2017-06-14 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
1. CALL TO ORDER
%4
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
JUNE 14, 2017, 7:00 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: May 24, 2017
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing on Rezone of property within Highway 99 Planned Action Area to CG General
Commercial
NEW BUSINESS
A. Parks Update for Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review of Extended Agenda
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 14, 2017
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2017
Approval of Draft Minutes: May 24, 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:
PB170524d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY 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.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
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
Packet Pg. 4
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
Packet Pg. 5
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
Packet Pg. 6
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
Packet Pg. 7
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
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
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 says it must sell excess lands that are used for the purpose of staging and storage related to construction 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
Packet Pg. 9
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2017
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.06.09.17
Packet Pg. 10
5.A.a
d� EbM,
=, MEMORANDUM
Fol
Date: June 9, 2017
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
June is the gateway to summer.
Jean Hersey
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next Planning Board meeting on June 14 will have a public hearing on the Rezone of property
within the Highway 99 Planned Action Area to CG General Commercial and an update from the Parks
Dept. This is consistent with the Planning Board's previous action on the draft Highway 99 Subarea
Plan and related development regulations.
Welcome aboard to our new Planning Board alternate Mike Rosen. Mike —Thank you for your
interest in the Edmonds community; we will keep you busy!
REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ
At PSRC's general assembly May 31, Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers was elected as
President. PSRC has a busy schedule ahead, working on regional transportation funding,
demographic data, growth management, and many related topics.
National Mayors Climate Action Agenda
Mayor Earling has announced that he has relayed his support for the Mayors National Climate Action
Agenda, which is a large group of mayors from across the country who are committed to taking
action on climate change. "In light of the (federal) decision to withdraw from the Paris accord," said
the Mayor, "I feel it is important for our city to emphasize our local commitment and continued effort
to improve our environment."
Housing
An Affordable Housing Conference on June 2 attracted participants from around Snohomish County.
The conference's sponsor was the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. City
Council members, as well as City staff, attended the conference and learned more about housing
needs and programs.
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Community Transit
Community Transit is completing its annual update to the six -year Transit Development Plan. The
plan calls for increasing transit service in parts of Snohomish County and beyond to Seattle and the
UW. For more information, see: https://www.communitytransit.org/tdp. Public comment on the
plan update will be taken through July 7. The webpage explains how to provide comments.
WSU Branch Opening in Everett
A Washington State University branch is preparing to open in Everett this August. It will be named
"WSU North Puget Sound". The new college facility will house classes and programs —including for
engineering, computers, math, and machining —in a four-story, 95,000-square-foot building.
LOCAL NEWS
Highway 99 Area Planning Project
The City Council recently reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations for code changes to
implement the proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan. The Council will also hold a public hearing on
June 20. Meanwhile, a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the plan was issued June 1. An
open house about the draft EIS will be held June 20 from 6:00 to 7:00 pm in the Brackett Room of City
Hall. Adoption of the final plan and code is anticipated for August.
Urban Forest Management Plan
Development of an Urban Forest Management Plan is moving forward. On June 22, a public open
house will provide information and encourage input on managing the City's trees. The open house
has drop -in time between 6:30 and 8:00 pm in the Brackett Room (3rd floor) of City Hall. A
presentation is featured at 7:00 pm. Last month, the Tree Board heard a presentation and shared
comments about plan ideas.
Sustainable Cities Partnership
The Sustainable Cities Partnership between the City of Edmonds and Western Washington University
wound up the year with a series of presentations on June 9. Topics included: improvements for
Stella's Landing; walkability project; cemetery mapping; sea -level rise; green business promotion; and
education on wastewater treatment. The partnership has been a year -long project whereby students
and faculty worked on sustainability projects of special interest to the City.
Edmonds small business workshop
The City of Edmonds, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance are
teaming up to offer a free Small Business Workshop, Thursday, June 22nd, from 1:30 to 3:30 in the
Brackett Room (3rd floor) of City Hall. Speakers will include Andrew Ballard president of Marketing
Solutions, and sponsor of the Workshop, Certified Business Advisor Rich Shockley, with the Southwest
King County Small Business Development Center, based at Highline Community College, Department
of Revenue's Jim Rimar, Matt Cail, owner of Super Charge Marketing, and finishing up the speakers
will be Edmonds businessman and owner of Insurance Services Group, Trevor Campbell. For more
information about the workshop contact Patrick Doherty at Patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov or
425.771.0251.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
Architectural Design Board
The ADB's next meeting will be June 21. An agenda will be posted online when available.
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on June 7. Items of discussion included: Attendance code changes,
2017 Work Plan and Indigenous Day resolution. Next meeting will be held on July 12.
Economic Development Commission
The Economic Development Commission's next meeting will be June 21. An agenda will be posted
online when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner at this time has no meetings scheduled for June.
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting will be June 8. Items of discussion will include
2018 historic calendar & reviewing a structure for Edmonds Historic Register. The next meeting will
be July 13.
Sister City Commission
Hosting an international student brings another culture into your home; opens your children's eyes to
the wider world; provides you with an opportunity to share your traditions; and allows you and your
family to form lasting relationships with people from across the globe!
The Edmonds Sister City Commission will welcome a group of 15 students and 2 chaperones from
Hekinan, Japan this summer from August 41h through August 16th. We are currently looking for
families who are interested in hosting 2 students in their home during this time. Students range in
age from 14-18, all have studied English, and all are enthusiastic about an American family
experience.
Weekday activities for the group are planned and executed by the Commission, leaving evenings and
weekends free for you and your family to get to know your exchange students and show them all that
Edmonds and the Pacific Northwest have to offer.
To learn more about this opportunity, please contact Carolyn LaFave at 425.771.024 or
carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met on June 1. Items of discussion included: Edmonds in Bloom event update,
discussion on Urban Forest Management Plan presentation, Arbor Day event planning, Urban Forest
Symposium, partnering with Mayor's Climate Protection Comm. and materials for Green Resource
room. The next meeting will be July 6. An agenda will be posted online when available.
31
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
City Council
Topics for the Council's June 6 meeting included:
Approval of the Consent Agenda, including:
o Ordinance amending ECDC 20.75 to add Unit Lot Subdivision process (as
recommended by the Planning Board)
o Confirmation of Planning Board alternate (Mike Rosen)
o Report of final construction cost for the 1051h/106th Ave We. Low impact stormwater
improvements project
:1 Public hearing on 6-Year TIP (with Council questions about various projects and funding
sources)
:1 Closed record review and approval of Rezone for certain property under Contract Rezone R-
97-28 (from RS-8 to RS-12), as recommended by the Planning Board
:1 Review of updates to proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan
:1 Review of Planning Board's recommendations for Highway 99 Area development regulations
:1 Review of RFP for Baseline Study of Edmonds Marsh —and moved to the next Consent Agenda
:1 Review of Shoreline Master Program Update —and moved to the next Consent Agenda
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• June 15: Art Walk
41
• June 16-18: Edmonds Arts Festival, 700 Main St.
• June 17 —Oct. 7: Summer Market
• June 20: Hwy 99 Subarea Plan DEIS Open House, 6 — 7:00 pm (Brackett Room)
• June 22: Urban Forest Management Plan Open House, 6:30-8:00 pm (Brackett Room)
• July 4: Edmonds 41" of July
• July 4: Beat Brackett 5K & Baby Brackett 1K
• July 16: Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tour
• July 20: Walk Back In Time & Open House, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium, 1
pm
Packet Pg. 14
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2017
Public Hearing on Rezone of property within Highway 99 Planned Action Area to CG General Commercial
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
A draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan has been considered by the Planning Board and recommended for
approval by the City Council. The Planning Board held a public hearing on May 10, 2017, on some
amendments to the City's development regulations to establish new standards for a consolidated CG
zone in the Highway 99 area. Proposed zoning was shown as part of the Board's May 10th hearing
presentation.
Staff Recommendation
Forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Narrative
The zoning map is proposed to be changed, consistent with the final version of the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan. This would include a consolidation of the existing CG 1 and CG 2 zoning districts into just one
district: CG. In addition, some other parcels (primarily multifamily) in the Highway 99 subarea would be
designated as CG as well in order to provide a pattern consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map and
the Highway 99 Subarea Plan.
Attachment 1 summarizes the existing zoning map, the proposed map, and also shows the
Comprehensive Plan Map for comparison.
When considering rezones, the Planning Board is required to consider a number of factors. These are
listed below with staff comments.
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
The maps in Attachment 1 illustrate that the proposed zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Map. The change would consolidate zoning in the corridor consistent with
the intent of the highway 99 corridor and the proposed changes implemented by the Highway 99
Subarea Plan.
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and
whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district;
The purposes contained in the new CG zone are as follows:
A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use
of land;
Packet Pg. 15
7.A
B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists,
C. Encourage attractive mixed use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial
uses, and
D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between
different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones.
The rezone would afford a better opportunity to achieve these purposes by consolidating zoning
and providing for a consistent development pattern to evolve along the corridor.
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and
zoning of surrounding or nearby property;
The proposed zoning changes all lie within the Highway 99 Subarea Plan area along Highway 99.
No areas outside of this area are proposed to change, so that established patterns and
relationships would continue.
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding
area or in city policy to justify the rezone;
The character of Highway 99 has been slowly evolving over time. The City has taken steps to
encourage more mixed use and housing in the area, and this would continue patterns of
development that have begun to occur within Edmonds as well as to the south (Shoreline) and
north (Lynnwood). New multi -story buildings have begun to appear, and inquiries have been
received by the City indicating interest in new mixed use and residential buildings in the future
along this corridor. The zoning changes shown here will affirm the City's direction and provide a
consistent basis for extending these trends into the future.
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under
the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property
has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same
zoning;
As indicated above, development trends are changing in this area. New multi -story buildings are
replacing single story buildings elsewhere in the corridor, and interest has been shown along the
Edmonds stretch of Highway 99 as well. A number of the existing development sites along
Highway 99 are nearing their useful life and appear ripe for redevelopment. The proposed zoning
changes should provide a basis for supporting these changes.
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or
decrease in value to the property owners.
To the extent that new development and redevelopment occurs, this will be a tax benefit to the
City as well as potentially providing more accessible goods and services to Edmonds residents
both within and adjacent to the corridor.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Zoning Maps
Attachment 2: Minutes from 5/10/2017 CG zone public hearing
Attachment 3: Minutes from 3/21/2017
Packet Pg. 16
M
*TO
rr
*TO
7.A.b
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. 20
7.A.b
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. 21
7.A.b
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. 22
7.A.b
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. 23
7.A.b
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 238th 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. 24
7.A.b
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. 25
7.A.c
questions he wants to bring up on the record next week. He suggested a motion to extend the response
deadline to April 30. Mayor Earling suggested that decision be made next week.
Councilmember Nelson looked forward to voting next week.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates,
who provided an aerial of the project area on Highway 99 and reviewed:
• Planning Process
o March - April 2016: Understanding existing conditions
o April - June 2016:
o April - Nov 2016: Develop land use and transportation scenarios
o Oct - Dec 2016: Develop Sub -Area Draft plan
o Dec - Feb 2017: Final Sub -Area Plan
• March 2016 Public Workshop
o Identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and
infrastructure upgrades
o What did the public want?
• May 2016 Open House
o Revealed near and long-term development and transportation opportunities and its impacts
• November 2016 Open House
o Revealed implementation strategies and policy recommendations
o Public had opportunity to review the recommendations at the Open House and online and
provide feedback
o Community values:
■ Connectivity
■ Destinations
■ Beautification
■ Safety
■ Walkability
■ Affordable housing
■ Healthy businesses
• Distinct Subdistricts
o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99
■ International District
- Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster
■ Health District
- Swedish Hospital and medical offices
■ Gateway District
- Identified by the community during workshop
- Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds
Long segments without crossings
o Central area requires 10-minute walk to find safe crossing
Housing development
o Widespread desire for housing, particularly in south
Mixed Use Development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 18
Packet Pg. 26
7.A.c
o Widespread desire for mixed use, particularly in south and central
Pedestrian Crossing
o More mid -block crossings throughout
Key Assets in Corridor Area
o Opportunity to build on the momentum of ongoing improvements in Shoreline along Hwy 99
o High -quality transit facilities already in place providing links to housing, jobs and amenities
in the region
o Distinct districts already emerging — International and Health Districts — that provide core
services and amenities
o Already a mixed -use district with retail uses adjacent to single- and multi -family housing
o Business, developer community and residents are ready to see positive changes to create a
safe, walkable, healthy place
Mr. Fregonese reviewed Implementation Strategies, Policy Recommendations + Actions
• Draft Zoning & Development Recommendations
o Strengthen Economic Opportunity
■ Support unique business clusters such as International District and Health District
■ Major auto sales facilities remain important to the local economy. Pedestrian Activity
Zone standard will allow auto sales to continue business as usual
■ Strengthen and continue support for business orgs. in county and state
■ Pursue broadband internet throughout corridor to attract high-tech business investment
■ Consider unique designs for streetscape improvements such as signage and lighting
o Encourage Sustainable Building Practices
■ Transit and pedestrian -friendly development with less reliance on automobile trips,
should be promoted through new design standards
■ Consider requiring electric vehicle charging facilities especially within new residential
developments and bicycle facilities
■ Encourage use of solar panels and green building practices
o Map of proposed update to Comprehensive Plan designations
■ Health District
■ International District
■ Gateway District
o Current Zoning Map
■ The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75')
■ Many current zones are remnants from the counties antiquated zoning
■ Many zones do not match with the parcel boundaries
o Proposed Zoning Map
■ The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone
■ Incorporate design standards directly into zones to ensure scale transition into
neighborhoods
■ More predictable outcomes for community
o Comprehensive Plan Map
■ New zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map
o Strengthen current design standards
■ Incorporate them directly into the zoning code
■ Consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the
standards are feasible, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if
redeveloped and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges may require a
modified approach to the design standards.
o Changes to Access and Parking
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 19
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.c
■ Issue Today: current standards allow too much parking in the front of buildings, which
negatively effects the pedestrian environment and hinders redevelopment potential
o Existing District -based Design Standards Hwy 99 Corridor CG/CG2 - criteria
■ Access and Parking
- Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the
building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on
corner locations adjacent to public streets
o Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas
■ Parking Predominately on Side or Rear
- Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage
- Better design than current standard: no more than 50% of total project parking spaces
may be located between building's front facade and the primary street
■ Buildings on the Street Frontage
- Primary Frontage - min. 50% of primary street frontage should have buildings within
10 feet of front property line (at the edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone)
- All Other Frontages - 50% of side and rear street frontages to have buildings, walls,
or hedges at least 4 feet in height, within 10 ft of property line
■ Ground Floor Transparency
- 50% of Primary Frontage building facade within 10 feet of frontage lot line be made
of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30%
transparency.
o Current Standards
■ Screening and Buffering - Parking lots
- Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages.
➢ This standard creates landscaped barriers between pedestrians and buildings
rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone
o Changes to Screening and Buffering "Pedestrian Activity Zone"
■ Replace with required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone
- Allows for a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art,
street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, pavement patterns, lighting, etc.
- Expanded Sidewalk Width
■ Amenity Space
- Outdoor amenity space, such as landscaping, benches, etc. should be required in
conjunction with development
- A portion of the required amenity space should be provided as common space and
may include pedestrian areas
o New Stepback Design Standards
■ No current stepback regulations exist
■ Purpose: Ensure a transition in height and bulk between multifamily/mixed-use buildings
in commercial zones and adjacent single family zones, while enabling more housing
options to be built adjacent to Hwy 99
o Recommended Front Setback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
■ GROUND FLOOR SETBACK
- For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a
Pedestrian Activity Zone.
- For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to 5 foot and encourage
enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, useable landscaping, etc.).
- Keep current 15 feet setback and 10' landscaping requirements for lot line adjacency
with single family zones.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 20
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.c
o Recommended Front Stepback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
UPPER FLOOR SETBACK
- Zero setback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which
is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99).
- 10 foot setback beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 20 foot setback beyond 55 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 8 foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height on sides across a street from single family
zones
- Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies.
o Recommended Transit -Supportive Parking Standards
■ Reduce minimums; follow market demand for parking
- Residential
➢ Current: Studio: 1.2 / 1-Bedroom: 1.5 / 2-Bedroom: 1.8 / 3-Bedroom: 2
➢ Recommended: One space per unit that is less than 700 sq. ft.
- Commercial
➢ Current: 2.5 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 400 sq ft)
➢ Recommended: 2 per 1,000 square feet
- Exempt first 3,000 sq ft of commercial uses within mixed -use buildings that have a
shared parking plan (parking study and management plan)
➢ Reduces cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs
➢ Staff decision on compliance
Mr. Fregonese continued his review:
• Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations
o Define Hwy 99 area as a "target area" to allow Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE)
projects
■ Pass ordinance to enable MFTE project in Hwy 99 area
■ All residential -portion of building value tax exempt for 12 years with at least 20%
affordable units
o Continue to enhance fee waiver program for affordable housing
■ Enhance its City program to allow the reduction of transportation and park impact fees
for projects that include affordable housing
o Mixed -Use, Mixed -Income Demonstration Project
■ Identify site with willing owner or City purchase/transferrable option
■ Actively recruit developers (non-profit; public -private)
■ Pilot project for new MFTE and fee waiver programs, and other possible special
assessment districts
o Other Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Finance Recommendations
■ Key Financing Tools and Funding Sources to Pursue
- City Fund for Redevelopment and Affordable Housing
- Community Renewal Area (CRA) - used in Shoreline
- Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Financing Program
- Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing
- Landscape Conservation and Local Improvement Program (LCLIP)
- Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
- HUD HOME Program
- HUD CDBG Program
- Enterprise Community Partiers Regional Equitable Development Initiative
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 21
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.c
Draft Signage & Wayfinding Recommendations
o Gateway Signage at Hwy 99/Hwy 104 interchange
o Transit Gateway Signage/Station at Hwy 99/228th
o Improve wayfinding signage along corridor
■ Identify downtown, Lake Ballinger, multiuse path (Interurban Trail), new regional rail,
International District, Health District, other activity nodes
o Unique District Design Identity
■ Branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter designs, pavement patterns,
special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc.
o Prohibit new pole signs
Draft Transportation Recommendations
o Improve Transit Transfers:
■ Unify/consolidate BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distance for transfers
o Hwy 99 and 228th will be Key Intersection
■ 228th will connect Edmonds to regional rail in Mountlake Terrace.
■ Shuttle/transit service from Hwy 99 to regional rail station
■ Consolidated transit stop at 228th
■ New BRT station
■ Clear signage
■ High quality bike connection on 228th
o Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options:
■ Car Share/Bike Share
■ On -site bike parking
■ Ride sharing services (Uber, Lyft)
■ Electric car charging stations
■ Incentives: Impact fee reductions and parking requirement offsets for providing dedicated
accommodating alternative transportation options on -site
Draft Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations
o Expand use of grant programs to fund safety improvements and pedestrian facilities
■ Safe Route to School Program
■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
■ Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP)
■ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
o Proposed Short & Long -Term Transportation Improvements
■ Transportation Goals:
- Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from Hwy 99 corridor
- Improve pedestrian environment along Hwy 99 corridor
- Safe pedestrian crossing of Hwy 99 and access to transit
- Improved transit mobility and transit stop environment
- Improved traffic flow and general safety with access management
■ Key Recommended Transportation Improvements
- Close the most significant gap in the pedestrian crossings within the corridor
- 238th to 228th - a distance of 3,700 ft. - has no controlled pedestrian crossing
- Improve pedestrian access from the south at the SR 104 interchange
- Long-term recommendation: Reconfigure ramps to conventional 90-degree stop
control intersections
- Short-term recommendation: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's)
with high visibility crosswalk
- Encourage walking and biking to access plan Highway 99 from surrounding
neighborhoods
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 22
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.c
- "Complete Streets" - sidewalks, safety lighting, street lighting, pedestrian -scaled
lighting, drainage improvements, etc.
- Streets that can be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night will
experience travel during the day
- Improve connections between transit and major employment centers
➢ Swift Stations at 216th and the Swedish Hospital Campus: Implement a
pedestrian walkway system within campus with wayfinding
o Maps of Planned Transportation Improvements and Project Supportive Transportation
Improvements, identifying the location of:
■ Improvement Index Number
■ Existing Signalized Intersection and Ped Xing
■ Proposed New Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Crossing
■ Intersection Safety & Capacity Improvements
■ New Bike Route Designation
■ New Class II Bicycle Lanes
■ Street Improvements for Pedestrians
■ Access Management (Raised Medians)
■ Pedestrian Hybrid Signal (HAWK)
o Photographs of:
■ Health District Gateway
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investments
■ SW 234th
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investment
Next Steps:
o March 21 - City Council disccussion of Subarea Plan
o March 22 - Planning Board meeting for initial review/discussion of Development Code
Amendments to implement the proposed Hwy 99 Subarea Plan
o Early April - Open House for Draft EIS
o April 12 - Planning Board public hearing on Development Code Amendments and Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO)
o May 9 - City Council public hearing on Development. Code and PAO
o June 5 - City Council to consider adopting: a) Subarea Plan, b) Development Code
Amendments, and c) PAO
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commended the plan, commenting this would be an improvement to the
corridor and brighten the entire environment. She referred to the proposed zoning map, recommending the
RM-2.4 zones be changed to CG. Mr. Fregonese said they have the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Because there was development on the property that was not envisioned to redevelop, the zoning was not
proposed to be changed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas She preferred more contiguous CG zoning in
the corridor for the future.
Councilmember Johnson concurred this was a great plan but it needs fine tuning. For example at the
beginning of the plan, there are three alternatives, but at the end there are only two and there is reference
to the second alternative but the description is actually the third alternative. Mr. Fregonese agreed that
could be clarified, explaining some of the residential options were combined for the EIS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 23
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.c
Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in how the recommendations regarding transportation will be
translated into the Comprehensive Plan as there is already a Transportation element. Ms. Hope answered
staff is working with engineering; a number of the projects are already in the City's plans. If anything is
not, it will presented to the Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments at the end of the year.
Councilmember Johnson commented on the lack of analysis about the importance of auto dealerships in
the economic analysis but it did appear in a recommendation. The Highway 99 corridor has a number of
auto dealerships which represent the number one revenue stream for the City. She recommended that be
included in the economic analysis.
Councilmember Johnson observed there is a lot of concern about bicycle connections across Highway 99
to the Interurban Trail, yet she did not see any specific recommendations. There are projects that come
close to 76t' but the crossing of Highway 99 is missing at key connections to the Interurban Trail such as
220ffi.
Councilmember Johnson observed the plan includes three districts, Gateway, International and Health;
however, the Swift station in the Health District is the Gateway station. She recommended working with
Community Transit to change the name of that station or develop a new name for the Gateway District.
She referred to the proposed zoning map, expressing interest in establishing a strategy for Highway 99 in
Esperance.
Councilmember Tibbott liked how public input was incorporated into the plan. He asked about walkways
that move pedestrians from sidewalks along Highway 99 into the interior of projects. Mr. Fregonese
answered the code requires a pedestrian path to connect building fronts. Councilmember Tibbott
commented on the importance of pathways through parking lots. He was encouraged to see the
landscaping especially along the walkways in the pedestrian zone and separation from traffic. He
expressed interest in locating affordable housing close to transit and recommended the plan address the
importance of affordable housing in those areas, even stating a preference for affordable housing in those
areas.
Council President Mesaros referred to the zoning map and inquired about the white area at the south end.
Ms. Hope offered to research.
With regard to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Esperance, Council President Mesaros
suggested a future presentation identify the zoning on Highway 99 in Esperance to determine if it was
compatible. Mr. Fregonese agreed that could be done. Ms. Hope assured the zoning in Esperance would
be different than Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the recommendation to allow MFTE projects and
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion about consistent CG zoning.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the statement, "encourage use of solar panels and green building
practices" and suggested changing it to "encourage and incentivize use of solar panels and green building
practices."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope advised staff will return to Council with minor modifications; work will continue on next steps
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 21, 2017
Page 24
Packet Pg. 32
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2017
Parks Update for Planning Board
Staff Lead: Carrie Hlte
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Carrie Hite
Background/History
This is a regular update for the Planning Board
Staff Recommendation
Listen to presentation and discuss.
Forward recommendation to the City Council for interpretive historical panels.
Narrative
See attached report.
Attachments:
Planning Board Report June 2017
2017 presentation for Planning Board
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.a
Edmonds Parks Recreation & Cultural Services
Planning Board Report
June 2017
Submitted by Carrie Hite, Director
Civic Field Acauisition and Master Plan
In February 2016 we closed on the purchase of Civic Field from the School District. This past
year, we spent a considerable amount of time and effort to complete the Civic Field Master
Plan with the community. We implemented a robust community process, working with Walker
Macy, with the final plan adopted by the Council. The Planning Board was instrumental in
providing direction throughout the process. We are currently working on the geotechnical and
survey work, and will be taking down the stadium near the end of the year.
City Park
The Spray pad opened on May 261h to 80 degree days over Memorial Day weekend. It was
packed and continues to be very popular. We planted additional foliage and trees for noise
mitigation for the neighbors.
Dayton Street Plaza
This is complete. We had a ribbon cutting in March 2017.
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Projects
Artist lole Alessandrini installed an interim art project consisting of 177 solar LED road studs set
into the existing roadway between Daley and Main Street on 4th Avenue N. The artwork,
Luminous Forest, was dedicated in conjunction with ECA 10th anniversary celebrations in July
2016, and the project has an expected life of up to three years. Funding was through the
Edmonds Arts Commission and included a grant from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation.
An interim pocket park is planned for the 4th Avenue N Cultural Corridor for implementation in
2017-18. The Western Washington University student proposals for promoting the long term
project will be considered as promotion of this project moves forward.
Wavfindine Sienaee/Park Sienaee
The existing older wayfinding sign at 51h and Main is scheduled for replacement this year with a
sign meeting the current sign program standards. New signs were installed for Yost Park and
for Maplewood Park. The Parks Department will continue to update wayfinding and parks
signage with the new standards as time allows.
Interdepartmental discussion is underway regarding City standards for potential signage to
highlight businesses on side streets that the BID is interested in sponsoring.
Marina Beach:
Master plan adopted in February of 2016.
Packet Pg. 34
8.A.a
Fishing Pier:
We have had some issues with some of the repairs at the Pier. The contractor will be back on
site to repair some of the center joints. The City will then work with the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife to transfer ownership of the Fishing Pier.
Public Restrooms
A new downtown public restroom opened in downtown this past year. Informational panels
were developed for the east wall of the new public restrooms with the Economic Development
Department and Cultural Services Division working with the Historical Museum to highlight the
history of maritime transportation, early arts and culture, and indigenous peoples and
resources in the Edmonds area. The panels were funded by the Hubbard Family Foundation.
Edmonds Marsh
The City is continuing to contract with Keeley OConnell to project manage the phases of the
Edmonds Marsh rehabilitation efforts. In addition a very active Friends of the Edmonds Marsh
group made up of citizens and citizen scientists has been working with the Port, the City,
Earthcorps, and other entities to implement the plan "to expand and restore functional
estuarine habitat within Edmonds Marsh and protect the remaining wildlife by engaging the
community to preserve, steward, and enjoy our most natural asset". A major goal of this effort
is daylighting Willow Creek and this gained traction with the installation of a box culvert at
Marina Beach Park with the double tracking project. The 60% design process will be complete
soon.
Critical Areas Resort for Edmonds Parks
In response to recent updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance, the Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Culture has contracted qualified consultants to develop Critical Areas Reports
for all parks where maintenance and restoration activities are expected to be conducted within
critical areas during the next five years. These Critical Areas reports will enable park
maintenance staff and volunteer stewardship groups (e.g. Earth Corps) to lawfully continue
removing invasive vegetation and restoring native vegetation within critical areas following
approval by the Planning Division.
Parklet Development
This is in process and likely will be completed before the end of the year.
Outdoor Fitness Zones
We are awaiting a grant that was submitted. If funded, we will complete three outdoor fitness
zones in our parks.
Meadowdale Playfields:
The City is partnering with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to renovate
Meadowdale Playfields this year.
2
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.a
City Gateway Replacement
This is in process and likely will be completed before the end of the year.
City Storage Building:
We are currently in the design process for a new parks/facilities storage area.
Communitv Garden
The City is currently working with Snohomish County to draft an ILA for use of Esperance Park
for a community garden. This will be a partnership with the Floretum Garden club. We have
$155,000 in our capital budget to establish a community garden next year.
Veteran's Plaza:
This is almost complete. There was a very successful ribbon cutting on Memorial Day. There is
just a final punch list of items, including the electrical work.
Waterfront Redevelopment and walkway completion
The City has been working parallel to the Sr. Ctr efforts to rebuild the center. The City's
interest is to pull back the creosote pier from the Sound, and introduce a filtration system from
the parking lot to the Sound. We have applied for $1M of grants for this project. In addition, it
is the City's interest to complete the walkway south of the Sr. Ctr. The City owns an easement
in front of the Ebbtide, and is working with a designer to figure out the possibilities of
connecting the walkway.
Frances Anderson Center Bandshell:
This is complete and just in time for the Arts Festival.
Informational Panels
A committee with representatives from the Arts Commission, Historic Preservation
Commission, Development Services and Parks met in 2016 to develop draft guidelines for
informational panels located in City parks and right of way to ensure a stylistic consistency and
sensitivity to number and locations. Informational panels are graphic panels which provide
environmental, historical, and cultural information associated with specific sites in City parks
and within City right of way.
Two informational panels are currently in development, one for Yost Park identifying an old -
growth cedar stump showing notches from logging at the turn of the 20t" century and one for
Sunset showing the waterfront saw mills in 1910. The Historic Preservation Commission
developed the concept for these two panels regarding the history of Edmonds and the concept
was reviewed by the Arts Commission. On December 13, 2016 City Council approved allocation
of funds to create the two panels, requiring Planning Board Review and final review by City
Council before fabrication. At that time there was discussion about the scale and potential
intrusiveness of the informational panel for Yost Park and the use of sustainable materials.
The subsequent design process was facilitated by the Arts & Culture Manager who consulted
with the Parks Manager, Arts Commission and Engineering regarding size and potential
location for the two panels, recommended as shown below.
3
Packet Pg. 36
8.A.a
The proposed size for the panel depicting the mills on the waterfront is 60" long by 18". At
least two suitable sites are located along the path on the west side of Sunset in the right of way
where the benches are sited near Bell Street. From this vantage point the waterfront looking
south is visible with a glimpse of the train tracks.
rt
This photograph was taken at the turn of the 2uth century from
approximately the same location where you are standing.
-� - originally a dense forest, the 18905 saw Edmonds transformed into an
s industrial center. The waterfront became an unbroken line of saw mills
_ -JINS= running round the clock, turning old -growth cedars, hemlocks and firs
into shingles, lumber and building materials shipped to markets from
Alaska to California. By the end of World War II most of Edmonds' forest
_ had been cut, and the mills began to dose. The last sawmill shutdown
in 1951. At[hough hardly a trace now remains of the mill industry that
dominated the waterfront in that era, old -growth tree stumps are still
visible from trails in Yost Park.
Waterfront saw milts in Edmonds ca. 19M Photo courtesy
of Edmonds Historical Museum,
0
Packet Pg. 37
8.A.a
The proposed size for the old -growth stump panel in Yost Park on the east side of the trail
leading from Main Street at Olympic Avenue is 30" by 18". The trail goes past the stump, about
15' to the east, and down to a small bridge over the ravine. Although modest in size, the panel
would be visible from the sidewalk on Main Street for pedestrians. Both panels will be installed
on standard post brackets at an angle which make them accessible for pedestrians, including
wheelchairs.
`• t (
A few large stumps Like this one showing notches from logging at the turn of the 20th century
are still visible from trails throughout Yost Park- The Edmondsareaonce supported adense old-
,t,
growth forest dominated by Western Red Cedar and Western Hemlock. When the area was settled
by non- indigenous people in the mid-1800s, there were trees up to 700 years old, 230 feet tall and
t S -
13 feet in diameter. These large trees kept the forest floor in perpetual shade, creating a space for
the variety of plants and animals that flou rished in the u nderstory and forest floor.
{'�..,,,t
i V.
The 1870s saw the beginning of systematic clearing of Edmonds'old-growth forest by loggers using
hand toots. The loggers who cut trees were called "falters "Using their axes, they cut notches in the
trunk for springboards which they stood on while felling the tree with a crosscut saw. Horses and
oxen teams were used to skid Logs to the waterfront mills where they were converted to shingles
7 l
and other lumber products and shipped by rail or water to markets from Alaska to California. By
191D,Washington was the nation's Largest lumber -producing state.
Moving logs on Main Street ca. 1911). Photos courtesy of Edmonds Historival Museum.
The panels are made from a high pressure laminate material which has proven too durable and
long lasting for exterior public locations and the fabricator is Greenguard certified for low
emissions, recognized by LEED, Forest Stewardship Council certified, and uses chlorine free
paper and environmentally friendly inks and resins.
5
Packet Pg. 38
8.A.a
Economic Impact of Arts & Culture/Community Cultural Plan
At present the Arts Commission and staff focus is on implementation of the strategy involving a
study of the economic impact of arts and culture in Edmonds. The study is funded through the
Parks Department, Arts Commission and Economic Development Department. The RFP was
sent out in late December and Berk was selected as the project consultant. The first meeting
with the advisory group was held, stakeholder interviews were conducted, and a survey for
attendees has been tested for use over the summer and early fall. Additional data will be
collected from arts and culture nonprofits and businesses.
The Arts Commission continues to address implementation of some of the other strategies in
the Community Cultural Plan.
Library Public Art Process
The process is on hold until the old book drop is demolished. The Arts Commission and staff
developed a draft call to artist for a new public art installation at the exterior entry area to the
Library in conjunction with developing new landscaping after the old book drop is taken down.
Funding for the artwork will be a public private partnership with opportunities for private
entities to supplement the 1% percent for art budget. Funding from the Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation and the Friends of the Edmonds Library has already been pledged.
Flower Basket Poles
A total of 22 poles with unique art elements, 11 commemorated, have been installed in
downtown Edmonds and a walking map is available on the website. The department has 5
more new artwork poles scheduled to replace older poles and 3 new poles will be added as
part of a private construction development in 2017-8.
Student Conservation Association:
The City has collaborated with the Student Conservation Association to bring a youth
work/education program to the City to help in the parks over the summer. We continue to
work with this program which has been very successful.
Willow Creek Fish Hatche
After nearly 30 years operating the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery, Trout Unlimited announced
that they would be retiring from operations within the next two years. Sound Salmon Solutions
— a non-profit organization and regional leader in salmon conservation - has enthusiastically
agreed to take over management of the hatchery operations, and plans to expand educational
programming and outreach activities at the site. Under a Professional Services Agreement
signed in February 2017 to cover staff time for training and grant writing, Sound Salmon
Solutions staff has been working closely with Trout Unlimited with the goal of fully taking over
operations at the facility in 2018.
0
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.a
Western Washington University Initiatives:
This year we have had the benefit of several projects from Western students as part of the
Sustainable Cities Partnership. We had the following projects assist us this year:
• Students from the parks and recreation program provide creative and innovative ideas
for recreation programming in Edmonds.
• A GIS and marketing class work on mapping the cemetery.
• A marketing class provide proposals for the fourth avenue cultural corridor.
• An environmental class provides a Phase 1 environmental assessment of Stella's
Landing.
Urban Forest Management Plan
Parks is working with Development services to complete an Urban Forest Management Plan
this year. We have retained the services of Davey Resources Group to engage with our
community to draft the plan. The first public open house will be on June 22, 2107.
Recreation:
The YMCA operated Yost Pool again in 2016 and is also contracted for this summer. As part of
our grant with Verdant for 3rd grade swim lessons, staff went into 3rd grade classrooms in April
and May to teach water safety. This was the 5t" year of the grant and 58 free lessons were
provided.
We continue to offer an array of recreation programming for all ages. We continue to see an
increase in pickle -ball, we had up to 66 players signed up for Tuesday evening leagues, our
drop -in opportunities are M-F and our 2nd annual fall tournament participants increased by 4
teams. Based on the popularity of our Lego camps we added Lego workshops. We also added a
full day camp option called Girls Rock Math which received positive reviews from both campers
and parents.
Special events for 2016 included Outdoor Movies, Sand Sculpting Contest, Health & Fitness
Expo, Conquer the Hill, Puget Sound Bird Fest, Watershed Fun Fair, Moonlight Beach
Adventure, Starlight Beach Walk, Spring Beach Cleanup and Low -tide Walk.
The Ranger -Naturalists provided 263 marine education programs, 36 Discover the Forest
programs, 16 Nature Discovery in the Classroom programs and a variety of camps.
Rangers patrolled the waterfront 89 days in 2016. The Visitor Station was open Saturdays and
Sundays, Noon-5 pm, Memorial Day through Labor Day weekend. 7 Volunteer Beach Docents
spent a total of 200 hours at the Visitor Station. The logs recorded 2507 visitors over the 32
days that the station was open.
7
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.a
Staffing changes
After 30 years of service, Renee McRae retired.
After a thorough recruitment, screening, interviewing and evaluation process, I am pleased to
announce the hiring of Dave Johnson as our new Deputy Director.
Dave comes to us from the City of Tukwila where he serves as the Parks and Recreation
Superintendent. He currently oversees the business services and planning divisions at Tukwila.
Dave has his Bachelor's Degree in Parks and Recreation from Western Washington University
(Go Vikings!). He also is a graduate of the NRPA Resource Management School. He is also
slated to test for he Certified Parks and Recreation Professional within the next few months.
E:J
Packet Pg. 41
Parks2016-2017
AN
Ap
AQG
- � .�';+;�y Rom-'• �<ataiT ...i-' +��r �� i�� 's_��'-�"`�� �. }�� - :?'<
r-_
r �
�� y - -a T � _ F t f •+
4 _,, p4�h, li' ` -
1
Acquisition and Planning of Civic Field
------------------
- -
r t
Y I _
AV
__ ..A&Lw
z
Opening of the spray park.
Aft
a � ! y, J'f• r� I
i •h � Me
-i - M
:�.Ir
1
3
Completed Dayton Street Plaza
i
PPI
--k --% --t --v -V --r -
2
Luminous Forest
1
ip
1 _-
WESTGATE
aIsr
P
Downtown
ECA Center for the Arts
--
FAC Anderson Center
Wade James Theatre___'
Edmonds Cemetery
r
E
Yost Park •Museum
•
is
Wayfinding Signs
5
8.A.b
•
1.4
L
R
O
m
CL
O
R
Q
Y
L
cu
CL
N
TMM
N
R
O
m
Q1
C
C
R
IL
L
O
r_
O
CD
04
L
Q
C
O
L
V
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 47
8.A.b
A
S ~� � ae.rr�am�x mo�raoorsnowPr
r
oarn�Y a
eoa�ek �ir�a�eaage 1r� ,„�m,on ipe�
ox ie.�n nr�
'_�-AYifryCw+rx
9
L /\
DRAFT Masterplan
Packet Pg. 48
8.A.b
I
tiI
t..K j�'Wmlm
L
R
0
m
0
0
CL
L
0
0
R
Q
Y
L
cu
CL
N_
N
L
M0
W
cu
IL
0
c
0
CD
c
a�
m
L
Q
ti
r
N
C
E
L
V
r
Q
Packet Pg. 49
8.A.b
Downtown
Public
Restroom
M
0
IL
S '•
r=. 0
04
�1 Q
r• .. ' - - -� .i ., f�S� 4 .fir F
Packet Pg. 50
8.A.b
n.•.�A r� riiawlir
w woo. •.wry /�Y�
.rww.�.•. wwrr•w a
•.mil f..r � - _ _ � � , ,�
Y� \w wNOlr fM YVIYI.�nn•, `� 1, LI i~•"•
yrwarwwrrr+w.rrwarw 1
o�r1 M /rY. w.trw.K �.wV�
r rti.•lrl.....rr.rw Mn -
M •iMYr�ti7rre.�wr.. i G
.rrro w wt wti ws wM titi wyr� .r ...�.�
y��.wWlwynrNw. M.w�wr _ _
rr..� •.w r~ 1
� � iit •..rr .'r • . 1
�rrw��r• ��r.w
e.sra+.M.a..r.�w+wr�l.r
w11��Y I�ati� Y rLlIr1W Y. �Mr1fr
4/�a Air w/ �t� I Mr Iriwwslw rr
YOi i Fa �� /MwM wA•M�tl waYw w
rwY.ir�r�irw wMl'\./rw�Fw YM1Ml
#OaM1�/aM.w�w�/rwa�M r '
1wr�lw.�w.{7Yw'w wrtMeawAl�+r T•�
/wF�Mw�/ wwwr wt...�� w pww tin.�e.n
OrlMaYwtwi.Iwr MMN •M/w� N b.F
1Mwwwr�M�Y7M/w�r1�AM MMr
..Yrw FhwMllr•wre�.a.prwwlww �����
. raM Prr.rr.wcaA warrrw.arra.w �rr�.�w�
. •�.M./�IrtiMw.s+..MF wPa4m W
-.NMYw�YI��r Y.wrwW.I•l rrw..
rr�.rr�
arrrar�rre...
�
ilawww/wiglwws
' �IlwwYrwMYr1A1►
.nwMwwrl4gMt
L i ..•.�
Now
4-4"b w.inwwrwa0114 YA1►tn�4��
..+.. ��.
1�w/Y��Ois►rrw Owr•iww ww0�
Cr #Wd.Nw.lmw�w�rilw�wFa�M
ww/wrrti.7001
lw�-ir.�w.r.r�wtiarr OrY
awrr�gwrw r rgw�rwsa 4wtlr
a,wrrwb.alv+wwa+.+rwlwYw
L
�
N-l",
Packet Pg. 51
Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek, Critical
Area Report
f
rip
F
11
a Parks 2017
• Parklet Development
• Outdoor Fitness Zones
ALL. F
IAX
12
a Parks 2017
City Gateway Replacement
Meadowdale Playfields
Soccer Field 2
s
13
City Storage Building
iL
.�. �+ ice♦ w � }.,�
QL
14
8.A.b
I
ql
K77
4r► `x.+
w
?o 41!
L
91
0
m
a�
c
c
0
a
L.
0
R
Q
Y
R
d
N
TMM
0
m
C
R
IL
0
r_
0
f3
c
N
L
CD
ti
N
c
aD
t
r
Q
Packet Pg. 56
Veteran's Plaza
�. ro '�.•
`�,.. At116
I #It
;Wk ir
qp
t � -
16
8.A.b
Jam»
. ti_ . ,} .. •.o q., r To BraokfKf
To OYmpc R."_ \ O
adbnk (1 Bea h Q ne
r
Ao+s x3 Pfant v Bad r 1 Resrora on Noa
________________________-_-___. PrepoeeE sprnQn�
--__ Benches f
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - � T,,,. 6 P•oDdded Welkw.�r J _ -
Mores" Ramp
LtafdUrd.W Zon•
� I
Proposed Edmonds
Waterfront Center
l
r
DATUMS:
1
,ear whw, wo s3io+ t
vML CAL Dlnar. MAW p f
ecc�wlu. N-�. ftCSLr lox. ASK u.s.C.iG.s. Yatla[Wr X' Oh >m
fOfN[ ifdfp105 ryrruM P.eL4D,D s1l10 , ]4, 40wr Ci tK NDaiH
Rrvlldr. - M52 "Ef
Proposed boOdws
Pfoposad ra&V
Kayak H" Lf rf oh
and A�bio Rarfo
E-wng Soawan to Rdmmn
Lahr of work
Eusang WaAwey Ie R—
P.pWp d'1-6,e N-
!— mmtq wn afoa W ran
"bonwd ran garden to
beech
Proposed Aaesstde Parking
Packet Pg. 58
8.A.b
L
R
0
m
0
0
CL
L
0
0
R
Q
Y
L
cu
CL
N
TMM
N
L
M0
W
IL
L
0
0
0
r
0
0
0
L
Q
ti
r
N
C
E
L
V
fC
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 59
8.A.b
•
�i
Tr" "OV pw"unrn ■ the tom Of V* MM a hslwry OW,
8PPMO-4 y VW awM l"On tower - yaw awe ua'Mnt
DVrwr+doe neraeut%*VW%tar146 orWsdiiniirormtdintoan
�,,,<rx sev�ter M wwytwt►hya Decanre an ur4wtrers tn. a,.w mw
�YK ranE the elotk Nrrold-pith tedr4 he rixiti"fit
f rrrVWl bA ON rsd bWO1g rnrbWs%Pvprt to Trlief OKm
AurlrsetoCWlQ.wsia �/ die e.tl a ward eer ilmost a tOnomw lwr
Itld Ewn tw,A, ird rew rrlts t'R+^ eo dose M lie snrry thA doers
nlril nrAyadxerowrawKdr?*nwovuVhlnr
IfwanYftlwh/ ehe wnitfPlworr n dNt era w%d-pVwth tW se..npt M Ket
Mlewle Mort bah M 701[ Park
y4wromm swam r l'JnerA ca 1910, Nub wonraeey
et (i4WlY lfraxMat lYar► ♦y
r
A few large stumps like this one showing notches from logging at the turn of the 201h century
are still visible from trails throughout Yost Park. The Edmonds area once supported a dense old -
growth forest dominated by Western Red Cedar and Western Hemlock. when the area was settled
by non- indigenous people in the mid-1800s, there were trees up to 700 years old, 230 feet tall and
13 feet in diameter. These large trees kept the forest floor in perpetual shade, creating a space for
the variety of plants and animals that flourished in the understory and forest floor.
The 1870s saw the beginning of systematic clearing of Edmonds' old -growth forest by loggers using
hand tools. The loggers who cut trees were called Iallers' Using their axes, they cut notches in the
trunk for springboards which they stood on while felling the tree with a crosscut saw. Horses and
oxen teams were used to skid togs to thewateffront mills where they were converted to shingles
and other lumber products and shipped by rail or waterto markets from Alaska to California. By
i 1910. Washington was the nation's largest Lumber -producing state.
* NEW i•
Moving logs on Main Street a. 1910. Photos courtesyof Edmonds Hlstorial Museum.
i'-
Packet Pg. 60
8.A.b
L
R
0
m
0
0
CL
L
0
0
R
Q
Y
L
cu
CL
N
TMM
N
L
M0
W
IL
L
0
0
0
r
0
0
0
L
Q
ti
r
N
C
E
L
V
fC
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 61
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2017
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:
06-14-2017 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 62
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
pAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
"n, 790
June 14, 2017
Meeting Item
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 20 1. DEIS for Highway 99 Subarea Plan Open House 6 — 7pm (Brackett
Room)
June 28 1. Review of Proposed Planned Action Code Language
2. Presentation of 2017 Update to Water Comprehensive Plan
JULY 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. 63
Items ana Dates are
9.A.a
to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2017 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 64