2017-05-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF RETREAT
May 24, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the retreat session of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room of
City Hall, 121 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Matthew Cheung (excused)
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There
was no discussion relative to the report.
DISCUSSION WITH BARTELL'S REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Mark Craig, President of Henbart, introduced himself and shared background and history information about the Henbart
LLC Company (formerly the George Henry Bartell Company, which was formed in 1924). The Board Members introduced
themselves, as well.
Mr. Craig explained that Henbart developed the Bartell's Drug Store at Westgate Village in 2001. The company only owns a
small number of its stores, and most of its locations are leased. Henbart looks for acquisition opportunities in the
marketplace, particularly focusing on properties it owns, as well as properties that are adjacent to their existing properties.
Henbart entered into a Purchase of Sale Agreement with the previous owner in 2013. At that time, the center was strong with
a number of retailers, but he felt that the additional property, with the slopes and trees as the background, would make an
excellent location for residential or mixed -use development. He later learned of the City's process to rezone the Westgate
area. He advised that closing on the property was delayed to address environmental issues, and the final closing occurred
within a week of when the City Council approved the Westgate Subarea Plan. Henbart engaged Studio Meng Strazzara to
begin to create what they thought would be a special type of development, given the opportunity to use the treed slope as the
backdrop, but also take advantage of all of the amenities that would be available in the area.
Board Member Lovell asked if Henbart has maintained an interface with the residents living in the area throughout the
planning process. Mr. Henbart answered that Henbart hosted a public meeting just prior to the ADB review, and 40 to 50
notifications were mailed out to immediate neighbors. Board Member Lovell asked if Henbart plans to have additional
public meetings to keep the public informed of its plans. He recalled that when the Planning Board conducted its review and
public hearing relative to the Westgate Subarea Plan, there was a lot of public comment, and most were concerned about
having monstrous buildings that completely change the character of their neighborhood. They were also concerned that too
many trees would be removed, and the buffer between the residential and commercial development would be lost. The Board
did a lot of shuffling to address these issues, and he is curious to know whether or not there will be as much public interest in
the proposed plan going forward. Mr. Craig said there was a good turnout at the meeting Henbart hosted (about 20), and he
feels strongly that everyone left with their questions answered. He said he also attended the City Council meetings where the
Westgate Subarea Plan was the topic of discussion, and he heard a lot of the neighbor's concerns. However, those in
attendance at the most recent public meeting seemed more concerned about traffic and parking than with the mass, size and
scale of the proposed buildings. Mr. Chave noted that no one was present to testify at the public hearing before the
Architectural Design Board (ADB). Board Member Robles asked if neighbors on top of the slope are still concerned about
the impacts that rooftop mechanical equipment can have. Mr. Chave answered that most of these concerns were addressed at
the public meeting that was held prior to the ADB hearing. The notion is that the residents were satisfied, since none of them
attended the ADB hearing. Mr. Craig commented that one resident on top of the slope was particularly concerned, but it was
noted that the slope would not be impacted by the proposed development.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if Henbart plans to have additional public meetings as the project progresses, and Mr. Craig
answered affirmatively. He explained that Henbart tends to build projects to hold, and there are no plans to put the properties
on the market once the project has stabilized. Charles Strazzara, AIA, President of Studio Meng Strazzara emphasized
that he works with both types of developers. One type is considered a merchant builder who builds to lease, but once their
projects are leased, they look to sell and move on. Henbart intends to hold the property, which means that quality products
and materials will be used, and the project will be deliverable both inside and out. This type of developer tends to be more
cautious about the neighborhood context because they intend to hold the development. He suggested that much of the
concern from adjacent neighbors is based on confusion and false assumptions. Henbart has done a great job addressing their
concerns, and that is why no one was present to testify at the ADB hearing. He said addressing adjacency issues has been a
common goal from the beginning, given that the single-family residential use abuts a more intense use. They tried to be extra
compassionate in terms of adjacency, recognizing that the slope and trees provide an excellent buffer. The intent was to
maintain their existing environment as much as possible, and the pattern of vegetation they see throughout the seasons should
not change.
Mr. Craig said he was asked to comment on the types of communities and neighborhoods Henbart prefers to develop in. As a
long-term holding company, their focus is very specific to real estate and location. He referred to the Valley Commons
Project, which Henbart recently completed at 56th and 22nd in Ballard across from the library and Ballard Commons Park.
The site was developed with 84 for -rent residential units, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and 22,000 square feet of office
space. The project took advantage of the City of Seattle's Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program, which is intended
to result in more affordable units. He also noted that Henbart is currently developing a site on Capitol Hill across the street
from the light rail station entrance at Broadway and Denny. This development should be completed in August and will
include 44 residential units and 3,500 square feet of retail space. They were particularly attracted to this site because of its
close proximity to the light rail station and other amenities. They are also working on a project on Central Way in Kirkland,
which should start in 2019. The project will be similar to the one being done on Capitol Hill with residential and office
space. It will be across the street from Peter Kirk Park, as well as the library and transit center. He said they were attracted
to the Westgate site in Edmonds because of its close proximity to walkable amenities.
Chair Rubenkonig noted that the idea of mixed -use buildings is hardly new. Her grandmother, and others who were money
challenged, lived on top of the farmers store. The rooms shared a common bathroom down the hall, but they were located in
the center of town. She never felt her grandmother lacked for social standing as to where she lived. She is glad to see mixed
use buildings coming back again in the center of town to provide a sense of place and be part of the community. Mr. Craig
explained that retail is such an important component of a mixed -use development, and they put a great deal of focus on not
only the design layout and functionality of the retail, but also on the types of businesses located there.
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 2
Board Member Robles asked if Henbart developments tend to focus more on lower -density, higher income development or
higher -density, lower income development. Mr. Craig answered that, by virtue of the location of their projects, the focus is
definitely not on lower income. However, the projects on Capitol Hill and Ballard are part of the MFTE Program, which is an
affordability program implemented by the City of Seattle. Henbart will apply to participate in a similar program that is
administered by the City of Edmonds.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that housing costs are going up rapidly in the Seattle area, and it seems that they are no
longer talking about affordable housing. He asked what Mr. Craig anticipates the rental rates will be for the proposed
Westgate development. Mr. Craig said the City is currently working on a matrix that will set the rental rate parameters for
the tax exemption program, which will be modeled after the City of Seattle's table but based on Snohomish County values.
Board Member Lovell asked if escalating construction costs mean that the calculations being done for rental rates and the
cost of construction will cross at some point to make the projects pencil out. While the concepts and principals are great,
there are a number of things in the economy that are moving faster. Mr. Craig answered affirmatively, but he cautioned that
they are proceeding with their eyes wide open. They are working with a number of contractors in an effort to keep the costs
down. He pointed out that although the market rate for rent is much higher in Seattle, the construction costs are the same.
While they are gearing up internally to move the project forward, he acknowledged that it will be challenging. Mr. Chave
noted that the proposed unit sizes are relative small, and affordability is a relative term. He reminded the Board that smaller
units is one housing type that is lacking in Edmonds because the old zoning codes tended to push towards large units based
on the density requirements. Because there is no specific density requirement for the Westgate Subarea, it is hoped that the
market will decide the size of the units, rental rates, etc. Mr. Craig said he heard early from City staff of the City's desire to
bring smaller units into the market, and they tried to work this into the design. Mr. Chave said the City's Housing Strategy
calls for providing as many housing choices as possible, and that was one of the hopes for Westgate.
Questions were raised about whether or not the proposed project would be developed with the idea that the units could be
sold as condominiums at some point. Mr. Craig emphasized that is not Henbart's intent. Mr. Strazzara advised that all of his
design work is done to condominium standards, regardless of whether they are intended to be sold or leased.
Board Member Crank pointed out that the development in which she previously lived attempted to convert to condominiums,
but learned that it was more difficult to sell the smaller units because they offered fewer amenities. They had more success
with the larger units. She asked if the units proposed at Westgate would have washers and dryers in each unit, and Mr. Craig
answered affirmatively. Board Member Crank commented that this would help deflect from the smaller size of the units
because they provide a certain convenience factor.
Board Member Crank emphasized that the City must be very deliberate when talking about affordable housing as opposed to
low-income housing, which has such a stigma. The dialogue should be intentional to make it clear the units would be
affordable to those in the median income. She said she hopes the Board and Council can be intentional in tying these
together.
Board Member Robles recalled that "aging in place" is also a goal of the City, and the intent is to avoid driving people out of
their homes because they cannot afford to keep them. For example, a homeowner could lease a portion of his/her home or
construct an accessory dwelling unit on the property, which would provide rental income that allows them to stay in their
homes as opposed to turning the property over to a developer. He emphasized that part of the branding for affordable
housing should include the idea of allowing people to age in place. He asked if Henbart's buildings are designed with that in
mind. He noted that the standards for condos are different than for apartments. Mr. Strazzara said it is not a development
strategy at this time, but they make it part of their concept of design. For example, their designs provide parking, secure
buildings, and other amenities that an owner would want. However, for -rent products have such a strong market in the
region, that is what is currently being constructed.
Mr. Strazzara said what the board is doing as a group right now is perfect and forward thinking, and it will set the City up for
success in the future. He recalled that seven years ago, 90% of his company's mixed -use projects occurred in the large cities.
However, he predicted that, as the cities become more expensive, certain parts of the demographic would look elsewhere for
similar value (walkability, connectivity, security, services). Now, about 90% of his projects are done in the outlying areas,
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 3
and cities that have responded to this change are doing great. How the City positions itself will determine its success in the
new marketplace. He shared the following examples:
• The City of Kent's downtown code did not allow housing, and this model was no longer effective after the market
changed. They approached him for advice, and he encouraged them to change their codes to allow residential
development to bring people to the area to shop, walk, etc. The Platform Project was done as a pilot program. The 176-
unit project was super successful and all units were quickly leased. Another similar project has now been developed in
the area.
• He was approached by representatives from the City of Auburn about how to encourage development on vacant lots in
their downtown area. He pointed out that empty lots are the worst thing for a downtown core because they create a loss
of connectivity and walkability. The City changed its zoning to allow residential development and the Trek Project was
constructed on a vacant lot that was owned by the City of Auburn, near where the transit platform was built. The project
provided parking and commercial space on the ground floor, with four floors of residential development above. Other
projects are now moving forward in this area, as well.
• He worked with the Maple Valley Planning Commission to rewrite the city's codes for the Five Corners area, which is
considered their major retail hub. Based on a study done by a third -party consultant, only 8% of the housing stock was
multi -family, compared to an average of between 20% and 30% for other outlying cities (Edmonds is around 40%).
Because only 8% of the housing stock is multi -family, Maple Valley quickly became unaffordable for people to live and
work there. He advised them to reincorporate density and housing into select areas of the City. Once the zoning was
changed to allow flexibility, two large projects were done that resulted in nearly 400 new units. The new residents are
now able to access amenities within a walkable distance.
• Federal Way is another example of having a bad stigma by having a lot of apartments that are focused in a few areas. He
advised them to encourage housing in the retail core, and development took off.
• The Meeker Street Corridor in Kent is prototypical of the type of auto -oriented development that occurred because of
code constraints (single -story building with surface parking around it). This same type of development is present in
Edmonds, as well. The City of Kent has been able to revitalize the corridor by changing the zoning to allow residential
development to occur and by having more flexible commercial requirements. He noted that it is not desirable to have too
much commercial development in the core commercial areas, and it is important to be flexible on the percentage of
commercial space required and how to best integrate it into the mixed -use developments.
Board Member Robles pointed out that low-income units have higher densities and higher -income units have lower densities.
However, lower densities mean fewer people going to the retail businesses. He asked if there is an equation to determine the
correct mix. He also pointed out that Edmonds is still a "commute to downtown Seattle" community. You can't move much
further north and still have a decent commute to Seattle, and the Westgate intersection will be a highly -valued place to live.
Mr. Strazzara agreed and said he considers the project to be transit -oriented development (TOD) because of its proximity to
the urban core. Again, he said it is great that the City is having this dialogue and recognizes the need for flexibility.
Mr. Chave said Highway 99 is a classic example of the problems that the City of Kent experienced on Meeker Street.
Although the corridor has been zoned for high-rise development for a long time, it requires two -stories of commercial
development. The common type of development along the corridor is single -story commercial. The City changed its zoning
a few years ago to allow development that is entirely residential, with horizontal mixed use, etc. Suddenly, the City is seeing
more interest from developers. Mr. Strazzara said it is important to match the current market or the developers will not
come. There is a performance or risk/reward that developers need to hit. In Maple Valley, they wanted walkability and
pedestrian corners. Since the commercial requirement could not be beneath the podium deck, they did a commercial center in
the heavy traffic corner of the project, and it connects to the apartments behind. They also allowed horizontal integration.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if this is the first Bartell's store in Snohomish County that has a residential component. Mr. Craig
answered affirmatively. Mr. Strazzara emphasized that having 90 units of housing in an area that is walkable is considered a
TOD as long as the vertical and/or horizontal integration has a quantifiable pedestrian-scape that is within walkable distance
to services. He said he hopes that this type of development occurs along the entire corridor.
Board Member Crank expressed a desire to review the proposed plans for the Westgate Project. Chair Rubenkonig advised
that it was not the intent to go through the plans at the retreat. It was noted that the project has been reviewed by the ADB,
and Mr. Craig agreed to meet with Board Member Crank to review the specifics of the plan.
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 4
Board Member Robles observed that the City is already fulfilling its Growth Management Act mandate for growth based on
its current zoning. They are not looking to make themselves attractive for multi -family development in other areas.
However, they are looking for advice on how to make the City attractive to great projects that are consistent with Edmonds
values. Mr. Strazzara agreed it is important for the City to maintain its values. Board Member Robles commented that
"aging in place" also means giving people the same opportunity to develop their own property as a construction company
coming into town. They don't want to encourage developers to buy single-family lots and develop condo units.
Mr. Strazzara referred to the questions submitted prior to the meeting by the Board and responded as follows:
What kinds of communities and neighborhoods do you prefer to develop in and why? Architects and developers
want to create high -quality, creative projects, which is common with the City's goals. Developers want to develop
quality products that resonate with the community they are being built in. That is what has the best chance for success
and longevity. It is important to be flexible with how you get there with a commitment to community values while
embracing the need to allow for growth change to the existing built environment. No developer will be interested in
redeveloping a one-story retail building in the same model. The model has changed, and the City must be adaptable to
the changing environment. It is important to be forward thinking. Lifestyles are changing and Edmonds must adapt
now and in the future. He referred to a project in downtown Phoenix, which was required to meet an erroneous parking
standard, yet many of the spaces have never even been used. He encouraged them to change their standard. Years ago,
most people owned cars, but that is no longer the case. Many of the young people that work for his company do not own
cars and prefer to walk, commute, and ride the bus. It is important to have a partnering mentality with the private
sector, developers and the design community. It is about opening yourself up to developers and architects by identifying
the intentions you want to achieve via development (walkable neighborhoods, a sense of place, a sense of arrival, and
amenity features)., and then talk about how they can get there. As long as the intent of the code is met, you get much
more progress. Edmonds is one of his favorite cities to work in because of what they are doing, and he encouraged them
to do more. He had a project in Redmond called the PCC and Avondale Plaza, which received the People's Choice
Award for Excellence in Design in 2006 and 2012. The project met the criteria he described above of forward thinking,
partnering, and being flexible. It was done as a pilot program on existing parcels that were rezoned to neighborhood
commercial. The regulations were taken away and new ones were created under the "best intention" rule, which
provided maximum flexibility, including reductions in traffic and parking requirements.
When considering development what do you look for as far as City regulations? He prefers to have informal
strategy sessions and understanding between the design team and City staff, which the City already does. Openness to
discussions on parking regulations and the changing regional transit scene and new urbanism are important, as well.
People want to live, work, shop, and play in an environment that is less reliant on cars and more walkable, and the City
should be open to providing these areas. It is also important to have an equitable entitlement process and associated fees.
Many developers turn down great sites because of the high impact fees associated with the parcels, and this is hurting
downtown cores because there are empty blocks. The City should be open to offering reductions and incentives to those
groups with stronger -designed projects. Impact fees could be incentive based.
What local regulations or incentives are especially important for developers. Development incentives are the best
way to meet common goals of a desired development quality. The most commonly asked question of developers is,
"What do we get in return for meeting the City's zoning requirements?" As long as a developer feels there is mutual
understanding of the incentive program, you get good projects. Incentive programs can even be weighted more to the
City's advantage, as long as developers get something valuable in return. For example, he commended the City for
allowing an extra floor of height in exchange for other amenities in the Westgate Subarea. Board Member Robles asked
if staff would act as adjudicator if the Planning Division is given a fair amount of space to negotiate for incentives if and
when a really great project comes forward. Mr. Strazzara commented that the City has already adopted an incentive
zoning program, and Bellevue has one, as well. Base zoning is regulatory and by the books, but allowing flexibility for
creative design via incentives results in better designed buildings. Most developers want to build quality products, but
they want to make sure that whatever they do to add value for the community results in some type of incentive to offset
the additional cost. Cities that do not have good incentive programs in place get mundane projects because there is no
reason to go beyond the basic box. Incentives that are most important are those that add project area, parking share
plans, impact fees, and phasing.
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 5
What incentives are used for both positive and negative outcome in Edmonds and regional regarding locally
required design standards? The City's bonus point incentive program is great. It is straightforward and very easy to
understand. It's easy to see the benefits to the community and the developer. The City's active planning staff is the most
helpful he has worked with. They provide helpful guidance for the submittal work that is required by code. The park
sharing the City allows is great and he appreciates that the City's codes are flexible. Many times, the intent of both the
developer and the City is the same, but it requires a different way to get there. The design review process is excellent,
and the planning recap done by the planner was great to set the table for the ADB's review. On the other hand, there are
always challenges of being the first, and it always comes during the decision -making process. Hopefully, their project
will set a precedence so the process can move faster in the future. Lastly, he said it is important to have a connection
between the code language and available products and the efficiency of energy consumption. The City should trust the
architects to know exactly where things are trending and what products use less energy, and the City's code needs to
adapt to the trends. For example, if the code were to allow a few extra inches in height for an elevator, it would open a
project up to a variety of other options that are more energy efficient. Mr. Chave commented that upon further review,
the City's code regarding elevators may be more flexible than thought. However, he agreed that this particular code
section, as well as others, are dated. Mr. Strazzara summarized that, for the most part, the City is right on. The openness
of staff, creativeness of staff, and bonus program are great. The City is forward thinking and appears to be amenable to
future changes.
Mr. Strazzara summarized that times are changing and connectivity is becoming more and more important. There is a need
for smaller units in places that are close to amenities and affordable. They know what the rental cost must be based on the
cost to build. If they reduce the size of the units, they also reduce the cost. There is a need to live big in a smaller space such
as providing a washer/dryer and providing amenity spaces in the buildings for connections. Even though the units will be
small, the proposed project at Westgate provides a spa, rooftop garden, gym, terraced balconies and other communal space.
The trend is that people prefer this type of development.
Mr. Strazzara said his parents moved from their home in Magnolia to an assisted living unit in Magnolia because they didn't
want to leave their neighborhood. This same opportunity exists in Edmonds, and he anticipates that there will be older
people living in the Westgate project. Board Member Robles agreed and said this is just one option the City could encourage
to allow people to "age in place." Other options include accessory dwelling units, Airbnb, renting out a room in their home,
etc. Mr. Strazzara agreed this is very important and the Westgate project will be fully accessible throughout.
Board Member Lovell asked how the City could avoid development that is basically five stories of sticks on a concrete
podium. Mr. Strazzara said his opinion is that more specific regulations would be the wrong way to go. If they want to build
a "ship box" they will find a way to do it no matter how strict the regulations are. The best approach is to provide incentives,
which encourage buy -in from the design team and provide benefits to both the City and the developer. Strict regulations end
up with dead pockets in the City that never develop or developers who learn to work around the regulations.
Mr. Strazzara summarized that history makes Edmonds a bedroom community that supports Seattle, but it is also an urban
area with its own identity. The proposed development at Westgate is very urban for the context of Edmonds.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig reported that she had a discussion with the Development Services Director regarding the Housing Strategy
and learned that the City is still working with the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) to establish the scope of work
before hiring a consultant for the project. The Board's work on the Housing Strategy will not resume until the consultant's
report is available for their review.
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 6
Regarding the Five Corners Subarea Plan, Chair Rubenkonig announced that it has been decided that the previous work could
be strengthened by hiring a consultant to do a feasibility study. However, this study has not been done to date. The Board
will remain in a holding position until the study has been completed. Mr. Chave said, given the amount of time taken up with
the Shoreline Master Program and Highway 99, the staff s plates are full. In addition, it is a benefit to be slower with Five
Corners as they wait to see lessons learned from the Westgate project.
Board Member Robles asked if it would be beneficial for the Board to review the Five Corners work before it is sent to the
consultant for a feasibility study. That would allow the Board to better respond to the consultant's ideas. Perhaps the Board
could provide input into the consultant's scope of work. Mr. Chave said the consultant would be reviewing market factors
and identifying what is needed for development to move forward. He noted that a consultant has not been hired yet.
Mr. Chave reported that a consultant has been hired to complete the Urban Forest Management Plan, and they have met with
the Tree Board and had some stakeholder interviews.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig advised that she and Vice Chair Monroe need to prepare a report to the City Council regarding the
Planning Board's recent work. She would like to include information about the status of the Five Corners Subarea Plan and
Housing Strategy. The report to Council is scheduled for a meeting in June. Mr. Chave suggested they work with Ms. Hope
to prepare the report.
Chair Rubenkonig said she found tonight's discussion helpful. She was very pleased with the positive comments that were
made regarding the City's forward -thinking approaches.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Monroe reported on his attendance at the May 17th Economic Development Commission meeting, where they
discussed three new focuses: affordable housing, development of the arts and civil assets. They are interested in relocating
some of the City's administrative offices from City Hall to make room for a hotel.
Board Member Lovell said it is important for the Board Members to be aware that light rail is coming to the region, and
property values in the areas with stations are going up. A few years ago, the oversight panel made a strong recommendation
to Sound Transit that they needed to be a little more take charge when it comes to transit -oriented development because the
law requires that excess lands used for staging and storage during construction are to be sold at market rate once the project
has been completed. He noted that the Roosevelt Station area is literally becoming a City of high-rise buildings and property
values are increasing. Single-family residents are being pushed out, and buildings are going higher and higher. Although
Highway 99 will not have light rail, he wonders if the Herbart Company has paid attention to opportunities in Mountlake
Terrace, which markets itself as the closest bedroom community to Seattle on the north side.
Lovell said he has some angst towards Highway 99 in terms of what can and will happen, and he pointed out that the new
Animal Cancer Center at Five Corners was a huge investment and the site will not likely be redeveloped for quite some time.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
May 24, 2017 Page 7