The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-02-14 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 14, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of January 10, 2018 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Recommendation on Revisiting Five Corners Plan & Zoning Initiative 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda February 14, 2018 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/14/2018 Approval of Draft Minutes of January 10, 2018 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB180110d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 10, 2018 Vice Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Board Member Lovell welcomed Megan Livingston, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, as the new Student Representative serving on the Board. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Rubenkonig commented regarding the minutes, noting that many of the points brought up explained clearly the Architectural Design Board's concerns and will serve the Board well in the future. Mr. Chave's comments at the meeting were very pertinent relative to the challenges they will face when amending the Design Guidelines. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mariam Gold, Students Saving Salmon, said she was present to talk about potential amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) relative to the removal of vegetation. She explained that last fall, Students Saving Salmon did a project at Shell Creek, near the Holy Rosary Church, where they removed invasive species and planted native species. This was done in conjunction with monthly water tests they do with Sound Salmon Solutions. She emphasized that habitat restoration is critical to protecting the salmon and natural environment. She said their project was going well until they ran into problems Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a with code limitations. As per the current CAO, you can only remove invasive species from 1,500 square feet of property. The limit is intended to prevent soil erosion in the event that someone does not replace the invasive species with native plants. However, in their case, the project was restoring the habitat with natural species. The code limitation hampered their ability to do more to create a healthy environment for salmon, as well as other species that live in the streams. She asked that the Board recommend approval of an amendment that changes the limitation to exempt special habitat restoration projects. The change will allow them to make more of an impact on the environment without the negative consequences that the current limitation was created to protect against. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he is retired fishery biologist and a 38-year resident of Edmonds. He currently serves as a volunteer adult advisor for the Edmonds/Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon Club. He said he was also present to talk about proposed amendments to the CAO. He recalled that when the CAO was last updated, he made a specific request to the City Council that they reconsider the area limit and time frame because they would restrict habitat restoration. He recognized that the intent is to protect against potential erosion, but in the case of habitat restoration projects, native species are also planted as part of the work. The purpose of restoration projects is to improve habitat and make the streams healthy for salmon. The students' work was well supervised by Sound Salmon Solutions and coordinated with the Edmonds Tree Board, City staff, and the Holy Rosary Church. Sound Salmon Solutions provided the native plantings, as well as the habitat technicians to ensure that the work was done properly. Mr. Scordino said he has worked with Sound Salmon Solutions, EarthCorps and others on habitat restoration projects. These expert groups know what needs to be done. He suggested that the ordinance should be changed to acknowledge that the restrictions are unnecessary for projects that are overseen by qualified habitat restoration experts. He asked that the Board consider a simple fix to the ordinance that does not add complexity or increase lead time and volunteer effort for getting habitat restoration work done. He said it is hard enough to coordinate getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat expertise, property owner involvement and approval and volunteers. It would not be appropriate to require them to go through additional "hoops" in order to complete a project that benefits the environment. He suggested the following amendment to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.220(C)(8)(a): "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. " Dawna Lahti, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of Edmonds for 35 years and is connected with the Students Saving Salmon project because she belongs to the Care of Creation group at Holy Rosary Church where the stream is located. She was able to observe the project as it progressed. She said she understands that human alteration of the environment can go awry; and unfortunately, that is what has happened in the past along the stream. They are learning more all the time as to how to repair these situations. She voiced concern that if the restoration project takes too long to complete because of the code limitations, students currently in the program will graduate and move on and the next students many not care as much. She summarized that they have a golden opportunity to do the right thing to repair the damage that was done before by well intentioned people who planted what they wanted without regard to what a stream requires. She agreed with Mr. Scordino that the solution should be simple so that the projects can go forward while there is the impetus and will to do them. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Development Services Director Report. PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Board Member Rubenkonig announced that she and Chair Monroe would present the Planning Board's report to the City Council on January 16"'. HOUSING STRATEGIES UPDATE Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the City develop a Housing Strategy by the end of 2019, and a Task Force has been appointed by Mayor Earling to move the project forward. The Task Force's next meeting is Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a scheduled for January 25th at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room of City Hall. At the meeting, the consultant and City staff will bring forward a draft list of potential resources and tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse needs. The discussion will be geared towards different types of housing, different income levels, opportunities for partnerships, etc. The public is invited to attend and the Board Members will receive an update following the meeting. Mr. Chave advised that a public open house would be scheduled a few months after the Housing Strategy Task Force Meeting to solicit public input on the tools being considered. Following the open house, the consultant will prepare a draft Housing Strategy for the Planning Board's review in early spring. He noted that a special webpage has been created to provide information: https://www.edmondshousin sg trategy.or/. Staff will notify the Board Members when new items are added to the site. Another update will also be provided to the Board in advance of the consultant's presentation of the formal report. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) AMENDMENT — SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), which is the allowed activities section of the City's critical areas regulations. The section identifies certain activities within a critical area and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical area report. The restriction in area that can be eligible for vegetation removal without a report from a qualified professional is a new provision added in the last major update of the CAO. Since the CAO was last updated, concern has been raised that this limitation (1,500 square feet over 3 years) is too restrictive and/or costly in some circumstances. The City Council has asked the Planning Board to review the limitation and forward a recommendation to them. Mr. Chave explained that the consultant who assisted the City with the last CAO update recommended the 1,500-square-foot limitation, which is consistent with the City of Seattle's ordinance. As currently written, clearing of more than 1,500 square feet is allowed, but a critical area report from a qualified professional is required. He further explained that the intent of the restriction is to avoid situations of potential erosion when invasive species are removed from slopes or stream banks. It was felt that invasive species could be removed from small areas without disturbing much of the intact buffer, but there was concern about making sure people know what they are doing and have proper guidance when doing larger projects. He noted that the Staff Report outlines several options the Board could consider. However, it is important to make sure that larger projects have proper guidance. Describing the qualifications of the professional or organization will be very important. Staff intends to further refine the options based on feedback from the Board and present them for further discussion at the Board's January 24th meeting. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Planning Board had numerous discussions relative to the CAO as part of its work on the Shoreline Master Program. One particular item of discussion at that time was that alder trees that are 2-inch caliper or smaller should be considered noxious plants. He asked if this was incorporated into the CAO. Mr. Chave answered that is it likely found in the definition section rather than the section currently under discussion. He agreed to find the reference and report back. Board Member Lovell summarized that the language change the Board is being asked to consider makes sense on the surface. However, if they want to allow clearing and replanting (restoration) within a critical area larger than 1,500 square feet, it should be done under the auspice of a qualified and experienced individual or organization. He asked if is possible for the City assemble a list of qualified individuals and organizations. Mr. Chave said the City could create a list of individuals and organizations that have worked with the City before, but they are not going to know all that may qualify. Therefore, there must be some sort of a process for determining whether or not a person or organization is qualified to oversee the work. It does not have to be an onerous process, but there needs to be some measure to provide assurance that the work will be overseen by qualified people. This could be as simple as requiring a resume or description of the organization or person that outlines their experience. Board Member Lovell agreed that a simple process should be incorporated to avoid situations of "weekend environmental warriors." Board Member Lovel asked if there has been any discussion in house with respect to the City's responsibility to supervise and inspect the projects. Mr. Chave agreed that supervision and inspection should be part of the equation. For example, the City could ask for a simple restoration plan to ensure that the plantings and species are appropriate. After a project is finished, City staff could inspect to make sure it was done according to the plan. Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to provide more information about how restoration work is done in the City. She noted that there are many different levels of restoration projects, ranging from small to large, on both private and public lands. Some are required as part of a development proposal and others are done by the Parks Department. However, many are done by individuals and groups, as well. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department does work in and around the Edmonds Marsh each year, which can be substantial. Students Saving Salmon have done a number of projects, as well. In addition, individual property owners have done work on their own stream frontages. Usually, they check with the City to find out what is required and if there are any restrictions, but sometimes people clear things away from stream banks without realizing that they need to plant something else so the stream bank does not erode. There are varying levels of projects, as well as expertise and knowledge. Many people are watching over the streams now, so it is not unusual for the City to hear about projects. This allows them to check in to make sure they are doing things right. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the proposed amendment would impact work done by the Parks Department. Mr. Chave advised that the Parks Department is currently in the process of preparing a critical area report to identify all of the projects it expects to undertake over the next year. The report will be reviewed by the Planning Department to make sure it is consistent with the CAO before issuing approval for the range of projects. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Parks Department is also subject to the 1,500-square-foot limitation. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and said that is why they are doing a critical area report. Mr. Chave advised that, oftentimes, restoration work is required as part of a private development permit. In these cases, the developer must submit a critical area report. He cautioned that the proposed amendment must be crafted carefully so that these types of projects do not fall under the exemption, as well. However, he can see situations where a development has a lot of invasive species near a stream, and it may be appropriate for them to partner with a non-profit organization to accomplish the restoration work. But most of the time, developers will be wanting to clear a site for development, and a critical area report will be required to show how the restoration work will be accomplished. Board Member Rosen agreed with the concerns and suggestions raised by Board Member Lovell. He suggested that the draft amendment provided by staff should include the following elements: how the City will determine if an individual or organization is qualified, how the City recommends that supervision take place, and how the City will validate that a group or individual has kept its promises. Board Member Robles voiced concern that the City is being asked to allocate resources without having an accurate inventory. He asked what could be done to incentivize the collection of these resources. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed amendment would only apply to areas within the City that have been categorized as critical area. Mr. Chave added that they usually fall on slopes or near streams. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the Staff Report, which appears to identify the following five options for addressing the problems: • Eliminate the area limitation for bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individual. • Eliminate the area limitation for habitat restoration projects that are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City. • Revise the area limit threshold number. • Revise the area limit threshold limit when a restoration method is proposed. • Retain the existing code language. Board Member Robles felt that the code should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for vegetation removal to extend beyond 1,500 square feet. Vice Chair Cheung asked where the 1,500-foot limitation came from, and Mr. Chave answered that it was a standard from Seattle's ordinance and was recommended by the consultant as a reasonable number. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the process for amending the CAO is a bit different than the process used for most development code amendments. Following a public hearing before the Planning Board, the proposed amendment must be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval before being presented to the City Council for final Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a approval. The proposed amendment should also be considered as a potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which triggers an entirely different process. He explained that the CAO applies to critical areas throughout the City, and the SMP applies to properties with the shoreline jurisdiction only. At this point, staff is only proposing an amendment to the CAO. Depending on how that goes, they could follow up with an amendment to the SMP when it is updated again in 2019. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the Board is looking at the concept of increasing the size of the threshold. In conjunction with this, they should consider the best way to make sure the City is comfortable with the process for vetting individuals and organizations identified to supervise a project. The Board could also consider additional criteria that removal of invasive species would be exempt from the area limitation as long as native species are planted to restore the area appropriately. Mr. Chave agreed to prepare draft language for the Board's review at their next meeting based on the feedback provided. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Cheung reviewed that the January 24th agenda will include a final report on the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis and a study session on draft language to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 14th agenda will include a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and a tentative public hearing on a draft amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 28th meeting will include a public hearing on the UFMP and a discussion on code updates to permit decision making (ECDC 20.01.003(A). Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the last meeting, he inquired about when the Board would receive a report on the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. He asked that staff work to add this to the extended agenda, noting that the consultant likely provided a timeline as part of the contract. Board Member Lovell asked if the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis would be presented by the consultant or staff. Mr. Chave answered that the work is being done by the consultant, but he does know if the consultant will make the actual presentation to the Board. Board Member Lovell also asked if the consultant would present the UFMP to the Board, and Mr. Chave said he was not sure if it would be presented by the consultant or staff. Board Member Lovell asked if the Tree Board would be represented at the February 14th and February 28th meetings at which the UFMP will be discussed. Board Member Robles said he knows that the Tree Board plans to be active in future discussions, and representatives from the Tree Board will be present at the Planning Board meetings when the topic is discussed. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell advised that he would take over the responsibility of being the liaison to the Citizens Economic Development Commission. Board Member Robles reported that he has met twice with the sign committee reviewing the gateway entry sign near Westgate where the road splits to the ferry and downtown. It is an interesting group of people and the artist is brilliant. The artist has come up with three or four designs, one of which was "out of the park." He hasn't seen the updated rendition, but the ideas thus far as very nice. The intent is for the sign design to reflect how the road splits in this location. Board Member Rubenkonig once again referred to the minutes from the joint Planning Board/ADB Meeting on December 13th. They contained excellent information that will be helpful for the Board when they move to the next part of the process. It was very interesting to review what was said that evening. Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that she and Chair Monroe would present the Planning Board's report to the City Council on January 16th. At that time, she felt it would be helpful to provide information about the Board Member's professional qualifications, as well as the neighborhoods they live in. It will be good for the City Council to see that representation goes throughout the entire City. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/14/2018 Recommendation on Revisiting Five Corners Plan & Zoning Initiative Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History In 2007, the City Council had determined that an initiative to plan for and revise development regulations for both the Westgate area and the Five Corners area should be handled in a phased manner and that the Westgate area should be first. In part, the Westgate area was chosen to go first because the Five Corners area was being planned for a traffic round -about and new development regulations should wait until the round -about project was complete. Since then, the Westgate planning and zoning changes have been completed. The Five Corners round- about project has been built. Based on this information, one of the City Council members (Kristiana Johnson) requested during a public meeting that the Five Corners Initiative be taken up again. A summary of the key provisions of the Five Corners Initiative has been developed. (See attachment 1.) Because some key properties in the Five Corners area had been sold since the Initiative was tabled and the area's opportunities for redevelopment may have changed, Director Hope suggested that a feasibility analysis be done. Even though significant work had been done on the Five Corners Initiative, hundreds of hours of staff time, as well as Planning Board and City Council time, would still be needed to complete the project. A feasibility analysis could help determine whether this substantial extra work was appropriate in the near future. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council direct the Five Corners Initiative to be revisited in the next year or so, as resources allow. Narrative A consultant team, Heartland, was contracted to provide the analysis. The team was to review a few key properties near the round -about and determine whether the changes previously proposed for the draft Five Corners area would be likely to result in redevelopment of any of the key properties. In case redevelopment seemed unlikely under the proposed changes, the team was also asked to examine whether it would make a difference to consider additional flexibility in the proposed regulations. The feasibility analysis has been completed and it shows that at least some key properties would be likely to redevelop over the long term if the proposed regulations were implemented. If additional flexibility was built into the same regulations, some redevelopment may happen sooner. Of course, the property is all privately owned, so it is solely up to the property owner to determine whether or when to redevelop. Packet Pg. 9 8.A The results of the analysis are summarized in the presentation (attached), which will be made by Heartland at the February 14 meeting. At the end of the presentation, the Planning Board may make a recommendation to the City Council about whether to take up the Five Corners Initiative again and do more work to prepare it for further consideration under a full public process. The additional work would probably take at least a few months; actual timing depends partly on staff resources to do it. NOTE: Whether to recommend a final product for adoption is a separate matter that would not be considered until a final draft set of regulations for the Five Corners area is ready. Attachments: Att. 1: ReVisioning 5 Corners Fact Sheet Att. 2: 1168_FiveCorners_presentation_Draft_012618 Packet Pg. 10 Edmonds Five Corners October 2017 // City of Eg,A.a Fact Sheet / "ReVisioning Five Corners: A Special District Form -Based Code" Rey coning FIVE CORNERS CORE CONCEPTS The intent for Five Corners is to create a vibrant mixed -use activity center that enhances economic development, provides housing, and retail/office uses that support the surrounding neighborhood. Core concepts include: Emphasis on creating a lively pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks and buildings placed close to the street. A requirement for 15% landscaped open space. All units shall meet a minimum Green Factor score of .30. Green Factor is a score -based code requirement developed by the City of Seattle to improve the quality of landscaping in new development. 1 Retain and infiltrate stormwater on private property through use of low -impact development techniques. Increase affordable housing and housing options. Require 10% of new housing units to be made affordable to low- to moderate - income households and require a mix in housing unit size — ranging from 900- to 1,600-sf. Provide options for active transportation by installing new bike �♦i lanes and enlarging sidewalks. EXISTING CONDITIONS � AGE OF QUICK FACTS STRUCTURE `P a 1900's ! Approximately 12,000 people 1940's ! live within one mile of the 1950's ! study area. 7r 1960's ! ! 1970s ! Median age of the population -- 1980's ! is 46.6-years-old. r 1990's ! � 12T Homeownership rate is about 72.7-percent. u Z Average household income p [1 �� ❑ o is around $102,500 (2015 q ❑ �1 _ F1 dollars). STUDY AREA: 9.6 sq. acres EXISTING USES SQUARE FOOTAGE General Retail 36,694 Church 12,192 General Office 6,870 Multi -Family I 3,780 Single -Family I 3,670 TOTAL 63,206 CURRENT TENANTS • Calvary Chapel Edmonds • Cafe Ladro • Casa Oaxaca • A Brewed Awakening • Bar Dojo • Shooby Doo Catering • Noodle Hut • 5 Corners Teriyaki • Frankie's Barber Shop • Magic Nails Source: 2011-2015 ACS 5-year sample, census block level data • City Dry Cleaners • Namaste Salon • Farmers Insurance • State Farm Insurance • My Sister's Place (art classes) • Bridge Animal Referral Center • Edmonds Veterinary Clinic • Edmonds Foot & Ankle Clinic • College Place Optical Packet Pg. 11 Edmonds Five Corners City of E g.A.a Commercial Block Mixed -Use Courtyard Live -Work Loft Mixed -Use Rowhouse Side Court Stacked Dwelling Required Building Line (Distance from Property Line) Street 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Roundabout 20' min., 40' max. — — 20' min., 40' max. — 20' min., 40' max. 20' min., 40' max. Miscellaneous A minimum of 60% of the primary fagade shall be built to the Required Building Line. All Properties 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Roundabout 3 — — 3 — 3 3 Miscellaneous One bonus story is permittted for any property meeting the height bonus criteria (see section 6.5.3). Frontage Types (See fig. 3.3-1) Gallery, Shopfront, Forecourt, Stoop, Any Frontage Type Gallery, Shopfront, Stoop, Terrace Gallery, Shopfront, Any Frontage Type Terrace Terrace Terrace Terrace Miscellaneous Any section of along the required building line that is not defined by a building must be defined by amenity or green space except for the minimum necessary opening for vehicular access. Awnings, bay windows, or other building design features may encroach over the Required Building Line, but not the Property Line. Loading docks or other service entries are prohibited on street facing facades. Facades on retail frontages shall be glazed with clear glass no less than 70% of the sidewalk -level story. Any building fa4ade facing a public street shall include changes in buiulding form, modulation, archways, entrances, porches, or stoops for every 12' of frontage. Access through the building to rear parkign or amenity space is required at intervals no less than every 150' of the fa4ade facing the street. Spaces Residential: 1 space per unit Other Uses: 1 space per 500 SF c �a a L F L O U a� ii c r .N a� c O c O R c d E E O m r m a� t U) R U_ W L L O U LO c O m r r a c aD E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 12 I OJERS111101119 1� 8.A.b 40 �00 00 'NO H EARTLA 1-1 l-'-- I Packet Pg. 13 8.A.b • Project Overview • Property Overview • Methodology • Findings • Scenario Analysis • BARC • Edmonds Veterinary • Cavalry Chapel • Five Corner Plaza • Appendix H E A Packet Pg. 14 U • Context: • The City of Edmonds is considering a form -based code for the Five Corners area. • Five Corners area has potential to add increased density and additional housing with newer building stock. • Goal: explore the feasibility of re- development of four sites within current market conditions under draft code. 8.A.b c 0 c o_ nin R vi io g e s E 0 FIVE CORNERS 00 CORE CONCEPTS to T" The intent for Five Corners is to create a vibrant mixed -use activity center th. �I enhances economic development, provides housing, and retail/office uses tha support the surrounding neighborhood. Core concepts include: I C Emphasis on creating a lively pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks and buildings placed close to the street. CD U) A requirement for 15%landscaped open space. All units shall Q. meet a minimum Green Factor score of .30. Green Factor is a NI score -based code requirement developed by the City of Seattle to improve the quality of landscaping in new development. i O U d Retain and infiltrate stormwater on private property through u: LL of low -impact development techniques. toI to Increase affordable housing and housing options. Require 10% nj of new housing units to be made affordable to low- to moderate- r income households and require a mix in housing unit size — Q ranging from 900- to 1,600-sf. O E t Provide options for active transportation by installing new bike 0 lanes and enlarging sidewalks. Q J H E A F1 Packet Pg. 15 8.A.b i r J x � 1 � � m � 1 � M c 0 c 0 w c mc Acres G O v d Co w N_ �- O QI O I Acres C C L a i L d C O U O ii — 4 co co r i Q r C 0 E c,> Y r a H E A fPacket Pg. 16 8.A.b Feasibility of Redevelopment from Developer's Perspective $3.2M 0 Project Value Stack Project Cost • Hard & Soft IDeveloper Return to Capital * Residual Land Value -3 • Developer analyzes project - specific returns to make "go/no-go" decision • Residual Land Value ("RLV"): Amount the developer can afford to pay for the "land" • Assuming the developer maximizes allowed buildable square feet, the total value of developed project is set • Any additional project costs push down the residual land value, while additional entitlements can increase it c 0 c 0 E E 0 Go N_ O L 0 L Q L L Go Y a E M a H E A Packet Pg. 17 Redevelopment occurs when the residual land value is higher than the value of the site's current use. S N Hypothetical Residual Land Value c 0 c 0 E E 0 H E AF1 Packet Pg. 18 8.A.b • Scenarios Considered 1. Value in Use: existing site value 2. Draft Form -Based Code: site value under proposed code 3. Flexible Form -Based Code: site value under proposed code with greater flexibility • Analysis of redevelopment focused on highest intensity use (Commercial Block Mixed -Use). • Draft Form -Based Code Assumptions • 75% site area developable • Maximum height of four stories (three stories residential over one story retail) • Parking Minimums —1 Stall/Residential Unit + 1 Stall/500 square foot retail • 15% units affordable at 80% AMI • Average unit size = 600 SF (20% of units < 900 SF, no units over 1,600 SF) • Flexible Form -Based Code Assumptions 1. Maximum height of five stories (four stories residential over one story retail) 2. Parking Minimums — 0.5 Stalls/Residential Unit + 1 Stall/500 square foot retail 3. Combined maximum height of five stories and parking minimums of 0.5 stall/residential units H E A F1 Packet Pg. 19 c 0 c 0 Existing buildings on the four tested sites in the Five Corners area are currently 100% occupied with relatively high market rents. • Current zoning prohibits multi -family or buildings with heights over 25 feet. 00 V_ T to N T The new draft Form -Based Code for Five Corners increases L development capacity enough to make redevelopment financially feasible. CD U) L Additional enhancements to the code would increase redevelopment L value. • For medium-sized and large sites, decreasing required parking minimums U.1 provides the highest lift to land value N • For small sites, allowing an extra floor of building height provides the most a additional value. CD • A combination of decreased parking minimums and an extra floor of building height would provide the highest additional value for all sites. a H E A F1 Packet Pg. 20 g3� x H E A Fl Packet Pg. 21 8.A.b oI c O Land Value Under Current Use -$65 Per Square Foot E Amir, E Property Value $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 ■ Base Case $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 - m m ERP I m �_ O Space Program • 72,310 SF ao Building17,504 SF N 0 u se Retail CDI TATt A4- BARC pL c I O Revenue Metrics w� at W $24 NNN w d L Q. • $400,000 NI L d 9% L O V m Property Value LL 00 • $4.7 Million to • $65/LSF N r a r c a� E t Q * Rounded to nearest hundred -thousand H E A Packet Pg. 22 Draft Firm -Based Cede o■ • Land Value Under Draft Form -Based Code ^ $95 Per Square Foot o .w IFFWLW 1 A6 Acres Aw Property Value $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 ■ Base Case $8,000,000 $31 PSF Over Hurdle ■Draft Form -Based $6,000,000 Code $4,000,000 ........... ............................ $2,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program 72,310 SF E 0 216,929 SF • 264 Units 0 30,000 SF04 0 324 Stalls f� Cost Metrics of • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SF • 'Net Operating Income*= � larket Cap Rat ' . MF, .' . Retail c `o V a� �I 0 cc r r Property Value T in r • $26,090/Unit Q r c $59/LSF • t $37/LSF a • $95/LSF * Rounded to nearest hu dCed-tbQUSQQ H E A If Packet Pg. 23 8.A.b o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$120 Per Square Foot o .w Space Program 72,310 SF E 0 271,161 SF F , 6 ntres I Aw Property Value $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 ■ Base Case $8,000,000 $55 PSF $6,000,000 Over Hurdle ■ Flexible Form -Based .......... ......... Code $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Net Property Value 361 Units 0 30,000 SF04 0 401 Stalls f� Cost Metrics of • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SFAEff 'Net Operating Income*= • larket Cap Rat ' . MF .' . Retail Property nd Value per U ' etail Contribution t c `0 V a� UI 0 m r r N Q $25,408/Unit .. r $83/LSF � $37/LSF t 8.A.b o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$172 Per Square Foot o .w Space Program 72,310 SF E 0 216,929 SF Property Value $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 ■ Base Case $8,000,000 1 $107 PSF $6,000,000 Over Hurdle Flexible Form -Based ............ ......... Code $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Net Property Value 264 Units 00 30,000 SF04 OI Am 192 Stalls 0 Cost Metrics of • $220 PSF c $165 PSF N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' �• • IarketCap Rat 4'. IVIF, •'. Retail • • nd Value per U ' retail Contribution t Value/ Land SF moo= c `0 V a� �I cw co r r N $47,090/Unit Q r $135/LSF c E $37/LSF t a $172/LSF * Rounded to nearest h7dnusan Packet Pg. 25 H E A 8.A.b o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$219 Per Square Foot o F 1A6Acres Aw Property Value $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 ■ Base Case $8,000,000 $154 PSF $6,000,000 Over Hurdle ■ Flexible Form -Based ...... ......... Code $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SF 'Net Operating Income*= • larket Cap Rat ' . MF, .' . Retail Property Value 4F _nd Value _per U retail Contribution to Value Value/ land SIF * Rounded to nearest hu nusan - H E A Packet Pg. 26 Space Program 72,310 SF 271,161 SF • 341 Units 30,000 SF 231 Stalls m E E 0 m Go w N_ O Cost Metrics of • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L a c `0 V a� uI 00 w r r RC Scenarios: Comparative Performance c 0 c Scenario Scenario 5 Scenario Value in Use Draft Form -Based Code Flexible Height Wo c� Flexible Parking Flexible Height + Par Space Program AL E E 0. • 72,310 SF 72,310 SF 72,310 SF 72,310 SF 72,310 SF NA 216,929 SF 271,161 SF 216,929 SF 271,161 SF ' . -- 264 Units 361 Units 264 Units cw 361 Units 17,504 SF 30,000 SF 30,000 SF 30,000 SF N 30,000 SF c 324 Stalls 401 Stalls 192 Stalls I 231 Stalls R L Cost Metrics �I 2 $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF $165 PSF $165 PSF $165 PSF c $165 PSF y m Revenue Metric a I L $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 c L $24 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN o— $28 NNN a) • $0.4 Million $3.4 Million $4.2 Million $3.4 Million u_ $4.2 Million I 00 9% 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail — 4% MF, 6% Retai W ilk A $26,090 $25,408 $47,090 Q $46,408 i.. ji $59/LSF $83/LSF $135/LSF c $182/LSF E s $37/LSF $37/LSF $37/LSF $37/LSF Q • SF $65/LSF $95/LSF $120/LSF $172/LSF $219/LSF . F I n Packet Pg. 27 8.A.b 1.66 Acres IL I H E A Fl Packet Pg. 28 1 8.A.b • Land Value Under Current Use -$52 Per SF Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 ■ Existing Use c 0 c 0 E E Space Program 0 v • 39,204 SF ao Building7,590 SF to N Use Retail T_ CD$I Edmonds Veterinary 2 p I c O w Revenue Metrics $24 NNN w as L Q. • _ $182,160 NI L d 9% L O V m Property Value LL 00 . • $2.0 Million to • $52/LSF N r Q c a� E t Q * Rounded to nearest hundred -thousand H E A Packet Pg. 29 • Land Value Under Draft Form -Based Code -$110 Per Square Foot _4111, 0. 9 Acres Property Value $10, 000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Existing Use $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $58 PSF ■ Five Corners Form- $3,000,000 Over Hurdle Based Code $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Space Program c 0 _ 0 as E 39,204 SF E 0 117,612 SF • 124 Units o w 29,403 SF04 0 183 Stalls L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SFANM 'Net Operating Income*= IarketCap Rat 4'. MF •'. Retail 7 ;n as c `o V a� UI o cc r r Property Value_ $35,000/Unit Q r c $68/LSF • t $43/LSF a • $110/LSF * Rounded to near - H E A Packet Pg. 30 8.A.b • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$137 Per Square Foot Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $85 PSF Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 10ver Hurdle Code $2,000,000 ... ......... $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program c 0 _ 0 as E 39,204 SF E 0 147,015 SF 166 Units o 29,403 SF04 w 0 Am 225 Stalls L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' �• • larket Cap Rat ' . IVIF, .' . Retail PropertyValue _nd Value _per U ��-fa • , retail Contribution Value/ land SF * Rounded to nearest hu rp - H E A Packet Pg. 31 c `0 V a� LI cw co r r 9 8.A.b • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$125 Per Square Foot _JIII 0.9 Acres Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $125 PSF ■ Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 Over Hurdle Code $ 2, 000, 000 .......... ......... $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program 39,204 SF 117,612 SF 124 Units 29,403 SF 121 Stalls c ■ 0 _ 0 m E E 0 m Go to N O �J L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SF 'Net Operating Income*= • larket Cap Rat ' . MF, .' . Retail Property Value _nd Value _per I retail Contribution Value/ land SF * Rounded to nearest hu rp - H E A Packet Pg. 32 c `0 V a� uI co co r r 9 • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$226 Per Square Foot 41, 0.9 Acres Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 ■ Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 $174 PSF Code Over Hurdle $2,000,000 ..... ......... $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program 39,204 SF 147,015 SF 166 Units 29,403 SF 142 Stalls c ■ 0 _ 0 m E E 0 m Go w N O �J L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics Multi -Family Market 'Retail Market Rent/ SFAEM 'Net Operating Income*= �• • larket Cap Rat ' . MF .' . Retail _1400suff- Property Value _nd Value per II retail Contribution to Value Value/ land SF * Rounded to nearest hu dCed-tbQUSQQ H E A If Packet Pg. 33 c `o V a� uI co cc r r 9 8.A.b Edmonds Veterinary Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 0 I Scenarios Value7inUse4lDraft Form -Based Code Flexible Height Flexible Parking Flexible Height + Paie E Program E39,239,204 SF 39,204 SF 39,204 SF 39,204 SF c0i m — NA 117,612 SF 147,015 SF 117,612 SF 147,015 SF00 • -- 124 Units 166 Units 124 Units _ 166 Units co N - 7,590 SF 29,403 SF 29,403 SF 29,403 SF 29,403 SF c I • . -- 183 Stalls 225 Stalls 121 Stalls to 142 Stalls L Cost Metri 0 • •• - $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF r- $220 PSF r •• •• - $165 PSF $165 PSF $165 PSF — $165 PSF L Q Revenue Metric L - $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 L 0 U $24 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN — $28 NNN > LL — • • $0. Million $2.0 million $2.4 Million $2.0 million $2.4 Million co • • . 9% 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail r - 4% MF, 6% Retai N Property Value ' a - $35,000/Unit $32,398/Unit $55,794/Unit $53,298/Unit a� — • -- $68/LSF $94/LSF $134/LSF $183/LSF �a — • - $43/LSF $43/LSF $43/LSF $43/LSF Q • $52/LSF $110/LSF $137/LSF $125/LSF $226/LSF . u 1: A r Packet Pg. 34 1.66 acres 0 0 c 0 c m E E 0 T to N T O Co to T T :a r Q Q H E A Fl Packet Pg. 35 8.A.b • Land Value Under Current Use -$58 Per SF Property Value $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 ■ Existing Use $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 0 ■ 0 c 0 E Space Program 0 Land SF 43,124 SF ao Building SF 12,192 SF Use Institutional $I Cavalry Chapel L p c 0 Property Valu c as $2,500,000 L $58/LSF N L 0 c� a� LL 00 cD r N r rr Q r c a) E t * Rounded to nearest hundred-tho id Q *Due to special use, used escalated 201, male price rather than capped income to impute value H E A Packet Pg. 36 8.A.b iro o N Land Value Under Draft Form -Based Code -$109 Per Square Foot o t m 3 -s 6.99 Acres 2 7 2bi,&E S W a � I A �r Property Value $8,000,000 - $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 ■ Existing Use $4,000,000 $51 PSF 41 $3,000,000 Over Hurdle ■ Five Corners Form- ..................................................... $2,000,000 Based Code $1,000,000 $0 Space Program 43,124 SF o 129,373 SF ARM 140 Units o to 30,000 SF 0 200 StallsI �a L Cost Metrics cl 0 $220 PSF a c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics WIP10111-rarmly r7larKel 'Retail Market Rent/ SF 'Net Operating Income* • 'Market Cap Rate 4' , 7 as c L 0 c) a� ii I Co m * Rounded to near - H E A Packet Pg. 37 8.A.b o N Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$134 Per Square Foot o .w I 1s Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 1 $76 PSF $3,000,000 Over Hurdle $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Ep , 0 rT 0.99Acres ■ Base Case Flexible Form -Based Code Space Program 43,124 SF E 0 161,717 SF 186 Units o 30,000 SF w 04 0 Am 246 Stalls 0 L Cost Metrics c� • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' - Iarket Cap Rat 4'. IVIF, •'. Retail • • nd Value per U ' etail Contribution t c `0 V a� LI 0 co r r N $31,164/Unit Q r $91/LSF c E $43/LSF t 8.A.b o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$177 Per Square Foot o .w I 1s Ep , 0 rT 0.99Acres Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $119 PSF Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 Over Hurdle Code .......... ......... $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program qr 43,124 SF E 0 129,373 SF • 140 Units o 30,000 SF w 04 0 Am 130 StallsI 0 L Cost Metrics cl • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' IarketCap Rat 4'. IVIF, •'. Retail c `0 V a� ii I 0 co r r Property Value0. r • . $54,651/Unit Q r c $134/LSF • t $43/LSF a • $177/LSF * Rounded to nearest hu rp - H E A Packet Pg. 39 8.A.b o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$225 Per Square Foot o .w I 1s a!__� _�0.99 Acres Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $167 PSF ■ Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 Over Hurdle Code ......... $2,000,000 r.......... $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program Ar 43,124 SF E 0 161,717 SF 186 Units o 30,000 SF w 04 0 Am 153 Stalls 0 L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Revenue Metri� Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' • IarketCap Rat 4'. IVIF, •'. Retail Property Value nd Value per U ' etail Contr Value/ land SF c `0 V a� LI 0 co r r N $52,164 /Unit Q r $182/LSF c 8.A.b Chapel Scenarios: Comparative Performa[IU2 ..avalry c 0 Cavalry Chapel Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario c Scenario 5 Scenarios Value in Use Draft Form -Based Code Flexible Height Flexible Parking Wo c� Flexible Height + Pa m Space Program E E • 43,124 SF 43,124 SF 43,124 SF 43,124 SF 43,124 SF NA 129,373 SF 161,717 SF 129,373 SF 161,717 SF ' -- 140 Units 186 Units 140 Units CO 186 Units 12,192 SF 30,000 SF 30,000 SF 30,000 SF N 30,000 SF c - 200 Stalls 246 Stalls 130 Stalls I 153 Stalls Cost Metrics �I 0 -- $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF - $165 PSF $165 PSF $165 PSF c $165 PSF y m Revenue Metric a I L $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 L $20 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN 0 $28 NNN • $0. Million $2.2 million $2.6 Million $2.2 Million u_ $2.6 Million I cw 9% 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Reta W PropertW.. N $34,000/Unit $31,164/Unit $54,651/Unit $52,164 Q r J. $66/LSF $91/LSF $134/LSF c $182/LSF E v LZ $43/LSF $43/LSF $43/LSF $43/LSF Q • SIF $63/LSF $109/LSF $134/LSF $177/LSF $225/LSF ' H E A Packet Pg. 41 8.A.b 1.66 acres l , 1 H E A Fl Packet Pg. 42 8.A.b Land Value Under Current Use -$74 Per SF Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 ■ Existing Use $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 c 0 c 0 E E Space Program 0 Land SF 35,719 SF 00 Building9,974 SF 0° N Use O Retail +, r 5 Corner Plaza p` c 0 Revenue Metrics° c a� $24 NNN N m L • _ $239,376 9% L a� 0 U d Property Value LL . • $2.7 Million 00 to • $74/LSF N a E a * Rounded to nearest hundred -thousand H E A Packet Pg. 43 r o • Land Value Under Draft Form -Based Code -$114 Per Square Foot 0.82 Aues Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $36 PSF $3,000,000 Over Hurdle $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 ■ Existing Use ■ Five Corners Form - Based Code Space Program 35,719 SF o 107,158 SF w ARM 113 Units o MMIMMIN 26,789 SF to 04 0 167 StallsI L Cost Metrics cl 0 $220 PSF a $165 PSF c y m L Q Revenue Metrics $2.40 L $28 NNN 0 ) • • $1.8 million ii 4% MF, 6% Retail I w r * Rounded to near - H E A Packet Pg. 44 8.A.b o N Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$135 Per Square Foot o .w Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $60 PSF Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 Over Hurdle ......... ......... Code $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program 35,719 SF E 0 133,947 SF 151 Units o 26,800 SF w N o� Am 205 Stalls 0 L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' • larket Cap Rat ' . IVIF, .' . Retail •. nd Value per U ' Wi-faT&retailil Contribution tValue/ Land SF c `0 V a� LI 0 co r r $31,857/Unit Q r $92/LSF c E $42/LSF t a $135/LSF * Rounded to nearest hu -znnrI Pacthnw P. 45 H E A 8.A.b Five Corner Plaza: Flexible Parking c � o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$176 Per Square Foot or_ .w Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $102 PSF $3,000,000 Over Hurdle ......... ......... $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value ■ Base Case Flexible Form -Based Code Space Program 35,719 SF E 0 107,158 SF • 113 Units o 26,789 SF co 04 o� Am 111 Stalls 0 L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Multi -Family Market Rent/ s 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' • larket Cap Rat All- KAF .' . Retail Property nd Value per U ' retail Contribution t Value/ land SF ;n a� c `0 V a� LI co co r r N $55,724/Unit Q r $134/LSF c E $42/LSF t a $176/LSF * Rounded to nearest hu rp- Packet Pg. 46 H E A o • Land Value Under Flexible Form -Based Code -$223 Per Square Foot o .w Property Value $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ■ Base Case $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $148 PSF ■ Flexible Form -Based $3,000,000 Over Hurdle ......... ......... Code $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Net Property Value Space Program 35,719 SF E 0 133,947 SF • 151 Units o 26,789 SF co 04 o� Am 153 Stalls 0 L Cost Metrics c� 0 • $220 PSF c $165 PSF c N m L Revenue Wlletri� Multi -Family Market Rent/ Illlllllllr 'Retail Market Rent/ SF mom 'Net Operating Income*' IarketCap Rat 4'. NAF •'. Retail c `0 V a� LI cw co r r Property Value r • $52,718/Unit Q r ah c $181/LSF E • t $42/LSF a • $223/LSF * Rounded to nearest huarJrPrI-thnwznnrI H E A J, Packet Pg. 47 8.A.b Five Corner Plaza Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario c Scenario 5 0 Scenarios Value in Use Draft Form -Based Code Flexible Height Flexible Parking c� Flexible Height + Pa m E Space Program E • 35,719 SF 35,719 SF 35,719 SF 35,719 SF 35,719 SF NA 107,158 SF 133,947 SF 107,158 SF 133,947 SF • -- 113 Units 151 Units 113 Units 151 Units w co N 9,974 SF 26,789 SF 26,800 SF 26,789 SF 26,800 SF c I • . -- 167 Stalls 205 Stalls 111 Stalls 153 Stalls ^^L 1..1 Cost Metrics c 0 • • -- $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF $220 PSF 2 of -- $165 PSF $165 PSF $165 PSF c $165 PSF y m L Revenue Metrics a -- $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 a� c L 0 $24 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN $28 NNN aa) >_ • • $0. Million $1.8 million $2.2 Million $1.8 million $2.2 Million u_I w 9% 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Retail 4% MF, 6% Reta Property Value N • -- $35,000/Unit $31,857/Unit $55,724/Unit $52,718/Unit Q r • A I $68/LSF $92/LSF $134/LSF $181/LSF E t • -- $42/LSF $42/LSF $42/LSF $42/LSF Q • $74/LSF $110/LSF $135/LSF $176/LSF $223/LSF ' Packet Pg. 48 F A 8.A.b $240 $220 $200 $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 631 Property Value BARC Edmonds Veterinary Cavalry Chapel Four Corners Plaza d E 0 Go w N o� 0 i c 0 ■ Value in Use c ■ Draft Form -Based Code a ■ Flexible Height ■ Flexible Parking as 0 ■ Flexible Height + Parkin c� i� CO i r r N r rr Q r C N E M 0 c� Q = Hurdle Value H E A Packet Pg. 49 8.A.b Q H E A Packet Pg. 50 8.A.b • Rents • 4&5 Star Apartments: Average $2 PSF/mo. Or $1,560 per mo. • Retail: Average $20.60 NNN (Five Corners recent lease: asking $27.00 PSF NNN) • Vacancy: • 4&5 Star Apartments: 5.4% • Retail (Neighborhood Center): 8.5% • Building Values • Apartments cap rates ranges between 3.5% - 4.0% on stabilized income, resulting building values of $350 - $400 PSF • Existing retail cap rates ranges between 9-11%, resulting building values of $210-300 PSF • Land Values • Average $80 PSF, $50,000 per residential unit H E A F1 Packet Pg. 51 b 1 1.66 RETAIL: Edmonds Fitness Barc Properties LLC (1961, 17,504 5f) 2' 0.9 Signature Styles/Clpftal (1990,4,890 5f) Lakeshore Investment$ 017 Edmonds Veterinary Ho5pltal (1992, 2,700 5f) 3 0.99 Church (1962, 8,140 Sf) Calvary Chapel Edmonds/ Church (194S, 4,052 Sf) Lynnwood 4 � 0.82 Espresso Stand (20D6, 404 Sf) YGo Dyk& Hae Soak RETAIL: 5 Comer Plaza { 1960, 9,5705f) TENANTS:5 Corner SlylingfTarl Terlyakl RECENT SALE PRICE? PRICE? ASSESSEd )ATE STILE PRICE LAND SF BLDG SF LAND may-16 $2,4D0,000 $33 $137 NIA NIA NIA WA Sep-12 $2,099,00 $49 $172 Nov-16 $2,806,000 $79 $281 $876,1 DD ASSESSED IMPROVEMENTS $1,Z23,900 $730,21)0 1 $749,800 $788,7DD 1 $736,300 S675,100 I $790AN 8.A.b r- 0 c 0 c m E E ASSESSED O TOTAL y 52,100,= co T to N_ 51,41BO,00( cl O L $11535)DOi a O O $1,465,50( N rn d L LL rb to :a Q H E A Packet Pg. 52 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/14/2018 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 02-14-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 53 of EbAf U� O�6 PLANKNO BOARD j�. t aao Extended Agenda February 14, 2018 Meeting Item FEBRUARY 2018 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Feb. 14 1. Recommendation on Revisiting Five Corners Plan & Zoning Initiative Feb. 28 1. Public Hearing to amend the Comp. Plan map designation for ten lots from Edmonds Way Corridor to Corridor Development Highway 99) (AMD20180001) 2. Discussion on Code Update to Permit Decision Making ECDC 20.01.003A 3. Urban Forest Management Plan Review and Discussion 4. Discussion on Critical Area — Select Vegetation Removal MARCH 2O18 March 14 1. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan March 28 APRIL 2018 April 11 April 25 MAY 2018 May 9 May 23 Packet Pg. 54 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2018 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. 55