Loading...
2017-05-24 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 24, 2017, 6:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: May 10, 2017 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 5. DISCUSSION WITH BARTELL'S REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES A. Discussion with Bartell's representatives 6. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review of Extended Agenda 7. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 8. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda May 24, 2017 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/24/2017 Approval of Draft Minutes: May 10, 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: PB170510d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 10, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Phil Lovell BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There was no discussion relative to the report. She also referred to the Development Activities Report, which was also included in the meeting packet. Board Member Lovell commented that it is an extensive report with a lot of visual aids. Mr. Chave advised that the report was presented to the City Council and was provided to the Board as a matter of information. The report is available on line, as is the City Council meeting at which the report was presented. Board Member Lovell encouraged members of the public to view the report. Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE FOR PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT REZONE R-97-28 (CONTRACT RS-8 TO RS-12) Chair Rubenkonig reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded the Board and public of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which requires that the hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. She asked whether any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All members answered no. Next, she asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. All Board Member responded no. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members' participation as a decisionmaker in the hearing, and no one in the audience voiced a concern. Lastly, she asked everyone planning to testify during the hearing to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they would give would be the truth. Mr. Lien provided a vicinity map to illustrate the location of the subject properties, which are located in the Perrinville area of Edmonds between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive. One of the parcels is owned by the City, and the other four parcels are in private ownership. The rezone application was initiated by the City, but the private property owner has submitted an email in support of the rezone application, as well. Mr. Lien reviewed the subject property's long procedural history: • A rezone from RS-12 to RS-8 was first proposed for a portion of the properties in 1992 (R-92-39). The Planning Board recommended denial, and the application was ultimately withdrawn. • In 1996, the previous property owner applied for a street map amendment (ST-96-77) and street vacation (ST-96-78) in order to develop a portion of the site. The City Council approved the street map change and street vacation (Attachment 7 of the Staff Report), but held final approval until such time that a development plan was approved providing for adequate alternative connections for roads, pedestrian and bikeways, and utilities in the area. • In 1997, the previous property owners applied for a contract rezone (R-97-28) for the subject parcels (including a City - owned parcel for which the City had entered into a conditional sale agreement) from Single Family Resident (RS)-12 to RS-8. The contract rezone was approved with eight conditions, including requiring that development of the site be approved through a Planned Residential Development (PRD) process, incorporating the requirements of the street map amendment and street vacation, and limiting the percent of buildable area to 21 %. • In 2001, the City initiated a rezone from the contract RS-8 back to RS-12 (R-01-168) because the property owner had not yet applied for the PRD or met other requirements of the contract rezone. The City and the property owner eventually came to a settlement agreement that spelled out a timeline for a PRD submittal and the City withdrew the rezone application. • In 2002, the previous property owners applied to amend the contract rezone provisions that limited building pads to 21 % of the net buildable area, but the City Council denied the request. • In 2005, the previous property owners applied to amend the contract rezone provisions again, but staff recommended denial and the application was withdrawn. • In 2005, an application for a 27-lot formal plat and PRD (Angler's Crossing) was submitted. Both the plat and PRD received preliminary approval in January of 2007, but the approval was never finalized and preliminary approval expired in January of 2017. • On March 14, 2017, the City Council initiated the current rezone application via Resolution 1384. Mr. Lien explained that a contract rezone adds extra conditions to a rezone above and beyond what would normally be required in the zone. The current contract RS-8 zoning places limitations on lot coverage and height and requires that the properties be developed via a PRD. The proposal before the Board was initiated by the City Council and would change the zoning of the five parcels from contract RS-8 to RS-12 (no contract). He briefly reviewed the differences between the RS-8 and RS-12 zones as follows: Minimum lot area is 8,000 square feet in the RS-8 zone and 12,000 square feet in the RS-12 zone. Density in the RS-8 zone is 5.5 units per acre, compared to 3.7 units per acre in the RS-12 zone. Minimum lot width in the RS-8 zone is 70 feet, and 80 feet in the RS-12 zone. He noted that reverting back to the RS-12 zoning, as proposed, would also invalidate the street vacation and street map amendment that were attached to the contract rezone. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the criteria they must considering when reviewing rezone applications, which is found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40.010. He reviewed the criteria as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lien advised that the current zoning is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject parcels, which is Single Family Resource (SFR). Compatible zoning for the SFR designation include RSW-12, RS-12 and RS-20. The proposed rezone would make the property consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation. 2. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Lien explained that, according to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: 1) "to assist in the implementation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the Comprehensive Plan; " and 2) "to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with the public health and safety and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. " He further explained that one of the reasons the City has large -lot Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning is to protect critical areas. Large lots sizes provide more opportunity to avoid disturbance of existing natural features (particularly vegetative cover) and provide an opportunity to maintain linkages between critical areas and habitat. Larger lot sizes in areas subject to landslide hazards also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes and reduce the probability that continued slide activity will harm people or residences. He summarized that rezoning the property to RS-12 would provide a density that is more consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties. Mr. Lien reviewed that the neighborhood is comprised of a variety of different zones and Comprehensive Plan designations. The subject properties are on the western edge of the Perrinville Commercial Area and across from Olympic View Drive from the Perrinville Post Office. North of the properties are single-family properties zoned RS-12 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource (SFR). The properties to the south are zoned RS-8 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Urban 1 (SFU-1). The properties to the west of the site across 80t' Avenue West are zoned RS-10 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Urban 3 (SFU-3). The subject properties have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Single -Family Resource (SFR). He summarized that, of the three adjacent single-family zones, only RS-12 is consistent with the property's current Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, rezoning the property back to RS-12 would make the zoning compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation. 4. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Lien explained that when the property was rezoned to contract RS-8 in 1997, the Comprehensive Plan did not distinguish between small and large lot single-family designations. This distinction was first made in 2003, and in 2004 the current five categories for single-family designations were established, including the Single Family Resource (SFR) for the site. He also explained that the current contract rezone requires that the property be developed through the PRD process (ECDC 20.35). However, it is important to note that the PRD regulations have since been changed and the property might no longer be able to meet the new requirements. For example, the current PRD code requires at least 10% of the gross lot area in useable open space, but the required landscape buffers and critical areas (except for trails) cannot be counted towards the useable space requirements. Much of the subject parcels contain critical areas, including potential landslide hazard areas, erosion hazards and a small wetland. It is not likely that 10% of useable open space outside of the critical areas could be achieve. 5. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere in the same zoning. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the site's history and contract rezone led towards a specific development that expired and never came to fruition. Prior to the contract rezone, the site was zoned RS-12. He summarized that the property has remained undeveloped, and it is time to rezone it back to RS-12. 6. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Lien explained that, given the changes to the PRD code, the site could not likely be Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a developed under the current PRD regulations, as required by the existing zoning. Rezoning the site to RS-12 would allow the property to be developed at densities appropriate for the constraints on the property. In addition, other regulations, such as critical area and stormwater regulations, will provide a relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare over the existing RS-8 zoning classification. Mr. Lien summarized that staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval of the rezone application, which would rezone the property from contract RS-8 back to RS-12. He noted that the City received one email pertaining to the proposed rezone from John Heighway. Mr. Heighway voiced opposition to the proposed rezone, but it appears he was confused and thought that the proposal was to change the zoning from RS-12 to RS-8. Staff sent him a response to clarify the proposal. Mr. Heighway's remaining comments related to development, but it is important to note that the current application is not a development proposal, and issues related to future development of the site would be addressed if and when a development proposal comes forward for the property. Board Member Lovell clarified that the property located between parcels 18305 and 18325 is owned by the City. If the rezone is approved as proposed, the City -owned parcel would also revert back to RS-12. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a previous development proposal for the subject parcels included the City -owned parcel, but the purchase and sale agreement has expired, and the City Council ultimately decided against selling the property. He noted that there are some significant public utilities that cut through the parcel (sewer, stormwater, and a water main). Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council has had any discussion about converting the property into a mini park. Mr. Lien said that was one concept brought forward by the public when the City Council was considering whether or not to sell the property, but he does not know if the concept is included in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Board Member Lovell asked who owns the other four parcels, and Mr. Lien answered that they are all owned by the same person. However, the City Council initiated the rezone application and is the applicant for the proposal. Board Member Lovell asked if the owner of the four other properties supports the proposed rezone, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Board Member Lovell summarized that the only change to the City -owned parcel would be a rezone back to RS-12. The City would continue to own the property. The remaining four properties would be rezoned to RS-12, too. There would also be restrictions or limitations on the buildable area on the subject parcels based upon the City's adopted Critical Areas Regulations. Mr. Lien agreed and advised that RS-12 zoning would result in a density that is more consistent with what the Comprehension Plan envisions for the properties. Chair Rubenkonig invited members of the public to comment regarding the proposed rezone application. Richard O'Neill, Edmonds, said he and his wife own the property at 18414 — 79t" Avenue West, which abuts up against the subject parcel identified as 18325. While he is not opposed to the proposed rezone, he has some serious concerns. They have lived in their home for 26 years and the subject parcels have remained a green belt and forest throughout that entire time. He and his wife have become increasingly concerned about the illegal activity that takes place on the subject parcels, as well as the garbage that gets deposited there. He pointed out that there is a very steep slope on the properties identified on the map as 18414, 18417, 18405 and 18415, which abut the subject parcels. If the rezone application is approved, he asked that the City require any developer of the parcels to put in a retaining wall along the property line starting at 80th Avenue West. This slope has been intact for 26 years, but if development is allowed to occur on the subject parcels, he is certain the bank will slide. Again, neither he, nor his neighbors, are opposed to the rezone, but they would like the City to require that future development include a retaining wall to protect the properties owners on top of the slope. He subject pictures to illustrate the slope, which were entered into the record as exhibits. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he lives in the neighborhood that would be impacted by the proposed rezone. He said that, currently, the land is a beautiful forest, and once that forest is gone, it will never be brought back. He said it is imperative that they save the existing tree canopy because once it is gone, it will never come back. This is particularly a concern given the rapid climate change that is occurring. The urban forests are critically important to sequester carbon dioxide. The holding capacity of the existing large trees is immense. If they are cut down, the carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere. The current forest is a wildlife corridor and habitat, and there is a very steep slope that should be classified as a critical area and not allowed to be developed. He noted that there is also water runoff to the streams below. He voiced concern that it appears something deceptive is taking place and the City is not being honest with what is really going to happen to the subject parcels. He heard that 27 homes were going to be built on the site, and he hopes that is not true. That Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a many homes would result in 50 more cars on 80th Avenue West, which is a small and rough road that cannot handlc that much traffic on a daily basis. Mr. Phipps summarized that the City should have purchased the land when it had the opportunity to do so and turned into a park. That should be what happens now. The land should be preserved as a wildlife park. He encouraged the City to purchase all of the land in questions and turn it into a park and preserve it forever. These are beautiful forests, and once they are gone, they will be gone forever. He encouraged the Board to be brave and forward thinking. Future generations will applaud their decision if they preserve this land. Mr. Lien clarified that the current application is not a development proposal, just a rezone from contract RS-8 to RS-12. However, he acknowledged there will likely be a development application at some point in the future. At that time, there will be more opportunity for the public to comment on development -related issues. When an application is made, residents within 300 feet of the subject parcels will be notified of the proposed action. He further clarified that the 27-lot project is an old development proposal that has expired. By changing the zoning back to RS-12, the number of lots allowed on the site would decrease. In addition, the subject property has slopes that exceed 40%, which classifies portions of the property as potential landslide hazard areas; and the majority of the remainder the properties have slopes that fall between 15% and 40%, which are potential erosion hazards. All of these critical areas are identified in the Critical Areas Map, and the Critical Areas Regulations will apply. Board Member Lovell asked about the combined area of the four privately -owned parcels, and Mr. Lien answered it is about 5.3 acres. The current RS-8 zoning would allow up to 29 lots, but the proposed RS-12 zoning would limit the maximum number of lots to 19. Beyond that, the access easement and other site constraints would likely reduce that number down to between 12 and 13 lots. Board Member Lovell asked if the current owner of the four parcels was present in the audience, and Mr. Lien answered no. Board Member Lovell noted that the four parcels would need to be subdivided to create individual lots, and this project would be further constrained by the Critical Areas Regulations and other zoning requirements. Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Lien to provide more explanation as to why the properties would not likely be eligible for a PRD development based on the existing PRD code. Mr. Lien explained that a PRD allows for smaller lots below what the zone requires, but you must set aside useable open space. When the rezone was established, the PRD code allowed for critical areas to be counted as part of the useable open space. That is no longer the case with the updated code. Because of the existing slopes on the subject parcels, it is not likely that the property owner could find 10% of the site that is not critical area, and that is why it could not be developed as a PRD. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the change in the PRD code was initiated by the City or if it was required by State law. Mr. Lien said the Critical Areas Regulations have changed significantly since 1997 when the contract rezone was approved. The current Critical Areas Regulations require that at least 30% of a site be preserved in native habitat. If a subdivision came in on the property, the Critical Areas Regulations would require that at least 30% of the slope must be preserved with native vegetation, and this requirement was not in place when the contract rezone was adopted. Chair Rubenkonig summarized that the current Critical Areas Regulations are more restrictive now. Board Member Cheung requested clarification relative to the line between the four smaller subject parcels and the large parcel. Mr. Lien advised that a street vacation was approved in 1996 for a portion of 184"b Street Southwest, as well as a portion of the Olympic View Drive right-of-way. This street map change cut through the subject parcels. However, if rezone is approved as proposed, then the street vacation and street map amendment would be rescinded. Any future development proposal would have to address the street vacation and street map changes that are needed to accommodate the development. Board Member Cheung asked who would be responsible for maintaining the street if 184th Street Southwest is extended through the subject parcels to Olympic View Drive. Mr. Lien noted that there are some utilities located in the vicinity, but the Fire Department and Public Works Division have recently indicated that a connection between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive would not necessary provide a public benefit. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City has any plans to develop its parcel into a park. Mr. Lien said the one parcel that is owned by the City is likely identified in the PROS plan as open space. In addition, comments were made previously, when the City Council decided not to sell the City -owned property, suggesting that the property be developed into a park. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Chair Rubenkonig closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Lovell said he can understand the surrounding property owners' desire that the subject parcels remain as forest, but it is important to understand that the property is privately owned. If members of the public want the City to purchase that land, they should recommend this action to the City Council. Other than changing the zoning to RS-12, which seems appropriate given the conditions of the lots relative to their suitability for building single-family homes, it would be quite an operation for the private property owner to develop parcels that meet the Critical Areas Regulations and other zoning requirements. He said he does not see any reason not to support the proposed change. The property is privately owned, and the City should not have the ability to prohibit development entirely. He said he supports the rezone, as proposed. Chair Rubenkonig observed that the Staff Report discusses how the proposed rezone addresses the criteria outlined in ECDC 20.40. She invited the Board Members to share any additional thoughts about how the proposal is or is not consistent with the criteria. None of the Board Members indicated additions to the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT IN FULL. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY HEARD DURING THE HEARING, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THE REZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.40.010 AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONE FROM RS-8 TO RS-12 WITH NO CONTRACT. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGHWAY 99 CODE AMENDMENTS John Fregonese, Fregonese Associates, advised that he was hired by the City as a consultant for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He reviewed that the Board recommended approval of the draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan and forwarded it to the City Council for final approval. On April 12th, the Board also reviewed proposed amendments to the development regulations needed to implement the plan. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward its recommendation to the City Council, and the subarea plan, implementation strategy and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will move forward to the City Council at the same time. Mr. Fregonese recalled that the subarea plan was designed to make the area more pedestrian and transit -oriented and to beautify it to meet the community's goals. He referred to Attachment 1, which is the new language proposed for Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.60, and Attachment 2, which outlines changes to a portion of the Sign code (ECDC 20.60). He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan would be updated to identify the three distinct districts within the subarea: Gateway, International, and Health. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning map was changed to consolidate the existing CG1 and CG2 zoning districts into just one General Commercial (CG) district. In addition, some parcels in the subarea that are currently zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) were re -designated as CG. He provided an illustration of the proposed zoning map to show the changes. He noted that the only difference between the current CG and CG2 zones is height, the CG zone limits height to 60 feet, and the CG2 zone allows a height up to 75 feet. As proposed, the consolidated CG zone would allow a maximum height of 75 feet. Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.60.020 are intended to strengthen the existing design standards and incorporate them directly into the zoning code. They also establish a straightforward process for obtaining development permits for projects within the subarea. As proposed, most permits will be approved by staff. In addition, the proposed amendments provide flexibility to address special circumstances within the corridor, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if developed and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges (i.e. properties located near the highway interchange). Mr. Fregonese explained that the pedestrian area adjacent to the street is composed of three zones: activity zone, pedestrian zone, and streetscape zone (ECDC 16.60.020.C.2). The activity zone is described as the pedestrian realm from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The pedestrian zone would be located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone and consist of a minimum 5-foot clear and unobstructed path for pedestrians. The streetscape zone would be located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone, and must be a minimum of five feet wide. Typical amenities in the streetscape zone include benches, street lights, street trees, dining tables, bike racks, etc. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Mr. Fregonese pointed out that the proposed language in ECDC 16.60.020.1) provides protection for properties that are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS) when located adjacent to properties zoned CG. As proposed, the portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height must be stepped back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. As per ECDC 16.60.030, the 15-foot setback requirement with 10 feet of Type I landscaping would still apply, as well. In addition, a minimum 5-foot Type I landscape buffer would be required along all street frontages where parking lots abut the street. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that one intent of the subarea plan is to get buildings closer to the street. The proposed code language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.4 requires all off-street parking spaces to be located to the side or rear of the primary building. In addition, they must be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 and 4 feet in height. Outdoor parking areas must comprise 40% or less of the area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract. On corners, parking areas cannot be located at the corner. However, this requirement does not apply to permitted auto sales uses where cars are displayed along the street front. He said the idea is to cut the amount of parking adjacent to the street to a reasonable standard. Also, the proposed language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.5 would require one electric vehicle charging station for all new development that includes housing. Bicycle storage spaces would also be required for RM housing. Mr. Fregonese advised that the proposed code language in ECDC 16.60.030.B.8 requires pathways within parking lots, and a pedestrian plan will be required for all projects to show how pedestrians will move around the site. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development will be required (ECDC 16.60.030.B.11). Pedestrian routes must also be provided to connect buildings on the same site to each other. Mr. Fregonese advised that, as proposed in ECDC 16.60.020.C.1, at least 50% of a building's fagade facing the primary public street must be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. Buildings must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage, and vehicle parking cannot be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage, other than as allowed for vehicle sales uses. However, an alternative design option (ECDC 16.06.030.C.2) would be available for sites with unique constraints. As proposed, the alternative design would require that at least 50% of the building's fagade facing the primary street must be located within 60 feet of the front property line (ECDC 16.06.030.C.2). In addition, no more than one row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage, and required amenity spaces must be located to connect the building to the street. As proposed in ECDC 16.06.030.C.3, exceptions may be allowed by the Hearing Examiner to provide for design flexibility that still encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under the following criteria: • A property is located within 300 feet of the highway interchange. • One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage • The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street frontage that is likely to be active through the day and evening. • At least 25% of the required amenity space is located to connect the building to the street. • Where a site has multiple buildings, an amenity space should be located between buildings to allow shared use. • Vehicle parking is not allowed within the first 20 feet from the property line adjacent to the street. • One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space. Mr. Fregonese reviewed that ECDC 16.60.030.C.4 requires an amenity space area that is equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet, an amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5% of the additional parking area. He explained that the amenity space would be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, and at least 10% of the required amenity space must be comprised of plantings. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Mr. Fregonese noted that the proposed design standards also require transparency (ECDC 16.60.030.D.2) to prevent blank walls from being created along the street front. As proposed, 50% of the building fagade (primary frontage) between 2 and 10 feet in height must be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent. Mr. Fregonese concluded his presentation by providing numerous examples of development throughout the region that exemplifies the concepts in the proposed code amendments. Chair Rubenkonig advised that the Board has discussed the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and implementing code amendments on four previous occasions, so they are quite familiar with what the consultant is proposing. As she reviewed the proposed code language (Attachment 1), she noted that in ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b, the word "amenity zone" should be changed to "streetscape zone" in order to be consistent with language used elsewhere in this section, as well as in the diagram that was provided on the next page. She also suggested that the diagram should be updated to include the required dimensions of the three zones within the pedestrian area. Mr. Fregonese agreed to make these changes. Chair Rubenkonig observed that ECDC 16.60.030.A.1.h requires Type I landscaping for commercial and multi -family uses adjacent to single-family zones. It further states that the buffer must be a minimum of 4 feet wide and 10 feet high. She asked if this runs counter to the City's requirement that fences be no greater than 6 feet in height. Mr. Fregonese noted that this is currently the side yard setback requirement when a commercial or multi -family use is adjacent to a single-family zone. Mr. Chave pointed out that the landscaping would likely be plantings rather than a fence or wall. He cautioned against making the language too specific since there are numerous options for meeting the requirement. He suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the language should remain as currently proposed. Chair Rubenkonig requested further clarification for ECDC 16.60.030.B.9.a.iii, which allows a developer to provide a mixture of full and reduced -width parking stalls. Mr. Chave said this language is related to an old section of the parking chapter, which allows a developer to reduce the width of parking spaces. In order to do that, a developer has to show that he/she could theoretically provide full width spaces. Because this requirement would be counterproductive in its application along Highway 99, the proposed language is a first attempt to dispense with the requirement for this area. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the diagram in ECDC 16.60.030.C.1 should be updated to identify the location of the primary street frontage. Mr. Fregonese agreed to identify the primary frontage as the left side of the building. He pointed out that both frontages in the diagram are almost equal, but the primary frontage is where the primary entrance is located. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the proposed sign code amendments are similar to what has been implemented in other highway developments. She questioned if a 12'3" by 12'3" sign would be in scale with the new pedestrian -oriented approach identified in the subarea plan. Mr. Fregonese agreed that the signs would be quite large, but relative to the speeds and width of the highway, it would still be within the appropriate scale. Chair Rubenkonig asked if a smaller sign would be appropriate. Mr. Fregonese said it would be difficult based on the speed and configuration of the highway. Hopefully, with the other requirements that address accessibility, pedestrians won't be as bothered by the large signs. Board Member Crank asked staff to describe the process for moving the subarea plan and implementing code amendments forward to approval. Mr. Chave recalled that the Board has forwarded its recommendation relative to the subarea plan, but the City Council has not taken final action and is waiting to make final tweaks. The implementing zoning is intended to accompany the subarea plan as a complete package, along with the Planned Action Ordinance. However, final adoption will not be considered until the Environmental Impact Statement has been finalized. All of the various elements will be assembled into a final package to be adopted at the same time. Mr. Fregonese commented that the current schedule identifies final adoption by the City Council in July. Board Member Crank said she loves all of the graphics provided to show what implementation of the code could look like on Highway 99. However, she asked how the proposed changes would impact current plans for development or redevelopment within the subarea. Mr. Chave responded that the City has received inquiries from property owners along the corridor who are closely following the progress on the code amendments. At this point, they appear to be waiting, as the proposed changes would benefit their development potential. He explained that, following adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance, much of the environmental work will be done and it will be easier and less time-consuming for developers to obtain the necessary permits. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Board Member Lovell observed that the current proposal is to identify the entire corridor as CG zoning, which would allow a maximum height of 75 feet. He asked if there would be an opportunity for taller buildings, particularly in the health district. Mr. Fregonese clarified that a developer would be allowed to exceed the 75-foot height limit via a Type III design review process, which requires approval from the Hearing Examiner. However, development up to 75 feet would have an easier permit process that is done by staff. Board Member Lovell referred to ECDC 16.60.020.1), which requires a step back for the portion of building above 25 feet in height. He said his understanding is that this would only apply when a project is adjacent to a single-family residential zone. Mr. Fregonese agreed that is the case. Mr. Chave noted that the provision would apply to any side of the building that is adjacent to a single-family residential zone. Board Member Lovell referred to the new affordable housing development that is being constructed at the intersection of Interstate 5 and 196th Street. He noted that there are no stepbacks on the building and it appears imposing. This same type of development would be allowed along Highway 99 and no stepback would be required on the portion of the building facing the highway. Mr. Chave said it is important to remember that the street frontage along the highway would not be stark. In addition to landscaping, amenity space and sidewalks, the design standards will require building articulation, transparency, etc. The illustration provided by the consultant shows the appropriate building scale, but it fails to make note of the amenities that will be provided along the street front. Board Member Lovell announced that there is currently a preliminary award of $1 million on the Governor's desk awaiting signature that would allow the City to proceed with environmental work and design of first phase improvements along Highway 99. This bodes well for the timing of the subarea plan work. Chair Rubenkonig opened the public hearing. Ralph Younghammer, Bothell, said his family owns some investment property along Highway 99. He asked if the development that currently exists on his property would be grandfathered in or if the new requirements would be immediately applied to his property. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes are great for large properties that are ripe for redevelopment, but they are not practical for many of the smaller properties. He asked how existing businesses would be impacted by the proposed changes. Robert Sieu, Edmonds, said he has reviewed the changes and is still concerned about the proposed alternative walkable design option outlined in ECDC 16.60.030.C.2. He thanked Mr. Fregonese and Ms. Hope for working with him to address concerns relative to his unique property. Because his property is located near the highway interchange, it would not be feasible for him to have store entryways on the streets where there are very few people. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Planning Board indicated a desire for the code language to be flexible enough to address unique situations, such as his, but he did not feel the proposed criteria was adequate. He specifically referred to ECDC 16.60.030.C.3, which outlines the criteria that must be met in order to obtain an exception. He voiced concern that the criteria is too difficult to meet and would render the alternative design option meaningless and obsolete. He suggested that the criteria should be altered so the alternative is truly feasible. Rosely Starr, Edmonds, said she lives very close to Highway 99. She said she is doing everything she can, since inheriting the home three years ago, to keep it in the family. She is concerned about how close her home would be to the proposed CG zone where 75-foot tall buildings would be allowed. She voiced concern that the proposed changes could cause her property values to increase dramatically. She questioned if the people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods would be screwed and end up wanting to sell their properties and move out of the area. Rosella Olsen, Edmonds, agreed with the concerns raised by Ms. Starr. She said she lives near the subarea, as well. She inherited her home, which has been in the family since 1955, and she loves living in Edmonds. She voiced concern that the proposal would allow very tall buildings adjacent to her property, which is located on 84`h Avenue West between 238`h and 240"' Streets. She could end up looking out at mega buildings across from her, and her sunlight would be blocked. She said she owns two lots, one is developed and the other is a forested area. She said she had no idea what was being proposed, and Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 she would be unable to live in her home if adjacent properties are developed into giant, ugly buildings with cars parked along the streets. Sharon Deebach, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds her entire life, just off Highway 99 at 224th and 76th Avenue. She and her husband are trying to figure out how the proposed plan would impact them. They do not know what their property is zoned and how the zoning would change based on the proposed plan. She noted that they already get overflow parking from Highway 99, so this is a major concern for them. Donald Deebach, Edmonds, noted that his home is actually in Esperance, which is not part of Edmonds. He asked if the City has plans to annex this area. Chair Rubenkonig noted that is not part of the proposal before them. Mr. Chave added that the plan only applies to properties in Edmonds, and it would not change the zoning of properties that are located in unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). Mr. Deebach commented that the way the subarea plan boundaries zigzag, he anticipates that a lot of single-family residential lots will be impacted. Mr. Fregonese said that, in his opinion, the proposed changes would not impact the property values of the adjacent single-family residential properties in a negative way. Neither would it change the zoning designation or zoning regulations that apply to single-family residential properties. Mr. Chave added that no change is proposed for properties that are not zoned commercial or multi -family residential now. Again, he said properties located in incorporated Snohomish County would not be impacted, either. Ms. Olsen said her property is located west of Highway 99 at 23904 — 84th Avenue West, which is between 238tb and 240th Streets. The adjacent property is currently zoned RM-1.5, which means her property could be rezoned based on the proposed changes. Mr. Sieu said he has been in the area for 30 years, and he knows the corridor well. Right now, the plan really would only change the CG2 and CG zones by adding an additional 15 feet of height. The commercial properties along the corridor have been zoned for high-rise development up to 60 and 75 feet for a long time, and the proposed change would not alter that except the height limit would be slightly taller. Residential zones would not be changed. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that Ms. Olsen's property is located across the street from where development would be allowed at a height of 7 stories, and she is concerned about how this new, taller development might impact her property. Mr. Fregonese said the property would be impacted more if it had a southern exposure. However, it has an eastern exposure, which means the sunlight would only be impacted in the morning. Mr. Chave agreed that the property adjacent to Ms. Olsen would be rezoned to CG, but it is important to remember that additional standards would also apply to create an attractive streetscape, and high-rise buildings would require stepbacks, as well. As currently proposed, buildings must be setback 20 feet from the right-of-way and Ms. Olsen's home is likely setback at least 20 feet from the right-of-way, as well. Given a 60- foot street width, the separation between her home and any proposed new development would be at least 100 feet. He also emphasized that it is not a given that a 7-story building would be constructed on the site. Chair Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Olsen's recourse would be to carry her concerns to the City Council. She is also welcome to state her concerns at a City Council meeting. Mr. Chave added that written comments can be submitted, as well. Chair Rubenkonig asked how property owners with existing businesses on Highway 99 would be impacted by the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said that based on the zoning and non-conformance rules, existing buildings would be allowed to continue in their existing configuration. However, if they are replaced or new buildings are added, the new development would be required to meet the design standards. Depending on the size of the property and its unique characteristics, it may be eligible for the exception. Again, he emphasized that the proposed changes would not impact existing properties, and the uses would be allowed to continue. Mr. Fregonese commented that standards similar to those proposed have been around for 25 to 30 years in many cities, and he could provide numerous examples of how small properties have been able to meet the requirements. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the subarea plan is intended to be a long-term plan. While some properties may redevelop over the next few years, most will continue in their current form. Some developers who have been waiting to make changes may go forward as soon as the new code is in place, but many smaller property owners will continue as they are. The proposed changes will offer potential for more people to live on the corridor to utilize the existing businesses, but they do not have to change to conform with the new requirements. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that Mr. Sieu has already discussed his concerns about the exception process for pedestrian or walkable design with Mr. Fregonese, and they have been noted for the record. Mr. Fregonese encouraged Mr. Sieu to continue to work with staff. The idea is that the code language would allow him to develop something out front that would give people some shelter near the transit stop, and then he would have a pedestrian path to the primary entrance that is located further away from the street. He agreed that the language could be adjusted to make it more feasible. Mr. Chave suggested this would be a fairly minor change that could be done before the draft amendments are sent to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Monroe noted that this is the 5th time the Board has reviewed the subarea plan and its implementing code language, and much of their feedback has been incorporated into the proposed language. With the additional changes noted by Chair Rubenkonig early in the meeting, as well as the changes to the exception process for pedestrian or walkable design, the proposal looks good and he would recommend approval. Board Member Crank concurred. Board Member Lovell said it is important for the Board to recognize that they have gone through a lot of work with the consultant that was hired by the City specifically for the purpose of developing some reasonable long-term development guidelines for Highway 99. Highway 99 is targeted for redevelopment in the City, and it needs to be redeveloped to generate more revenue and better utilize the available land. The guidelines will go a long way towards creating adaptable and flexible measures. They should keep in mind that this is a long-term plan and nothing in the plan or code would require a property owner to change an existing use or alter an existing development. However, the proposal will create the opportunity and feasibility of higher development along Highway 99. For that reason, he would support the proposed code amendments put forward by the consultant. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ECDC 16.60 AND ECDC 20.60 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: • AMEND ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b BY CHANGING THE WORDS "AMENITY ZONE" TO "STREETSCAPE ZONE" IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE USED ELSEWHERE IN THIS SECTION, AS WELL AS IN THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION. • AMEND THE DIAGRAM IN ECDC 16.60.020.C.2.b TO INCLUDE THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS OF THE THRE ZONES WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN AREA. • AMEND THE DIAGRAM IN ECDC 16.60.030.C.1 TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE. • AMEND ECDC 16.60.030.C.3 TO MAKE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE WALKABLE DESIGN OPTION MORE FEASIBLE FOR ADDRESSING UNIQUE PROPERTIES. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Board's extended agenda, reminding them of their retreat on May 24tb. It will start at 6:30 and the location has yet to be determined. Board Members were invited to bring appetizers to share. Chair Rubenkonig advised that the design team for the Bartell's project will be present to answer the Board's questions and provide helpful information relative to their affordable housing component. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig did not provide any additional comments. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell requested an update on the Mayor and City Council's progress in appointing an alternative member for the vacant Planning Board position. Vice Chair Monroe reported that the process was started over again, and the Mayor's choice of candidates will be interviewed by the City Council prior to final appointment. However, the applicant is out of town now, and the interview will not happen until later in the month. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 10, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 4.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/24/2017 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.05.19.17 Packet Pg. 15 4.A.a L C7ti E fjV 0 MEMORANDUM �c V 4yLl Date: May 19, 2017 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report "There is an amazing beauty and strength in diversity. Everyone has something special to offer, everyone has a gift that can add value to the organization, community and even the world. People of different tribe, race, religion and nationality can come together and accomplish something extraordinary. The key is the culture of unity and teamwork." -- Farshad AM Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board has it annual retreat on May 24. One of the Board's topics will be development — for example, what makes a community desirable, how Edmonds compares with other locations, and how regulations affect intended outcomes. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Topics for the PSRC Regional Staff Committee's May 18 meeting included: • Regional Centers Framework • Regional Open Space Conservation Plan Update • Transportation 2040 Update. PSRC is also seeking public comment on eight recommended transportation projects within King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, including $5 million for the Community Transit Swift BRT Orange Line Project (preliminary engineering and design). The public comment period on the recommended projects will run from May 11 to June 22, 2017. Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) The AHA Board will hear from the director of ARCH (a housing group in King County similar to but more established than AHA) at its May 23rd meeting. The focus will be on how ARCH's Housing Trust Fund was set up. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 16 4.A.a Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) The SCT Steering Committee, which is comprised primarily of elected officials, meets next on May 26 with an agenda that includes: • Five-year Strategic Plan • SCT Process for appointing PSRC representatives • Congestion management LOCAL NEWS Sustainable Cities Partnership WWU students will present information June 9 on projects that are wrapping up this quarter and that conclude the City's 206/2017 Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington University. Presentations from 10:30 a.m. to Noon include Stella's Landing, Walkability, and the Cemetery GIS project. Presentations from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. will cover the Waste Water Treatment Plant pubic displays, Sea Level Rise, and the Green Business Program. All presentations will be in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Architectural Design Board The Architectural Design Board held two public hearings on May 3, 2017. The first public hearing was a on the Westgate Village Mixed -Use Building located at 10032 Edmonds Way (PLN20160054), which a was approved by the ADB with conditions. This was first project under the new Westgate Mixed Use m zone (ECDC16.110) and design standards (ECDC 22.110). The building will contain 91 residential units o and 3,100 of commercial space. The property owners have also applied for the Multi -Family Housing r Tax Exemption (ECC 3.38) for the project and 19 of the 91 units will be priced for affordable to low- o 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 as will be a two-story building containing art studios, an art gallery, cafe, and three residential units as t LO well as 20 underground parking spaces. The Phase II public hearing for the Graphite building is scheduled for June 21st. g Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission's next meeting will be Wednesday, June 7. An agenda will be posted online when available. Economic Development Commission The Economic Development Commission's held a meeting on May 17. Items of discussion included: Development Feasibility, Subgroups of Art, Civic Facilities, & Affordable Housing. 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 June 8. An agenda will be posted online when available. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 17 4.A.a Mayors' Climate Protection Committee The group's May 4 agenda included: "Taming Bigfoot" update; Sustainable Heroes discussion; and Outreach to developers about greenhouse gas reduction. Tree Board The Tree Board's next meeting will be on June 1. An agenda will be posted online when available. City Council Topics for the Council's May 16 meeting included: • Public Works Proclamation • Snohomish County Tourism presentation • Public hearing on Subdivision Code amendment for unit lot subdivisions, as recommended by the Planning Board (followed by Council discussion and concurrence to have an ordinance for this placed on the June 6 consent agenda) • Authorization for agreement with OVWSD & the Edmonds School District related to permits & approvals for the new Madrona School (approved) • Council committee meeting procedures (discussion and general agreement to bring back an ordinance on June 6 that would outline the role of the Council president and the participation of elected officials in other council committee meetings) Agenda topics for the Council's May 23 meeting include: • Proclamation on Gun Violence. Immediately after the Council's regular meeting, the Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee will consider the following: • Briefing on the 2018 -2023 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program • Report on final construction costs of 1051"/1061" Avenue Storm Improvements • Parks Dept. Personnel/Reorganization. COMMUNITY CALENDAR • 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 15: Art Walk • June 16-18: Edmonds Arts Festival, 700 Main St. • June 17 —Oct. 7: Summer Market • July 4: Edmonds 4t" of July • July 16: Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tour • July 20: Walk Back In Time & Open House, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium, 1 pm 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 18 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/24/2017 Discussion with Bartell's representatives Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History Henbart, the development company of Bartell's, and their architectural firm, Studio Meng Strazzara, are involved with a mixed use project at Westgate that just received ADB approval. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board will have a discussion with: -- Mark Craig, President of Henbart LLC -- Charles Strazzara, AIA, President of Studio Meng Strazzara Packet Pg. 19 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/24/2017 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: 05-24-2017 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change pAMM BOARD Extended Agenda "n, 790 May 24, 2017 Meeting Item MAY 2017 May 24 Open House on Highway 99 DEIS (Public Safety Foyer) 6-7 pm May 24 1. Retreat (Brackett Room 6:30) TUNE 2017 June 14 1. Public Hearing on Rezone of property within Highway 99 Planned Action Area to CG General Commercial 2. Parks & Rec Quarterly Update June 28 1. Review of Proposed Planned Action Code Language 2. Presentation of 2017 Update to Water Comprehensive Plan 1 U LY 2017 July 12 1. Public Hearing on Proposed Planned Action Code Language 2. Public Hearing on 2017 Update to Water Comprehensive Plan July 26 AUGUST 2017 August 9 August 23 SEPTEMBER 2017 Sept. 13 Sept. 27 OCTOBER 2017 Oct. 11 Oct. 25 Q Packet Pg. 21 Items ana Dates are 6.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. 22