOon hearing is provided, polar to the Qoclslon on the project pormit. only par bas of retard as doflnud in ECDG L10.07.003 Have Standing to uubale an 04mmislralivet apppeal. information on this devolopment ❑ppficaIion can be vlOwo0 Of obtoined at rho City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 51h Ava, N. Edmonds, WA 99020. Offica hours are Mondays. Tuesdays. Thursdays and Frldaye loom 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from Si30 a.m. to noon or online through the cily-swobsife at •1 I Search for permit L 01706i B. City Cun ggl; Kernen L1en, (426) 771.0220, kcrnen.Ilen*o dmondstva.gW PUBLIC HEARING IN A public nearing ftefore Iha Planning Board will be field on YLt9u u n.n1, in the Council Chambers local" 8, 2 • Slh ANe. N. Edmonds. WA 48020. Published! April 25, 2017. EDH754335 Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.a 00 N ti 6� d C O N N V R L c O U L 4) L Q O L Q L O W O N N LO LO O N N C N E M V R a+ a+ Q t a+ 3 O a m w r M O O ti O N Z J d C N t V cC r� Q Attachment 8 1 Packet Pg. 106 6.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM May 4, 2017 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20170013 — Rezone RS-8 to RS-12 City of Edmonds —18314 Olympic View Drive The subject application was initiated by the City of Edmonds to eliminate a contract rezone that was established under applicaton R-97-28. The contract rezone established certain conditions, including: 1) Street connection from 801h Ave W to Olympic View Drive 2) Certain road improvements in accordance with the findings of ST-96-77 and ST-96- 78. In short, the findings of ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 included the following: a. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan line for 60 feet of right-of-way between Olympic View Drive and 80a' Ave W; and b. Amendment of the Official Street Map to delete the plan lined extension of 184ffi St SW; and c. Vacation of a 20-foot strip of right-of-way adjacent to Olympic View Drive. The City Council tentatively approved ST-96-77 and ST-96-78 subject to development of the property. These conditions were subsequently included in the contract rezone R-97-28. The envinsioned development was never completed. With elimination of the contract rezone, previous decisions related to existing right-of-way and planned right-of-way lines become invalid. The City has specific processes by which Official Street Map amendments and right- of-way vacations would be considered. Any future development of the subject property, including associated street vacations and street map changeswill be evaluated through these current processes. The information provided in the application to eliminate the contract rezone has been found to be consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachment 9 1 Packet Pg. 107 6.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 Public Hearing on Highway 99 Code Amendments Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave 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 April 12, 2017 meeting, the Board reviewed a draft of amendments that are proposed to implement the plan. Staff Recommendation Hold the public hearing and develop a recommendation to the City Council. 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.) Attachment 3 shows changes from a previous draft, while Attachment 4 are the existing CG zoning regulations. Attachment 2 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 May 10th public hearing, the City's consultant on this project will present the proposed zoning code amendments. Packet Pg. 108 6.B Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft CG zoning code - clean version Attachment 2: Draft sign code changes Attachment 3: Draft CG zoning code showing changes Attachment 4: Existing CG zoning code Packet Pg. 109 6.B.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. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply. Amenity space: outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an amenity or benefit to people Auto sales use: facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use. Frontage: the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street 2017.05.05 Page 1 Packet Pg. 110 6.B.a Primary frontage (or "primary street frontage"): frontage when it is adjacent to a street that is considered primary over any other streets to which the property is adjacent. 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; 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. Indoor storage facilities that either comprise less than 40% of a permitted primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory building or buildings comprising less than 40% of the leasable building space used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s). 3. Outdoor storage areas that are 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.. 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, 2007]. 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 2017.05.05 Page 2 Packet Pg. 111 6.B.a 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: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 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: 2017.05.05 Page 3 Packet Pg. 112 6.B.a 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 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'. 3 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 zones. 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, as identified in Table A of this section.. 2017.05.05 Page 4 Packet Pg. 113 6.B.a 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 open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area 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, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of 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 only where 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 pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through -traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. 2017.05.05 Page 5 Packet Pg. 114 6.B.a w a ru ru a, (3) ar v a) v n N 0- 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 RS Zone. 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. 2017.05.05 Page 6 Packet Pg. 115 6.B.a Height IJ m It: 75' —I I I I I 5 I I 4 I I 0 3 - 2 y y 15',eIW,k with 1 d 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. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. 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. 2017.05.05 Page 7 Packet Pg. 116 6.B.a 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 commercial and multifamily uses 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 masonry 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. j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single family zones. k. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five 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.D.2.e; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. B. Access and vehicle Parking. 1. Parking requirements. Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and (b) for residential uses, .an average of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square feet, and otherwise 1.75 spaces, provided that a different ratio may be approved pursuant to subsection 3 of this section . In addition, guest parking must be provided at a minimum ratio of one guest space for every twenty required parking spaces. For mixed use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and 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. Parking meeting the non-residential parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. 2017.05.05 Page 8 Packet Pg. 117 6.B.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 standards of this section when an applicant submits parking data illustrating that the standards do not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio 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) a site -specific parking study that includes data and analysis for one or more of 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; (C) On -site car -share and bike share facilities: or (D) Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle parking needs as the general population. 4. 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. Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses. 5. 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 electrical wiring connection and E ventilation, compliant with the City's building codes, to support potential or actual future electric vehicle charging stations. a 6. Bicycle storage spaces 2017.05.05 Page 9 Packet Pg. 118 6.B.a 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 is not likely to use bicycles, shall be provided for residents at a ratio of 1 bicycle storage space 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands. 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. 9. 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 be provided at full width dimensions. 2017.05.05 Page 10 Packet Pg. 119 6.B.a 10. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following: 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. 11. 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 where 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. d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other. 2017.05.05 Page 11 Packet Pg. 120 6.B.a C. Site Design and Layout Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the form of either a Pedestrian Oriented Design Area, or an Alternative Walkable Design Area, as described in subsections 1 and 2 of this section, provided that an exceptions process, pursuant to Section 3 below, may be allowed. Additional site design and layout standards in this section must also be met. 1. Pedestrian oriented design area Unless otherwise permitted under subsections 2 or 3 of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a pedestrian -oriented design area. Primary Frontage. At least 50% of a building's fagade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept. The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3000 square feet and has met the requirement. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the 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 theadjaoentstreets; 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 characteristics of the lot or street. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage. Vehicle parking, other than as allowed for vehicle sales use, shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection 1 in 2017.05.05 Page 12 Packet Pg. 121 6.B.a this section may be allowed by the development services director only for sites that are found to have unique constraints related to vehicle or pedestrian access and for which a phased design plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the development services department. While they currently may be 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 requirements of this subsection. Building Placement A minimum of 50% of the building's fagade facing the primary street shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line . 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 the following: a. The street classification of the adjacent streets; b. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in thearea; c. The length of the block face on which the building is located;, d. The location of any alley or parking areas; or e. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. No more than one double —sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage. A pedestrian entrance must be located on that frontage. The following diagram illustrates the first -mentioned concept. Pedestrian entrance T t y 1gE.,d� Building within 60 feet of the property line 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. 3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Design An exception to the exact requirements of subsections 1 or 2 of this section may be allowed by the hearing examiner under a Type IIIA decision process to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses 2017.05.05 Page 13 Packet Pg. 122 6.B.a when the following criteria are met: a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange or has other unique pedestrian access constraints or is primarily used for motor vehicle sales; b. One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage and will meet the building design standards of this chapter; c. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening; d. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage; e. At least 25% of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the building to the street. f. Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between buildings to allow for shared use. e. Vehicle parking, other than that associated with a permitted auto sales use, is not allowed within the first 20 feet from the property line adjacent to a street. f. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space. 4. Amenity space. Amenity space is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities. a. An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity space. 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, amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5% of the additional parking area. 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. A minimum of 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 majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more of the following forms: 1. Recreation areas: an open space available for recreation. The area may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or recreational use. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not comprise more than 15% 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 or courtyards: an open space available for unstructured recreation or community gathering purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades 2017.05.05 Page 14 Packet Pg. 123 6.B.a with strong connections to interior uses. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping. Water features and artwork are optional. Exception: A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity space, provided that it: (a) is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage; (b) is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for growing edible produce; and (c) includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies. 4. Lighting. a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and 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 that are a maximum of 25 feet in height. c. Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have pedestrian -scaled lighting focused on the travel path. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered lighting may be sufficient. d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/ canopy. 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 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, I;L setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and other design details. 2017.05.05 Page 15 Packet Pg. 124 6.B.a c. Primary Frontage On the primary frontage, to provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, 50% of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, shall be comprised of windows or doors that are ■ 50% Min Transparency (may indude all Windows and glass doors, but not mirrored finishes) transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from this standard may be approved when the facade will not be visible from the public street due to the placement of other buildings on the site, provided that the requirements of subsection "e " in this section shall apply. d. All Other Building Frontages a. All street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of a dead-end street, 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. e. Wall treatment Building facades not subject to all requirements of ECDC 16.60.030.D.2.c or ECDC 16.60.030.D.2.d are intended to not display blank, unattractive walls to the public or to other building tenants. To accomplish this, walls greater than 30 feet in length shall have architectural treatment that incorporates 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. 2017.05.05 Page 16 Packet Pg. 125 6.B.a e. Projecting metal or wood canopy. f. Decorative tilework. g. Trellis containing planting. h. Medallions. i. Artwork or wall graphics. j. Vertical differentiation. k. Decorative lighting fixtures. I. Glazing m An architectural element not listed above that is approved by the director to meet the intent of this subsection. [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); 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. 2017.05.05 Page 17 Packet Pg. 126 6.B.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 r Q Packet Pg. 127 6.B.b occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection (E) of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet. D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows: Maximum Height of Zone Sign RS, RM 16 feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CG, CW, 114 feet WMU, FVMU Page 2 Formatted: Header Deleted: CG Formatted Table Deleted: 25 feet Formatted: Footer Packet Pg. 128 6.B.c 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. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply. Amenity space: outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an amenity or benefit to people Auto sales use: facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use. Frontage: the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street 2017.05.05 Page 1 Packet Pg. 129 6.B.c Primary frontage (or "primary street frontage"): frontage when it is adjacent to a street that is considered primary over any other streets to which the property is adjacent. 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; 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. Indoor sstorage facilities that either comprise less than 40% of a permitted primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory building or buildings comprising less than 40% of the leasable building space used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s). 3. Oen outdoor storage areas secondary OF iRtegralthat are 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„ ^ ided that succh A --Ad-^"" ed free"^ adjacent FPS r .,+, iZeRiRg166+ +5 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, 2007]. 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 2017.05.05 Page 2 Packet Pg. 130 6.B.c 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: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 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: 2017.05.05 Page 3 Packet Pg. 131 6.B.c 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 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'. 3 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 zones. 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,- as identified in Table A of this section.,.,hmeh ,dud- S the f.,.- the nt m.J RtofiedJ in T- hlp A Af *h0.- 2017.05.05 Page 4 Packet Pg. 132 6.B.c 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 open-air pedestrian areal from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian realm area 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, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of 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 asonly where 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 as —pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through -traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops; AG-AH-AGAGIP dining tables, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. 2017.05.05 Page 5 Packet Pg. 133 6.B.c w CL C: ru M U i 40 � dJ N py a) 7 UJ cn N d 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 RS Zone. 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. 2017.05.05 Page 6 Packet Pg. 134 s.s.� Height Lim it: 75' —I I I 10 6 I I I 5 I I I 4 I � I 0' 3 2 15'setW,kw th 10' 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 buffersStormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. shall be ;^*^^ +^ ;n*^ the design and I-,.,^r r+ A-f %yate.r dete.ntiA—n -;;nr-1 trp-atrnp—nt elements, to minurnize the physical and visual impacts d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. 2017.05.05 Page 7 Packet Pg. 135 6.B.c 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 commercial and multifamily pfefect-s-uses 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 GeRffete masonry 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. k. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum feer-five 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.D.2.e€-6; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque-,--ar. B. Access and vehicle Parking. 1. Parking requirements. Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and (b) for residential uses, e44e-.an averaEe of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square feet, and otherwise as Fecluired fer RM z9nes1.75 spaces, provided that a different ratio may be approved pursuant to subsection 3 of this section . In addition, guest parking must be provided at a minimum ratio of one guest space for every twenty required parking spaces. For mixed use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and 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. 2017.05.05 Page 8 Packet Pg. 136 6.B.c Parking meeting the non-residential parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. 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 re u" ^,^^*.- standards of this section when an applicant submits parking data vihie" 4II„Str_at illustrating that the standards of this Chapt do not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio 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 that includes data and analysis for one or more of the following: (A) 1-41 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; of (C) On -site car -share and bike share facilities: or I�Q(D) Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle parking needs as the general population. 34. 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. Outdoor pRarking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the p bliC StFeet {F^ntagearea within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto SHIPS I1SPS_ 45. 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 2017.05.05 Page 9 Packet Pg. 137 6.B.c capacity" means site design and construction that includes appFepFiate electrical wiring connection and ventilation, compliant with the City's building codes, to support potential or actual future electric vehicle charging stations. §6. Bicycle storage spaces 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 is not likely to use bicycles, shall be provided for residents at a ratio of 1 bicycle storage space 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. -57. 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. 48. 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 asand may include landscape barriers and landscape islands. 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. §9. 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. 2017.05.05 Page 10 Packet Pg. 138 6.B.c 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 be provided at full width dimensions. 610. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following: 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. 11-7. 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 -where 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. d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other. 2017.05.05 Page 11 Packet Pg. 139 6.B.c C. Site Design and Layout Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the form of either a Pedestrian Oriented Design Area, or an Alternative Walkable Design Area, as described in subsections 1 and 2 of this section, provided that an exceptions process, pursuant to Section 3 below, may be allowed. Additional site design and lavout standards in this section must also be met. 1. -Pedestrian oriented design area Unless otherwise permitted under subsections 2 or 3 of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a pedestrian -oriented design area. Primary Frontage. At least 50% of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept. The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3000 sauare feet and has met the reauirement. " w,;ni m of qQ% Af *h property line with the principal entrance le-ca+.,.d .,n that fFeRtage. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the +s-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 theadiaoenta4-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 EenstraiRts aR-d characteristics of the lot or street. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage. Vehicle parking, other than as allowed for vehicle sales use, shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 20 Page 12 Packet Pg. 140 6.B.c 2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection 1 in this section may be allowed by the development services director only for sites that are found to have with unique constraints related to vehicle or pedestrian access and for which a phased design plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the development services department. While they currently may be 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 requirements of this subsectionJ949 • ^^ Feg4 -^� Building Placement A minimum of 50% of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within frontage for any development `hall have buildings within 60 feet of the front property line with the PFOReipal eRtF-,Ree i.,,,-t-A „r that 49ptage. 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 dBevelopment s5ervices director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: a. The street classification of a4the adjacent streets; b. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in thearea; c. The length of the block face on which the building is located;a+�d, d. The location of any alley or parking areas; or- e. Parking characteristics of the lot or street. No more than one double —sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage. A pedestrian entrance must be located on that frontage. The following diagram illustrates the first -mentioned concept. 2017.05.0_ Page 13 Packet Pg. 141 6.B.c 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. 3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Desien An exception to the exact requirements of subsections 1 or 2 of this section may be allowed by the hearing examiner under a Type IIIA decision process to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses when the following criteria are met: a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange or has other unique Pedestrian access constraints -or is primarilyy used for motor vehicle sales; b. One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage and Wm4will meet the building design standards of this chapter; c. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening; d. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage; e. At least 25% of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the building to the street. f. Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between buildings to allow for shared use. e. Vehicle parking, other than that associated with a permitted ve4k e-auto sales fyuse, is not allowed within the first 20 feet from the property line adjacent to a street. f. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space. 34. Amenity space. Amenity space w4-is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities. a. An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint or the parking lot area being develeped whiehevei: area is greatersite, shall be provided as amenity space. 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, amenity space must be provided to eaual at least 5% of the additional parkine area. 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 leastA minimum of 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 majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more -of the following forms: 2017.05.05 Page 14 Packet Pg. 142 6.B.c 1. Recreation areas: an open space available for „nstr, *,"-^d recreation. The area may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or recreational useaad- trees _and must provide ^ lmlilnilmlurn ^{ 6-0 eent planted p "{^^^ Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not comprise more than 2-015% 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 or courtyards: 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. Exception: A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity space, provided that it: (a) is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage; (b) is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for growing edible produce; and (c) includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies. 4. Lighting. a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and 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 wit-lrthat are a maximum of 25 feet in height c. Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have Iew heig4tp_tclestrian- scaled lighting focused on pathway -the travel pathafea. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered lighting may be sufficient. d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/canopy 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, 2017.05.05 Page 15 Packet Pg. 143 6.B.c 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 103,000 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 On the primary frontage, tore 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 ■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all Windows and glass doors, but not mirrored finishes) transparent, the bottom of 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 "es er Subsecti "g in this section shall apply. 4d. All Other Building Frontages a. All other street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of a dead-end street, shall comply with the standard below. i. Thirty percent (30%) of the building fagade 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 2017.05.05 Page 16 Packet Pg. 144 6.B.c be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40% in order to meet this requirement. 6e. Wall treatment Buildine facades not subiect to all reauirements of ECDC 16.60.030.D.2.c or ECDC 16.60.030.D.2.d are intended to T^ ^^S-Wr^ that buildings de not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets 9F Fesidential pFepeFtiespublic or to other building tenants. To accomplish this„ walls 9F pertiens ef walisgreater than 30 feet in length �'"'^ fr^". FesideRtially ZeRed ^ ertif � shall have architectural treatment applied by that incorporates 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 or wood canopy. f. Decorative tilework. g. Trellis containing planting. h. Medallions. i. Artwork or wall graphics. j. Vertical differentiation. k. Decorative IL-ighting fixtures. I. Glazing m. An architectural element not listed above —,as that is approved by the director —,that aneets to meet the intent of this subsection. [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 -ion business; 2017.05.05 Page 17 Packet Pg. 145 6.B.c 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); S. 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. 2017.05.05 Page 18 Packet Pg. 146 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES Sections: 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. 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 standards. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two distinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in ECDC 16.60.020 (A). [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.005 Purposes. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . The CG and CG2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city. Mixed -use and transit -oriented developments are encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall mixed development scheme. B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to support business and economic development. C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development should be high -quality and varied — not generic — and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. Where designated in the comprehensive plan, the zoning should encourage mixed -use or taller high-rise development to occur. E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including Packet Pg. 147 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 2 6.B.d buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned properties. G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian -friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and — when available — public investment. H. Within the corridor, high-rise nodes designated in the comprehensive plan should provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should be: 1. Supported by adequate services and facilities; 2. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques; 3. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access; 4. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 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; 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. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone contained in this chapter. C. Prohibited Uses. Packet Pg. 148 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 3 6.B.d 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, 2007]. 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, PG-13, R, and NC-17 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: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 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; Packet Pg. 149 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 4 6.B.d 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 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. ........................................................................................................................—1-1-1 .......................................................................................................................................................... . A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Flc Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area Packet Pg. 150 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 5 6.B.d Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Flc Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None 4'2 None' 60'3 None CG2 None None 4'2 Nonel 75,3 None 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 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Reporting. The development services director shall provide a report to the city council by February 1, 2016, to summarize 2015 development activities for the CG and CG2 districts in the Highway 99 area, especially related to land uses and vehicle parking. The report is intended to provide information about how land use and parking aspects of this chapter are working. [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design standards. Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone or 75 feet in height in the CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG or CG2 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. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building setback. c. Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. d. 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. e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. Packet Pg. 151 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 6 6.B.d 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. j. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single-family zones k. When no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping three feet in width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages. b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls, 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 Parking. 1. Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for nonresidential uses, one space per 400 square feet of leaseable building space; and (b) for residential uses, as required for RM zones. 2. Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. 3. Paths within Parking Lots. Packet Pg. 152 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 7 6.B.d a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that are approved by 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 on -site buildings as well as pedestrian walkways that border the development. c. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on each side or have curb stops at each stall in the parking lot on one side and four feet of planting on the second side. d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum of every 100 feet. 4. 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 be provided at full -width dimensions. 5. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. b. Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off site. c. Only one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the drive -through shall be internal to the site. 6. 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. Packet Pg. 153 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 8 6.B.d c. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are required. C. Site Design and Layout. 1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, then their location on the site design should not be uniform in its layout. If a project has a uniform site layout for parking and open spaces, then the buildings shall vary in form, materials, and/or identity. The following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least five of the elements were 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. Spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, e. Composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, f. Types of building materials and/or elements, g. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Individuality for Particular Structures. If a project contains several new or old buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: a. Individual entry design for each building. b. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, open spaces, and the street. c. Create variety through facade materials and organization. d. Create variety through roof forms. e. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and appearance. 3. 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. Packet Pg. 154 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 9 6.B.d D. Building Design and Massing. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top." A "base" and "top" can be emphasized in different ways, such as masonry pattern, more architectural detail, step -backs and overhangs, lighting, recesses, visible "plinth" above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 2. In buildings with footprints of over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be given to scale, massing, and facade design so as to reduce the effect of large single building masses. Ways to accomplish this can include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, setbacks, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. This can also be accomplished by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. Note that facade offsets or step -backs should not be applied to the ground floor of street -front facades in pedestrian -oriented zones or districts. 3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space which may substitute for a massing requirement if the space is at least 1,000 square feet in area. In commercial zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables, planters and other elements. b. Retaining or reusing an historic structure listed on the National Register or the Edmonds register of historic places. Any addition or new building on the site must be designed to be compatible with the historic structure. 4. 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. Packet Pg. 155 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES 10 6.B.d 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); 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 premises 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 by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4065, passed April 11, 2017. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. u Packet Pg. 156 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1660.html 5/5/2017 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/10/2017 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: 05-10-2017 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 157 OY F.➢M N pLAKIMVW� BOARD "nc. 1890 Extended Agenda May 10, 2017 Meeting Item MAY 2017 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change 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 3. Report on Development Services Activities Presentation May 24 Open House on Highway 99 DEIS (Public Safety Foyer) 6-7 pm May 24 1. Retreat JUNE 2017 June 14 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Update 2. Public Hearing on Water Comp Plan 2017 June 28 1. Review of Proposed Planned Action Code Language JULY 2017 July 12 1. Public Hearing on Proposed Planned Action Code Language July 26 AUGUST 2017 August 9 August 23 r Q Packet Pg. 158 Items ana Dates are 9.A.a to change 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) Packet Pg. 159