The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.01.09 Special City Council Meeting Agenda PacAGENDA Special City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds January 09, 2007 7:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 2, 2007. 3. (10 Min) Motion to remove the following matter from the table: Continued deliberation and action on an ordinance adding a new Chapter 16.43 establishing BD -Downtown Business Zones and amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories. 4. (45 Potential continued deliberation and action on an ordinance adding a new Chapter 16.43 establishing Min) BD -Downtown Business Zones and amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories. 5. (10 Min) Motion to remove the following matter from the table: Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district. 6. (10 Potential deliberation and action regarding a proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing Min) a moratorium within the City's central business district. 7. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 8_ (15 Min) Council Comments 9. Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 1 of 64 AM-792 2.13. Approve 01/02/07 Council Minutes Special City Council Meeting Date: 01/09/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 2, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Review and approve the January 2, 2007 City Council Minutes. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative Please refer to the attached draft minutes. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 01-02-07 Draft Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Inbox Approved By Date Status Seq 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/04/2007 04:23 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/04/2007 05:45 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/05/2007 08:54 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 01/04/2007 04:13 PM Final Approval Date: 01/05/2007 Packet Page 2 of 64 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 2, 2007 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Haakenson relayed Councilmember Dawson's request to pull Item E from the Consent Agenda so that she could abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2006. C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DAN AND JANE HINRICHS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND WARREN SANDERS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). D. APPROVAL OF 2007 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI. ITEM E: RESOLUTION NO. 1137 COMMENDING COUNCIL PRESIDENT DEANNA DAWSON FOR HER SERVICE. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON ABSTAINED. 3. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2007 Mayor Haakenson opened the floor for nominations for Council President. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 3 of 64 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE NOMINATED PEGGY PRITCHARD OLSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2007. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN SECONDED THE NOMINATION. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore commented the recent passing and today's funeral for former President Ford gave her an opportunity to think about leadership. The best leaders are humble, honest, hardworking and organized; Councilmember Olson is not just a friend to many but also that kind of leader. Councilmember Moore commented Councilmember Olson was very much like her late father, former Congressman and Lieutenant Governor Joel Pritchard who was also self-effacing, never a headline grabber, made his enemies into friends and never laid blame on others nor cared who got the credit when progress was made for the people he served. Councilmember Moore was proud to nominate Councilmember Olson for Council President. THE NOMINATION OF PEGGY PRITCHARD OLSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2007 CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINED. 4. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM Mayor Haakenson opened the floor for nominations for Council President Pro Tem. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN NOMINATED RON WAMBOLT AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE SECONDED THE MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore commented after having served one year with Councilmember Wambolt, he was the best surprise to happen in her three years on the Council. He was honest, courageous, hardworking, and open minded as well as thoughtful and fair. THE NOMINATION OF RON WAMBOLT AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2007 CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT ABSTAINED. 5. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES Council President Olson advised because some committees were paid and others were not and there was a cap on the number of meetings a Councilmember could be paid for, Councilmember Wambolt suggested and she agreed that rather than having some committees paid and others not, Councilmembers would be paid for every committee meeting they attended until they reached the cap. She read the following Committee appointments: Committee Representative Community Serv./Dev. Serv. Committee Richard Marin, Mauri Moore Finance Committee Dave Orvis, Ron Wambolt Public Safety Deanna Dawson, Michael Plunkett Community Outreach Mauri Moore, Michael Plunkett Community Technology Advisory Peggy Olson, Ron Wambolt Disability Board Dave Orvis, Deanna Dawson Downtown Edmonds Parking Michael Plunkett Edmonds Crossing Project Multimodal Ron Wambolt Highway 99 Task Force Ron Wambolt, Richard Marin, Michael Plunkett Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Michael Plunkett, Mauri Moore Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 4 of 64 Long Range Task Force Peggy Olson, Ron Wambolt Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Dave Orvis SnoCom Deanna Dawson PFD Oversight Committee Mauri Moore Port of Edmonds Ron Wambolt Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee Ron Wambolt Snohomish County Econ. Dev. Board Mauri Moore Seashore Transportation Forum Richard Marin, Peggy Olson Snohomish County Health District Richard Marin Snohomish County Tomorrow Richard Marin, Deanna Dawson South Snohomish Cities Peggy Olson WRIA-8 Dave Orvis 6. PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. Council President Olson proposed Councilmember Marin serve on the Snohomish County Health District Board. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1138 APPOINTING RICHARD MARIN TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN ABSTAINED. 7. PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Council President Olson proposed Councilmember Marin serve on the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation Board of Directors. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1139 APPOINTING RICHARD MARIN TO SERVE ON THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MAURI MOORE TO SERVE AS THE ALTERNATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED. Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to alternate language proposed by Councilmember Wambolt that was contained in the packet in Exhibit 3. He explained the existing BC height limits were 25 + 5 or 30 feet above the average level/grade which was determined via a simple calculation. He displayed a drawing illustrating the slope and the average grade/level on a property. He recalled when the Council discussed design guidelines and rules for how to get from 25-feet to 30-feet, the step -back concept was developed. The intent was to step -back the building above 25 feet so that it appeared to be a 25-foot building from the opposite side of the street. He noted this was a simple rule that did not alter the basic BC height limit of 25 +5 feet. He noted this method was in the BD language. He displayed an uphill example of the step -back in the adopted BD 1 language, explaining it resulted in a step -back on the street front and rear or opposite side of the building. He displayed a downhill example, advising a step -back may not be required on the street front because the average level could be lower than Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 5 of 64 25 feet at the street front but would have a step -back on the rear of the building. He noted on some properties, there were some fairly substantial heights at the backside of the buildings facing Puget Sound. He recalled one building that had a single story on the street and 3-4 stories in the rear. He noted the intent was to allow buildings to obtain 25 +5 at the street level, plus the required 15-foot ground floor and two stories. In situations where the average level resulted in a building that was higher than 30 feet, the alternate BD 1 language would impose the step -back at the street front and/or rear of the building at 30-feet. He displayed uphill and downhill examples of the alternate BD 1 language. Councilmember Moore asked why the alternate language had been developed. Mr. Chave answered it was in response to Councilmember Wambolt's inquiry regarding whether the Council intended to have the 25-foot step -back rule in the BD 1 zone as well as the other downtown zones. His conclusion was the Council wanted to potentially allow 30-foot buildings at the street front which the step -back at 25-feet did not accomplish. Councilmember Dawson referred to a suggestion by Mr. Gregg for a step -back at 28 feet rather than 30 feet which would be more consistent with the other BD zones. Mr. Chave agreed that would be another approach. The problem with 28 feet was it would depend on what uses occurred; if the intent was two story commercial buildings — a 15-foot retail first floor and a 12-foot second floor — 28 feet would not achieve that. He noted 28 feet may encourage development of a 15-foot retail floor, but if the intent was a second floor at the street front, it would be a very short commercial floor or a residential floor. Councilmember Orvis recalled the direction to the Planning Board for the BD1 was a 15-foot first floor, 30-foot height was allowed, and a two floor maximum. He noted the current draft did not include the two floor maximum. Councilmember Orvis presented another alternative, explaining the Council endorsed 30-foot buildings because 25-feet on downhill lots and a 15-foot first floor would not provide enough room for a second floor. He noted only a very slight downhill slope was required to create this situation. He explained the reason a maximum of two floors should be required was because on uphill sites there was the potential for three floors with a 30-foot height limit. Councilmember Orvis recalled unsuccessful motions to add the two floor restriction back into the code included (1) limiting heights to 28 feet which failed 3-4 and (2) adding language to require two floors which failed 2-5. The Council then settled on the 25-foot step -back language which would require a building height of 25 feet at the sidewalk. He referred to the alternate Mr. Chave described for a 30-foot step -back. He provided examples of the 30-foot step -back on an uphill lot, describing the two measurements made for a step -back — a measurement from the sidewalk and a measurement from the middle of the lot — the result was a step -back within 15-feet of the sidewalk with the remainder of the building as high as 30 feet. Councilmember Orvis' proposal was to require the step -back all the way across the building — requiring a measurement from the sidewalk and the middle of the lot and establishing the building height based on the minimum and requiring the building to be two stories. He illustrated a downhill example, explaining there would still be the two measurements but the 30-foot from the center would be used as the height which would allow two stories. He entitled his proposal the min 30-30 — the minimum of two heights — 30 feet measured from the sidewalk and 30 feet measured from the average of the four corners and taking the minimum. He concluded this accomplished limiting buildings to two floors in BD 1 by allowing a downhill lot a second floor and held an uphill lot to two stories. Councilmember Moore asked if Councilmember Orvis had run his proposal by any architects, builder or developers. Councilmember Orvis answered no. Councilmember Moore asked if he had ever built a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 6 of 64 building and Councilmember Orvis answered no. Councilmember Moore commented Councilmember Orvis' suggestion would change the method of measuring building heights for the BD1 zone, recalling he did not support changing the method for the lots on Sunset Avenue. Councilmember Orvis commented the measurement method for the Sunset property was equivalent to the maximum of those two heights, not a minimum. Councilmember Moore reiterated he was suggesting changing the measuring method for one zone. Councilmember Orvis responded he was proposing the change in BD only. Councilmember Moore asked why it mattered whether a building was three stories/floors if the height limit was 30 feet and there was a step -back. Councilmember Orvis answered he was striving for the Comprehensive Plan language of two floors and the people of Edmonds did not want three stories in downtown. Councilmember Moore asked whether his proposal should have a public hearing or be reviewed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Orvis answered heights had been through a number of public hearings and Planning Board review and he did not feel this proposal required further public hearing or review by the Planning Board and could be adopted tonight. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the drawing of two floors on a downhill lot, inquiring whether the building was less than 30 feet at the sidewalk. He asked how two floors would be achieved at the sidewalk. Councilmember Orvis commented at 25 feet it would also not be possible. Councilmember Wambolt agreed, pointing out that was his reason for allowing 30 feet at the sidewalk. He questioned whether there were any lots in the BD 1 where this would occur. Councilmember Orvis was uncertain. Councilmember Wambolt concluded this was likely a hypothetical problem. Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the sidewalk slanted downhill_ Councilmember Orvis answered it would still be measured from the average grade. Mayor Haakenson referred to the Council's attempts at the last meeting to limit buildings in the BD1 to two floors, asking whether this was another attempt to accomplish that. Councilmember Orvis agreed it was but without using the word "floor." Mayor Haakenson summarized it was the same intent with different language. Councilmember Dawson recalled a motion was approved previously to require two floors in the BD1; the difficulty at the last meeting was not with the concept of two floors but how to define it. She was not comfortable with the "on -the -fly" amendments at the last meeting but, she was not opposed to two stories. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern that she did not receive Councilmember Orvis' materials until tonight due to difficulties with her email over the weekend and it was not included in the Council packet. In addition, although a public hearing was scheduled on this matter, Councilmember Orvis' proposal had not been available for the public to review. She suggested the Council take public comment but not take action tonight. She found Councilmember Orvis' proposal intriguing and wanted an opportunity to review it further including an example on an actual lot. She noted a 30-foot height limit on a sloped lot may not allow two floors on both sides. Councilmember Plunkett asked for staff s opinion regarding Councilmember Orvis' alternative. Mr. Chave responded without having a chance to study Councilmember Orvis' alternative in detail, his initial reaction was it would essentially squash buildings on the uphill side. If a building were able to burrow into the hillside, they may be able to achieve two stories. He did not anticipate there would be a substantial change on downhill slopes from what occurred historically. He concluded the impact would be on the uphill side but have little impact on the downhill side. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 7 of 64 Councilmember Dawson recalled difficulty with defining story and/or floor and confusion with the language regarding two stories above ground level, whether that could be interpreted as three stories. She asked whether it was possible to define "story" to restrict buildings to two stories. Mr. Snyder answered yes, noting staff s comment had been that story was not defined in the current code. Mr. Chave commented another potential problem was where the story would be measured from. He cautioned there were often unintended consequences. Councilmember Dawson recalled when this was referred to the Planning Board, it was Council's intent to allow a 30-foot building height and limit buildings to two stories. She suggested it may be worthwhile to define story, investigate the unintended consequences, and seek public input. Mr. Chave recommended the Council not refer it back to the Planning Board because they already considered it. Mr. Snyder commented the Council may also want to consider the impact on construction costs and design as this would place an artificial constraint on the design process. Councilmember Marin recalled the language in the Comprehensive Plan was to strive for the appearance of two stories from the street level. Mr. Chave agreed that language was in the height discussion in the Downtown Plan. Councilmember Marin asked if anyone recalled how the Council voted on that. Mr. Chave recalled when the specific numbers were removed and the language regarding appearance was added, the Council's vote was unanimous. Councilmember Marin concurred with Mr. Chave's recollection, observing it had not been the Council's intent to shoehorn development into two floors but to ensure the downtown look of two floors was maintained. He found alternative 1 an appropriate solution. Council President Olson suggested seeking input from people who build buildings in an effort to avoid unintended consequences. She was interested in learning whether it would be possible to build something or whether it would preclude redevelopment. Councilmember Moore agreed the Comprehensive Plan language was regarding the appearance of two stories and not an absolute restriction. She remarked the Council had veered away from reality of the Heartland study that provided finite information about construction costs which she acknowledged had increased. She expressed concern about being so restrictive on development downtown. She pointed out there was only one developer who would do mixed use in Edmonds; she wanted to at least hear from him. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Snyder's comment about putting restrictions on builders, noting the City put numerous restrictions on builders and asked why this was a concern. Mr. Snyder responded the Council may want to consider the cost factor, for example two stories on one street and two on another and walls and parapets that create issues with waterproofing the building that otherwise would not be encountered. Mr. Chave advised the Heartland study modeled step -back in the downtown area and found generally if height limits were maintained and only a step -back were added, it would have a marginal impact on the feasibility of projects. He noted taking away a floor, reducing a building from three floors to two, in most circumstances did have a big impact on the feasibility of a project. The Heartland study also said in the retail core, even if three story buildings were allowed, little change or redevelopment was likely to occur because the value property owners were receiving from the existing property made it too expensive to demolish an existing building and build a new structure. Mayor Haakenson explained beginning this year, City Clerk Sandy Chase and he had agreed to include a staff recommendation immediately following the title on the agenda memo. He read the staff recommendation for this item: Approve one of the proposed ordinances (Exhibit 1, or the alternate ordinance in Exhibit 3). He opened the public participation portion of this item. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, speaking as the Chair of the Parking Committee, expressed concern with requiring no parking for commercial uses if a building met certain guidelines. She anticipated this would result in a lack of parking for the shoppers who generated sales tax for the City. She noted downtown Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 8 of 64 parking was already crowded during the day. Her understanding was the reason the City was not requiring parking was to get a builder excited about constructing a building and then the bank would require parking. She pointed out that may not happen if a builder was self -financed. She recommended requiring at least one parking space per 800 square feet. With regard to ceiling heights, she was not familiar with retail and acknowledged they may like 15-foot ceiling heights; however, commercial office did not due to the increased cost of heat/air conditioning/electrical. She noted that due to the small lots downtown, requiring such large step -backs would result in very small upper floors. She noted the step - back would require a railing in order for it to be used as a deck. Larry Throndesen, Edmonds, remarked the Council was "shooting the town in the foot." As an architect working with developers throughout the region, he was not aware of any who would come to Edmonds to build under these restrictions He pointed out the need for parking and a building that was economically feasible; without that, the same buildings would sit vacant and no growth would occur. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the step -back as it would provide the vision of a shorter building. He recommended eliminating the allocation for balconies over the right-of-way. He agreed with the need to require parking for commercial uses in the downtown area, commenting the result of requiring no parking was it was less expensive for the developer and there would be less space for parking and more for commercial uses. He questioned where the customers and employees of those businesses would park, anticipating the City would be forced to construct a parking garage which would result in more taxes for citizens. He concluded not requiring parking for commercial uses was a detriment to maintaining the character of Edmonds because buildings with parking behind could now construct a building on that space which could result in the demolition of buildings and construction of a new building to utilize that additional property. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, disagreed with the comment that there was only one person who built mixed use in the City. With regard to the parking, he attended a Hearing Examiner meeting regarding the Bank of Washington application that mentioned the long term plan for a parking garage. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, expressed support for the alternate step -back language described by Mr. Chave. He expressed concern with Councilmember Orvis' amendment at the last meeting that deleted cornices and encouraged the Council to allow cornices. He requested clarification with regard to the 15-foot ceiling height, noting it was usually described as floor -to -floor; however, the proposed wording was ceiling plate which his architect indicated was what the upper floor rested on. He recommended replacing "ceiling plate" with "floor -to -floor." He encouraged the Council to pass the ordinance tonight. He expressed the following concerns with Councilmember Orvis' proposal: 1) broke the BD zone into two sub zones — the BD 1 upslope and the BD 1 downslope, 2) added a new, unvetted method of building measurement from the sidewalk, 3) mixed the new method with the old — on upslope lots the lesser of the two measurements was used and on downslope lots the greater of the two measurements was used, 4) buildings would no longer follow the natural slopes, 5) it was a height increase for downslope lots, and 6) this concept was rejected for the Sunset project. He raised several questions including where the measurements would be taken, how buildings set back from the sidewalk would be measured, and how buildings with open space in front would be measured. He concluded there was no evidence to support the dogma that a two story 30-foot building looked better than a three story 30-foot building. He emphasized the goal was attractive, 30-foot buildings regardless of the number of stories. Gary Krohn, Edmonds, recommended the new year be an opportunity for a new direction for Edmonds, commenting the past had been unpredictable and uncertain due to the moratorium. He recommended the Council pass the simpler of the two proposed ordinances. He noted the ordinance reflected a great deal of work and effort and developers would adapt and figure out what worked. If the Council wanted to consider amendments, he recommended it be with deliberation and not on the fly. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 9 of 64 Kerry Adams, Windermere Commercial, Edmonds, questioned who benefited from two story buildings and what was wrong with three stories. He recommended the City focus on how to improve the existing situation rather than discourage development. He questioned the economic benefit of eliminating residential units on a third floor, pointing out downtown needed density to support retail and eliminating the third floor decreased density. Further, eliminating the third floor reduced property values by 40-50% as property values were based on income; eliminating a third floor of income eliminated a substantial portion of the property's value. He pointed out the property owners were the ones who bore the reduction in value and it was a travesty the Council did not understand construction or economics. The Council was making decisions to maintain Edmonds' character but retailers did not want to lease space in Edmonds due to the below street level first floors and low ceiling heights; thus the only thing being developed was an overabundance of office space. He concluded that if the Council wanted a thriving city, they needed to allow developers to build quality buildings. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to review the difference between Exhibit 1 and 3. Mr. Chave explained in Exhibit 1 the step -back rules in BD 1 were the same as other downtown zones; anything above 25-feet was required to be stepped back. In Exhibit 3, the step -back was at 30 feet instead of 25 feet in the BD zone only. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE #1, ORDINANCE NO.3622 IN EXHBIIT 3. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion to delay action for two weeks. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, WAMBOLT, ORVIS, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND MARIN OPPOSED. Councilmember Dawson suggested in the meantime Councilmembers provide any additional amendments or requests for further information to staff as soon as possible. Speaking on behalf of staff, Mayor Haakenson advised staff s recommendation was in the packet and would not change. He urged the Council to complete this quickly because everyone was losing patience. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Mayor Haakenson would be supportive of staff developing language regarding two stories. Mayor Haakenson was amenable to staff developing definitions. Councilmember Moore asked about the change Mr. Gregg proposed, floor -to -floor versus ceiling plate. Mr. Chave answered the architect on the Planning Board reviewed the language and found it appropriate. He noted the top of the ceiling plate was the beginning of the next floor. Councilmember Moore inquired about the progress on the design guidelines. She recalled the intent three years ago was to make buildings better looking, not bury the first floor and have good retail space via design guidelines. Yet three years later the design guidelines had not been adopted. Mr. Chave answered some of that was addressed via bulk standards. The Planning Board completed their review of the design guidelines developed by the ADB as well as proposed revisions to the design review process and it was scheduled for Council review at the 4t' meeting in January followed by a public hearing in early February. Councilmember Moore commented she too was losing patience with the issue. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff provide a response to the comments regarding parking for the next meeting. She recalled discussions that if commercial parking requirements were eliminated in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 10 of 64 BD zones, the residential parking requirements may need to be reconsidered. Mr. Chave commented most jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area have maximum parking requirements rather than minimums and in most downtown zones there were still parking requirements for residential uses, it was only in the BD1 that there was not. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff provide the information for the next packet if possible. She requested staff also address Mr. Hertrich's questions whether businesses with existing parking would no longer be required to provide parking. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council intended to take public comment when this item was discussed again. The Council agreed they would. Mr. Snyder asked for direction regarding the two story language, commenting that was a significant drafting issue that he could not complete in time for next week's packet but could include it in the packet in two weeks. He proposed reviewing the approach used by neighboring communities and providing the Council with a number of alternatives. He commented defining story and limiting to two stories was fairly straightforward; however, identifying an approach that addressed the downslope was a much more extensive project. Councilmember Dawson requested staff provide language that has worked in other cities with regard to the definition of story. Councilmember Marin requested staff research ceiling plate versus floor -to -floor. Councilmember Wambolt suggested obtaining input from builders and developers with regard to Councilmember Orvis' proposal. Councilmember Dawson suggested Mr. Snyder define story, noting at least four Councilmembers were interested in limiting buildings to two stories in the BD1. Council President Olson encouraged builders and developers to provide comment on anything in the ordinance. 9. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING STREET SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS IN THE CG AND CG-2 ZONE. Mayor Haakenson relayed staff s recommendation on this item: Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the proposed code language changes as shown in Exhibit 1. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised at the request of the Council, the Planning Board considered street setbacks and landscape standards in the CG and CG-2 zones, specifically a conflict between the old street setbacks requirements in the CG zones and the landscaping standards. Following their review and public testimony, the Planning Board recommended the changes on pages 5 and 6 in the proposed ordinance. The Planning Board's recommendation was that the minimum street setback be reduced to 4 feet to be consistent with the landscape standards and that paragraph A on page 5 and paragraph F on page 6 be removed which were also inconsistent with the standards. He noted protections for adjacent residential properties had not been altered; the only change was to the street setback. Councilmember Dawson recalled this arose due to car dealerships that were unable to display vehicles so that they were visible from the street and the proposed amendments were intended to correct that problem. Mr. Chave agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 11 of 64 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the Planning Board hearing and agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation for a 4-foot street setback. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned changing the entire zone for one use and suggested changing the requirements only for auto sales. He noted setbacks were important adjacent to residential uses, questioning why there was less setback requirements for a commercial building adjacent to residential than an office building adjacent to residential. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Moore asked staff to address Mr. Hertrich's comments. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board discussed having a different standard for auto uses and concluded if the landscape and setback requirements were appropriate for auto sales, they were appropriate for other uses as well. He noted the development scheme along Hwy. 99 had changed substantially over the years; the right-of-way was essentially built out and there were a number of pedestrian improvements in the right-of-way and it was not reasonable to require a substantial setback from the sidewalk. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE CHANGES AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 1. Councilmember Marin commented the Hwy. 99 Taskforce had been searching for impediments to development and this was one of them. He noted although the City used to require landscaping along the edge of a property, the market had changed and it was now common to distribute landscaping throughout the property versus having it all in front. He concluded this change was appropriate for the entire zone. Councilmember Moore pointed out without the car dealerships on Hwy. 99, the City would not have experienced the increase in sales tax revenue. She assumed this would be confirmed by Administrative Services Director Dan Clements who was developing information on what areas of the City generated the most sales tax revenue as auto sales on Hwy. 99 were one of the City's key revenue sources. Councilmember Wambolt commented another important reason for this change was the auto dealers needed the space to comply with the manufacturer's square footage requirement. Without this change, some of the largest sales tax generators would be forced to move out of Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson commented this was a great example of the public raising an issue and the Council taking action to refer it to the Planning Board for a recommended change. She expressed her appreciation to staff for being open to considering this change. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett left the meeting at 8:33 p.m.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, provided an update on the Southwest Neighborhood Park, advising the neighborhood group appealed the DNS on the old school building on the site. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, asked how much Snohomish County residents would pay for Sound Transit projects. She recalled the estimate for the RTID projects was $1.75 billion but did not recall an estimate Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 12 of 64 for the Sound Transit projects. Next she questioned the voting procedure, explaining the way the projects were selected was each county selected their projects without veto by the other counties but the counties must pay for the projects they selected. Prior to the united ballot, if a county voted against the entire package, it did not get nor pay for its own projects. She questioned whether that still applied with the united ballot. Mayor Haakenson offered to find out the answers to both her questions. 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER DEANNA DAWSON FOR HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT Council President Olson read Resolution No. 1137, recognizing Councilmember Dawson for her service as Council President during 2006. Councilmember Dawson thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Council President, commenting she was pleased to return to being just a Councilmember. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson commented he enjoyed working with Councilmember Dawson during the past year and looked forward to working with Council President Olson and Council President Pro Tem Wambolt. Mayor Haakenson advised of the Edmonds Center for the Arts ribbon cutting ceremony on Thursday, January 4; cookies and coffee would be provided. The grand opening event, dinner and a concert featuring Al Jarreau, would follow on Saturday, January 6. Tickets were still available for the concert. Mayor Haakenson advised he planned to hold one neighborhood meeting a month this year and invited everyone to attend the first meeting at Seaview Elementary on Thursday, January 11 at 7:00 p.m. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Olson thanked the Council for electing her Council President. She wished Councilmember Moore a Happy Birthday on January 6. Councilmember Wambolt thanked the Council for electing him Council President Pro Tem. For those curious about Old Milltown, he explained despite the rumors, Mr. Gregg had not sued the City and did not plan to sue the City. Mr. Gregg would return to the ADB next month with proposed changes to his project that would address the input received from a variety of sources. He advised citizen comment was welcome at the ADB. Councilmember Moore advised the Wambolts celebrated their 50th Christmas and would celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this June. Councilmember Moore asked Council President Olson to define the Councils' role on the Historic Preservation Commission. Next, she reported that according to the Puget Sound Business Journal Book of Lists, Edmonds' zip code 98020 which included Woodway was the I Vh or 12th wealthiest zip code in the State and had the oldest average age. Councilmember Moore reported on the Snohomish County Economic Development Board, advising Governor Gregoire committed $2 million in the budget for higher education needs in Snohomish, Island, and Skagit Counties. She thanked the Council for supporting a resolution to request that study. Other news from the Snohomish County Economic Development Board included Boeing revealed its 787 dream liner to employees and select customers earlier this month; Everett Transit broke the 2 million passenger mark and was now considered a medium -size transit agency; the Port of Everett's new 155 slip marina was scheduled to begin operation this spring and applications have been submitted for all but two slips; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 13 of 64 Everett Community College received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor for training and manufacturing; 2,100 jobs were added in Snohomish County in November, and Snohomish County and the City of Everett are working together to create a program whereby developers purchased building rights directly from farmers; under this program up to 63,000 acres of farmland would be preserved and development would be focused inside the City of Everett. In response to Ms. Shippen's question, Councilmember Marin advised the Sound Transit Board voted to request a 1/2 of 1 cent increase in sales tax to fund Sound Transit projects. This was currently out for public comment. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 14 of 64 AM-791 Potential Continued Deliberation and Action on BD -Downtown Business Zones. Special City Council Meeting Date: 01/09/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 45 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: 4. Agenda Memo Subiect Title Potential continued deliberation and action on an ordinance adding a new Chapter 16.43 establishing BD -Downtown Business Zones and amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff 1. Approve the ordinance in Exhibit 3, or provide direction to staff so that a final ordinance can be prepared for adoption. Previous Council Action City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation from the Planning Board on October 3, 2006, and completed initial deliberations on December 12, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Council deferred adoption of a final ordinance, and further discussion occurred on January 2, 2007. Narrative Note: This agenda item is only appropriate for consideration if the previous action on the Council's agenda is taken, i.e. removing the continued deliberation on the ordinance enacting the downtown BD zones from "the table." The ordinance contained in Exhibit 1 is the ordinance which was on the Council's consent agenda for approval on December 19, 2006. The ordinance in Exhibit 1 would apply the same step -back rules to the BD1 zone as would apply in other downtown zones -- i.e. a step -back would generally be required above 25 feet (see the text on page 10 of the ordinance, and the illustrations on page 11). Note that the ordinance contained in Exhibit 1 does not contain any of the changes listed below; if Council desires to approve the December 19th draft of the ordinance, we would recommend incorporating the changes under #1 (ground floor height calculation) and #3 (errata recommended by Scott Snyder) that are proposed below. Council continued its deliberatations of the proposed downtown zones on January 2, 2007, focusing on issues related to building heights and step -backs in the BD - Retail Core zone. The discussion was set to continue on January 16, 2007. If the issue is taken up again this evening, staff offers the following additional information. An updated ordinance -- offered as an alternative to the ordinance offered on December 19, 2006 -- is included as Exhibit 3 to this packet. This alternative ordinance includes the following items: 1. An update to the footnote at the top of page 7, incorporating language from the IBC (International Building Code) to define the height of the ground floor as a "floor -to -floor" distance. 2. Updated language under "b" on page 10, suggested by Councilmember Wambolt to address height in the BD 1 zone (see Exhibit 4 for memo from Councilmember Wambolt). 3. Updates recommended by Scott Snyder on pages 12 and 14 to remove unintended "notes" from the ordinance. A memo from Councilmember Moore has also been received (Exhibit 5). Any of the items mentioned would need to be discussed further by Council and direction provided to staff to incorporate into the ordinance, as desired. In response to Council discussion during the Council's January 2, 2007, meeting, staff has attached a short memo highlighting some of the logic behind the parking regulations for the new BD zones (see Exhibit 6). Several comment letters received by staff are also attached as Exhibit 7. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Ordinance from 12/19/2006 Link: Exhibit 2: Ordinance Exhibit A Packet Page 15 of 64 Link: Exhibit 3: Alternative Ordinance for consideration Link: Exhibit 4: Wambolt memo Link: Exhibit 5: Moore memo Link: Exhibit 6: Staff narking memo Link: Exhibit 7: Downtown BD zone letters Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/05/2007 02:05 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/05/2007 02:16 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/05/2007 02:34 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/04/2007 04:02 PM Final Approval Date: 01/05/2007 Packet Page 16 of 64 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY' S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning Board and held public hearings regarding draft BD zone proposals on September 18, 2006 and deliberated regarding those amendments on October 3 and December 12, 2006, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment enacting new BD - Downtown Business zones complies with the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code in consideration of criteria or in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, the City Council has also received the recommendation of the Planning Board and held public hearings regarding amendments to the City's zoning map to enact certain changes to the zoning of properties within the BD -Downtown business zone, and WHEREAS, following public hearings on the aforementioned dates and the deliberation of City Council, the Council adopts the recommendation of its Planning Board, finding that the amendment of the City's zoning map and the rezone of the properties specified therein in the attached Exhibit A are in conformance with the requirements and decisional criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code, are consistent with the City's {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 17 of 64 Comprehensive Plans and are in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the enactment of a new Chapter 16.43 BD -Downtown Business zone to read as follows: Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. The "Downtown Business" zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub -districts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub -district contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub -districts are: {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 18 of 64 BD — Downtown Retail Core BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive X X X X X outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services Enclosed fabrication or A A A A A assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants C A A A X which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents Printing, publishing and binding C A A A C establishments Community -oriented open air A A A A A markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code {wss648055.DOC,1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 19 of 64 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Residential Uses Single family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling units A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the A A A A A requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 Primary and high schools A A A A A subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through R Local public facilities subject to C C C A C the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 Neighborhood parks, natural A A A A A open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Off-street parking and loading B B B B B areas to serve a permitted use Commuter parking lots in B B B B X conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding C C C C C vehicle or livestock auctions Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X {wss648055.Doc,1/00006.900000/1 - 4 - Packet Page 20 of 64 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Fabrication of light industrial X X C X X products not otherwise listed as a permitted use Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, X C C A X convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums Museums and art galleries of A A A A A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Zoos, and aquariums of C C C C A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Counseling centers and X C C A X residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers Regional parks and community C C C C C parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Outdoor storage, incidental to a D D D D D permitted use Aircraft landings as regulated D D D D D by Chapter 4.80 ECC A=Permitted Primary Use B=Permitted Secondary Use C=Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit D=Secondary Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit X=Not Permitted {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 5 - Packet Page 21 of 64 For Conditional Uses listed in Table 16.43-1, above, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. architectural features or details; b. artwork; c. landscaping. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Site Development Standards BD1 5 13132 5 13133 5 BD4 3 5 BD5 5 Minimum Lot Area 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Lot Width 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Street Setback 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Side Setback' 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Rear Setback' 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Height 2 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Minimum Height of Ground Floor 4 15' 12' 12' 12' 12' ' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in Chapter 16.43.030.0 ECDC. 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g. an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030.13.4 for further detail. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 6 - Packet Page 22 of 64 4 "Minimum height of ground floor" means the height measured from the base of the ground floor to the top of the ground floor ceiling plate, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the `finished' ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%. 5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location. 2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either: a. The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within 7 inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor is within 7 inches of the grade level of the entry; or, {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -7- Packet Page 23 of 64 b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the 13135 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 3. Within the BD 1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from the street front of the building. 4. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and 13133 zones in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in Chapter 16.43.030.B.3, above, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four (4) feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50% open, such as in a lattice pattern. 5. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the 13135 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. "Orientation to 41h Avenue" shall mean that: At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e. ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on -site. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. Live/work space means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 8 - Packet Page 24 of 64 Figure 16.43- : 13135 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 6. Exceptions and clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in ECDC 16.43.030.B.1-5 (above) apply with the following exceptions or clarifications. a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e. when the first 60 feet of the building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rear -most 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. d. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consists only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. e. Within the BD 1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. This provision does not apply to any residential uses located behind commercial uses. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 9 - Packet Page 25 of 64 f. Within the BD 1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of "height" detailed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC). 2. Step -back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones (see Figures 16.43-2 and 16.43-3 for illustrated examples). a. An additional 5 feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: A building step -back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step -back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (e.g. normally the back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots, a 15-foot step -back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e. less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step - back on both street fronts, then the step -back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step -backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton, or Main Streets. ii. A 15-foot step -back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step -back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step -back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step -back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step -back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot -for -foot basis for the required building step -back. For example, a 5-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step -back to meet the 15-foot step -back requirement. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 10 - Packet Page 26 of 64 Nbpww 1 2: UpMl Exampk ---- -------=-- AWap Lewd forhowjM CAWAM ------ acrade -- ----- 3W H@t LhRfhw'a mriw Immr Allowed bukft heWt ernelope hfiNCAf�It r� ------- pia Zr4rj. 4 t�ar�r . ovipid TTTTTTT 7lRH,Lwl�an'1aeeYawi' { WSS648055.DOC;1 /00006.900000/} Packet Page 27 of 64 -11- 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a), above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. 4. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this Chapter. a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or fagade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. D. Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this Chapter and the provisions contained in ECDC 17.50 — Off -Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 1. No parking is required for any permitted uses located within the BD 1 zone. Within the BD 1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least 5% of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10%. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. [Note: minimum % or sq. ft. requirement?] {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 12 - Packet Page 28 of 64 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75% of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e. width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). Pwa M43-4: BW§db" Sba. WkNh and Dpan ftow Example: e �t�tg � trf 9�r feet w B{IIiN1@ TAM is 120feet rwqjhW rm to U $ am o due f6 lot area- O • Open space `r2 Ford to®tom lfies_Qb_ >�lol. requirement Lot Lines Building Area r--------------- T---------------- --------------- —.----------------. I I I I : I : I . I I . I e I . Total Lot Area = 14,400 sq. ft. ; : I . I Building Footprint = 13,650 sq- ft- ; I {Open Space Required = 720 sq. ft: I • I e I • I I I • I I I • 1 e I • 1 e Building Width Parallel to SfreeVROW 1201-0" ; I I I . Y e e e Open Space e , • 750 sq. ff. e ! I • I I ■ • I I 1 U I I I laaa�aaaaa:��.aaaa3aaaaaa�aaa�aaaraea��ra��.aa�aa�aaal----------------• F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision — Notice required, as provided for in ECDC 20.95.050. a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. b. Open space required under ECDC 16.43.030.E. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in 17.50.070.C. { WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page 29 of 64 -13- 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings is retained on site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. [Note: update of sign code is required] J. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Note: update required to 16.20.050 to reflect 2 meters for commercial antennas.] 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers' markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.70.040 ECDC. 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Edmonds is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Such incorporated changes amend the zoning of certain downtown properties to rezone such properties in conformance with the attached Exhibit A. The Development Services {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 14 - Packet Page 30 of 64 Director or his designee is hereby authorized to effectuate such changes to the official zoning map of the City. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 15 - Packet Page 31 of 64 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY' S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 16 - Packet Page 32 of 64 Proposed New Downtown Zones BD1 = Downtown Retail Core BD2 = Downtown Mixed Commercial P� BD3 = Downtown Conveniehce Commercial BD4 = Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 = Downtown Arts C�rridor RM-1.5 = Multi Family RM-1.5 FO Planning Board Recomm nda n 712612006 eF< ST 14J DAYTON ST � � N Q j W Q Q Z � 2 ur 52 Al T O w 0 Q x w Q GLEN ST I Packet Page 33 of 64 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning Board and held public hearings regarding draft BD zone proposals on September 18, 2006 and deliberated regarding those amendments on October 3 and December 12, 2006, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment enacting new BD - Downtown Business zones complies with the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code in consideration of criteria or in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, the City Council has also received the recommendation of the Planning Board and held public hearings regarding amendments to the City's zoning map to enact certain changes to the zoning of properties within the BD -Downtown business zone, and WHEREAS, following public hearings on the aforementioned dates and the deliberation of City Council, the Council adopts the recommendation of its Planning Board, finding that the amendment of the City's zoning map and the rezone of the properties specified therein in the attached Exhibit A are in conformance with the requirements and decisional criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code, are consistent with the City's {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - I - Packet Page 34 of 64 Comprehensive Plans and are in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the enactment of a new Chapter 16.43 BD -Downtown Business zone to read as follows: Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. The "Downtown Business" zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub -districts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub -district contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub -districts are: {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 35 of 64 BD1 Downtown Retail Core BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses 13131 13132 13133 13134 13135 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive X X X X X outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services Enclosed fabrication or A A A A A assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants C A A A X which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents Printing, publishing and binding C A A A C establishments Community -oriented open air A A A A A markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code IWSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 36 of 64 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Residential Uses Single family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the A A A A A requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 Primary and high schools A A A A A subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) Local public facilities subject to C C C A C the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 Neighborhood parks, natural A A A A A open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Off-street parking and loading B B B B B areas to serve a permitted use Commuter parking lots in B B B B X conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding C C C C C vehicle or livestock auctions Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X IWSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page 37 of 64 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Fabrication of light industrial X X C X X products not otherwise listed as a permitted use Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, X C C A X convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums Museums and art galleries of A A A A A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Zoos, and aquariums of C C C C A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Counseling centers and X C C A X residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers Regional parks and community C C C C C parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Outdoor storage, incidental to a D D D D D permitted use Aircraft landings as regulated D D D D D by Chapter 4.80 ECC A=Permitted Primary Use B=Permitted Secondary Use C=Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit D=Secondary Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit X=Not Permitted IWSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - Packet Page 38 of 64 For Conditional Uses listed in Table 16.43-1, above, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. architectural features or details; b. artwork; c. landscaping. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Site Development Standards BD 5 13132 5 13133 5 13134 3 5 13135 5 Minimum Lot Area 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Lot Width 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Street Setback 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Side Setback' 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Rear Setback' 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Height 2 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Minimum Height of Ground Floor 4 15' 12' 12' 12' 12' ' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in Chapter 16.43.030.0 ECDC. 3 Within the 13134 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g. an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030.13.4 for further detail. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 6 - Packet Page 39 of 64 "Minimum height of ground floor" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces; and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete.4he height measufed fiem the base of the gfetind floof to the top of the gfe €lei, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the `finished' ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%. 5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement f 1 B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location. 2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either: {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} -7- Packet Page 40 of 64 a. The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within 7 inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor is within 7 inches of the grade level of the entry; or, b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 3. Within the BD zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from the street front of the building. 4. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in Chapter 16.43.030.B.3, above, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four (4) feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50% open, such as in a lattice pattern. 5. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. "Orientation to 4th Avenue" shall mean that: At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e. ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on -site. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. Live/work space means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The live/work space shall be designed {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 8- Packet Page 41 of 64 so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Figure 16.43- : 13135 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 6. Exceptions and clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in ECDC 16.43.030.13.1-5 (above) apply with the following exceptions or clarifications. a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e. when the first 60 feet of the building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rear -most 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. d. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consists only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 9 - Packet Page 42 of 64 Within the BD zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. This provision does not apply to any residential uses located behind commercial uses. f. Within the BD 1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of "height" detailed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC). 2. Step -back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the �j ified zonef sj (see Figures 16.43-2 and 16.43-3 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, An -an additional 5 feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: A building step -back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step -back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (e.g. normally the back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots, a 15-foot step -back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e. less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step - back on both street fronts, then the step -back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step -backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton, or Main Streets. ii. A 15-foot step -back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step -back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step -back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step -back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step -back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot -for -foot basis for the required building step -back. For example, a 5-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step -back to meet the 15-foot step -back requirement. b. Within the BD zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC.Nx'e 16.43.03. heiR _. _ _ g. nelzffiql�tfhe baek of ., sidewalk) or- 30 feet above the "avefaee level" as defined in Gha-ptef 21.40.030 EGDG� {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 10 - Packet Page 43 of 64 Fimu)"34-6. UpMl Emmiple •' 3"T ww 7 -- • • -- Avemp Lail Ibr heir! c*adadm - _ . prig Grade sr��rsr �J- HII� Llrl�. ifRRViI �Vlif' 14m REO-3' ■ ETFffqft T9P�F� w_ .l ills IAI Aeellii�j � €, Iasi is 1�r11� � • � Lem itr h>��! oeii�ir •�� AR Fl�jikl�if��rrN�arrt IIk7�e� b he�#e•eaiaps { W S S648055.DOC;1 /00006.900000/} Packet Page 44 of 64 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a), above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. 4. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this Chapter. a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or fagade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. D. Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this Chapter and the provisions contained in ECDC 17.50 — Off -Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 1. No parking is required for any permitted uses located within the BD zone. Within the BD zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least 5% of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10%. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of a. outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. [Note: mininitiffi 0 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 12 - Packet Page 45 of 64 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75% of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e. width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). Fhpm M". Bdtding 81e, Vldtb amd Op m 8plllillxilllli Example: 6 an 1MW 1iW Mon#r .IUM12a feet. +s Bwidwy Modth is 120 feet. Opaaspassis eeqm'ad d= is Q due to lot area_ a • Open space the *% of kd Wea requirement- ------- Lot Lines _ Building Area a a a a t s • m Total Lot Area = 14,400 sq. ft. • Building Footprint = 13,650 sq_ ft. • ,Open Space Required = 720 sq. ft, • : 8%iiding Width Parallel to 5treetiRC?i+A 120'-0' i a • i a • a a a : Open Space • 750 sq. ft. F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision — Notice required, as provided for in ECDC 20.95.050. a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. b. Open space required under ECDC 16.43.030.E. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in 17.50.070.C. { WSS648055.DOC;1 /00006900000/} Packet Page 46 of 64 -13- 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings is retained on site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. [Note.: update of sign code is required] J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennae greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050.Satellite tele ;i apAennas shall be r-egttla4ed as set fei4h in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the afebiteetur-a 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers' markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.70.040 ECDC. 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Edmonds is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Such incorporated changes amend the zoning of certain downtown properties to {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 14 - Packet Page 47 of 64 rezone such properties in conformance with the attached Exhibit A. The Development Services Director or his designee is hereby authorized to effectuate such changes to the official zoning map of the City. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006900000/} - 15 - Packet Page 48 of 64 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 16 - Packet Page 49 of 64 LJ M E M O RAN D U M Date: January 5, 2007 To: Councilmembers From: Councilmember Ron Wambolt Subject: BDI Downtown Business Zone The wording that I am proposing for ECDC 16.43.030.C.2.b is: "Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC." c: Rob Chave Duane Bowman City of Edmonds COUNCIL OFFICE Packet Page 50 of 64 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM January 5, 2007 City Council Councilmember Mauri Moore Reconsideration of the Orvis Amendment I would like to open the discussion again for Council under the following reasoning: Overall, these were items highlighted during Council discussions in 2005-2006. All of the items recommended by the Planning Board were recommended to be decorative features that would be part of the streetscape and add decorative character and/or encourage activity downtown. "Building cornices" were intended to encourage decorative tops of buildings rather than the minimalist, purely functional cornices that would otherwise be built to stay under the height limits. Building cornices are required by the building codes. More substantial, decorative ones that contribute to the pedestrian feel and scale of a building are not. Consider the decorative cornice treatments of older, historic buildings downtown and elsewhere, and compare those to the newer buildings built over the last 25 years under the BC zone. 2. "Roof or deck railings" were intended to allow the opportunity to provide rooftop decks, regardless of whether these were on the top of the building or on top of the stepped -back portion of the building. Without this provision, you couldn't have a rooftop deck or garden on the step -back... a significant problem since this is a desired feature. Roof decks provide enhanced living areas, especially in a seaside community such as Edmonds. 3. "A decorative architectural element" -- This was limited to "a single" element, thus restricting interesting, innovative design. It also restricts rooftop design, see #5. 4. "Pitched roof' incentive. This allowed the top of a pitched roof to extend above the height limit, since otherwise you are unlikely to ever get pitched roofs except minimal, almost flat ones. This is the most questionable of the "exceptions" since it assumes everyone desires pitched roofs. If a pitched roof runs the length of a building, it could also sometimes pose a view issue. Nonetheless, the thought was that this provision would allow significant pitched roofs if that was a desire feature for future downtown buildings. The Planning Board also was concerned that the flat -top buildings that are the norm downtown present a fairly ugly view from the top of bowl to people entering downtown, so the more variety in roof tops, roof gardens, etc, the better. Packet Page 51 of 64 City of Edmonds Memorandum to City Council January 5, 2007 Page Two 5. "Elevators or stairs opening onto a roof deck" was aimed at roof decks and roof gardens (including "green" roofs). The driving force for the Planning Board was as stated under #4, encouraging more attractive roof tops, and making better use of roofs and potentially encouraging energy efficiency. Unfortunately, if you're going to encourage these things, you also need to provide access. That's where the elevator comes in, and the height of the elevator shaft. Note that this could be done in combination with #3 -- i.e. you could require that the elevator has to be incorporated into a "decorative architectural element" approved under #3. Packet Page 52 of 64 City of Edmonds Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM January 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Rob Chave, Planning Manager Parking Downtown At the January 2, 2007, City Council meeting, staff was requested to provide some comments on parking in the new BD zones, particularly some of the reasoning behind the proposed parking standards. This morning I have also received a copy of a letter addressed to the Council from Karen Wiggins. Since her comments during the January 2nd Council meeting appear to have been part of the basis for the Council request, I'll also address the comments contained in her letter. General Points The Planning Board was well versed in the downtown parking study done in 2002-2003. The study's basic conclusions were that downtown Edmonds did not have a parking supply problem, but rather a parking management problem. It should be noted that as a follow-up to the study the in -lieu -of fund was eliminated, due in large part to the fact that while the fund allowed a payment in -lieu -of providing on -site parking, it did not result in any new parking spaces actually being created downtown. When the Planning Board was developing the new downtown BD zones, the question of incentives was specifically highlighted. With bulk requirements for downtown being very tight — and with the step -back rules, there being no incentive -based opportunity to obtain any leaseable space above 30 feet — the discussion of incentives quickly focused on parking. The expressed goals for downtown included encouraging commercial uses. The Planning Board felt that since future development downtown was being significantly limited in bulk (the combination of height and step -backs), and since new construction was attempting to maximize residential uses, an incentive was needed to encourage commercial development. Not requiring parking for commercial uses while maintaining a parking standard for residential uses was the Planning Board's proposed solution. This also made sense when you realize that the parking study — in its analysis of future demand — assumed continued development of three-story buildings downtown. If two-story buildings are the norm, it becomes nearly impossible to economically provide underground parking. Relief from the commercial parking requirement could help if more commercial space is a goal of downtown development, either in the form of additions to existing buildings or new buildings being constructed on the vacant or under-utilized lots in the downtown area. It is important to remember that the Planning Board maintained a parking requirement for residential uses in all of the City of Edmonds c�a Planning Division Packet Page 53 of 64 downtown area outside the retail core — this comprises most of the downtown area. This means that any new residential development will still have an on -site parking requirement. The new code requirements also do not have any impact on the city's established parking management strategies, including the employee parking program. The Retail Core Focusing on the retail core, the BD zone proposed no parking requirement for any uses. This was largely for two reasons. The evidence before the Planning Board was that two-story buildings don't provide an economic basis for doing underground parking. Requiring parking in the retail core would therefore require surface parking, removing a significant amount of land from being developed for floor space. While some retail core properties have alley access, many do not. When alley access is not available, requiring parking will essentially require curb cuts to access parking located behind the building. In addition, with limited lot depths, a parking requirement combined with the two-story nature of the development standards will encourage retail core properties to provide their parking at grade, behind commercial uses, thereby minimizing the amount of ground -level commercial space for any building expansions or redevelopment that does occur downtown. This runs counter to encouraging a viable commercial core. Some thoughts on Ms. Wiggins' letter Introductory paragraphs. As a parenthetical remark, I believe Ms. Wiggins' comments are offered from her own perspective, since after discussion the Downtown Parking Committee as a whole did not support her conclusions or recommendations. This is not to discredit her comments, just to clarify her presentation. First main paragraph ("The suggestion to eliminate... ). The logic related to eliminating the parking requirement for commercial uses is outlined earlier in this memo. Remember that parking requirements in code are minimums. The market will dictate how much parking is actually provided. If the market was encouraging too little parking, then why would jurisdictions such as Seattle, Redmond, etc., be adopting maximum parking requirements in their codes? Even if a project is owner- or developer -financed, why would they wish to build something that would be unoccupied by tenants due to insufficient parking? Ms. Wiggins also asserts that "If you look at our city streets right now they are full," and "If you overload them with more employees, where will the people park that would like to shop here?" First, consider the following excerpt from the 2002-2003 downtown parking study: Currently downtown Edmonds has about 3,500 parking spaces of which somewhat more than two-thirds is off-street private parking. The 2001 inventory and survey of occupancy suggests that over SO percent of this parking was unoccupied. This suggests that downtown Edmonds currently has a surplus of parking, especially off-street parking. The study clearly concluded that while there are parking management issues and isolated problems, downtown Edmonds does not have a parking supply problem. Ms. Wiggins' comment about Packet Page 54 of 64 employees taking parking away from shoppers ignores the city's employee parking program, which also has far more capacity than is currently being utilized. Second main paragraph ("Another suggestion...'). The 15-foot ceiling heights for the BD1 zone and the 12-foot ceiling heights for the other BD zones have been a consistent proposal throughout the past couple years of public hearings and discussions. There is a substantial amount of testimony in the Planning Board and City Council records supporting these proposals. Retailers are on record in support of the 15-foot heights for the retail core. The City's former Economic Development Director consistently pointed out the desirability of adequate ceiling heights to support both general commercial and retail uses. The recent downtown economic study by Heartland LLC also pointed out that shorter ceiling heights reduce rents; reduced rents provide a disincentive for developers to include commercial space as a significant component of their projects — at least in excess of the minimums required by code. An architect with the Planning Board pointed out that there is not a direct relationship between the volume of interior space and heating or cooling bills; it is much more a function of the efficiency and design of building systems and materials. Third main paragraph ("The final problem I see... '). The 15-foot step -back requirement was also a main feature of the Planning Board's and Council proposals through the public hearing process. The step -back is not for "each succeeding floor over the first floor," nor is necessarily required for all street frontages if you have a particularly small lot (this last problem was brought up and addressed by the Planning Board in its final recommendation to Council). The step -back is only required when a building exceeds 25 feet in height above the street. Generally, this should mean a step -back above the 2nd floor in the general BD commercial areas. The Council is still in discussion about the step -back requirements in the BD 1 (retail core), but the clear intent seems to be to enable two-story buildings to be built in the retail core without requiring a step -back. In any case, Heartland LLC also addressed the question of step -backs, finding that "Upper -level setbacks have a slight negative impact on returns, but not project feasibility." Finally, the 15-foot step -back was not chosen arbitrarily — it was the step -back measurement that would maintain a building appearance of two -stories when viewed from the adjoining street. Ms. Wiggins' comment on railings is, I think, well taken. The Planning Board had recommended an exception for railings above the BD zone height limits, but that exception was deleted by Council in its December, 2006, deliberations. Fourth main paragraph (`I know this debating has gone for a long time...'). I agree that it has. The hearings and deliberations just on the zoning follow-up to the comprehensive plan have been going on since March of 2005. Restarting the discussion now would prolong the moratorium currently in place and be a disservice to the entire community. I can't agree with Ms. Wiggins' assertion that the city changed its rules to "allow a sunken first floor." Up to this point, first floors have simply not been regulated by the city. Ms. Wiggins' comment about the 30-foot minimum depth of commercial space is correct — it was a change in code dating from the 1990s intended to address problems related to narrow commercial lots. However, this actually relates to the parking discussion. The reason cited by the proponents for the 30-foot commercial depth was to allow parking to be placed behind the building that would also be accessed by a curb cut from the street, all needed to meet downtown parking requirements. The Packet Page 55 of 64 Planning Board agreed that this was a problem, which was, again, part of the basis for their parking recommendations. If the Council wishes to do some more follow-up study and discussion of any of the parking issues, for example, that would be appropriate — but staff would encourage the Council to take that on as a follow-up action to adopting the current BD zoning. We would recommend adopting the proposed parking and step -back provisions, as the Council is discussing, and set a timetable for revisiting any specified parking issues. That was actually already hinted at in earlier Council discussion, where Councilmember Dawson suggested that parking requirements might be "tweaked" to encourage affordable housing, for example. Packet Page 56 of 64 January 4, 2007 To Mayor Gary Haakenson and Edmonds City Council: I attended the Edmonds City Council meeting on 1/02/07 where the BD downtown business zone changes were discussed and explained. I have grave concerns with some of the changes suggested. I believe it to be obvious that these issues may not have been thought out thoroughly and that experts in the field have not been consulted to see what the results of some of these changes would. be. The suggestion to eliminate all parking requirements for commercial uses is something, as your City parking committee chairman, unconscionable. I know it is meant to be the proverbial "carrot" to attract new construction in downtown Edmonds and that it is felt that the bank will require commercial parking anyway. Please don't count on that happening, especially with all the new money. A developer may choose to self finance. Please do not allow this misguided attempt at luring new development to cloud your reasoning. If you look at our city streets right now they are full. If you overload them with more employees, where will the people park that would like to shop here? Also I do not believe a tenant would rent in a city that provides no commercial parking spaces. It was suggested that maybe we could increase the residential parking spaces that were recently reduced to one vehicle per unit. What would that accomplish? They would belong to the residents and would not help out the lack of onsite commercial parking. Please take the time to talk to businesses in town to see what they think of this suggestion. If they knew their onstreet parking for their employees and customers would become more difficult to locate, I doubt they would support this amendment. At the very least, please require one commercial parking space per 800 sf. Another suggestion in the proposed new BD zone would be to require 15 foot ceiling heights in the retail core and 12 foot ceiling heights in the balance of the proposed BD zone (currently the BC zone). While I am not familiar with the way retail businesses work, as a construction company who has developed two projects in this city with commercial office uses in this downtown area, I know that if a tenant realized that the increased ceiling height would cost them more in heating and airconditioning costs, they would not take kindly to an increase in their costs just to gain the extra height. Again please talk to these people! Packet Page 57 of 64 The final problem I see with this document is the requirement to set back each succeeding floor over the first floor, a total of 15' on all sides facing a street. I understand the reasoning behind this and I support it. The 15' is just excessive. You would have just as good a result if you made the setback 6' or 8'. It is the lack of massing on the street side that you are trying to overcome but how it is suggested to be done is detrimental. Everyone would use that area for a deck. Have you thought about deck railings? Have you thought how this excessive requirement would increase the cost of the residential unit? After all, if enough units cannot be built, the developer will just go to another city where the restrictions are not so stringent. I know this debating has gone on for a long time and you are all anxious to get something going so that builders and developers with once again start applying for building permits, something that has not happened since the 25' moratoriam has been in place. Most of you were here when the city changed the rules to allow a sunken first floor entry and the requirement for l st floor commercial space was allowed to only be 30' deep on the entry side. What a disaster that has been! I believe that was caused by the lack of education on the issues. Important issues like this deserve the utmost education and study by the people making these very important decisions. The people of this city deserve nothing less. After all no one wants empty commercial space because there is no parking for it; greatly increased residential living unit prices because so much has had to be given over to deck space; or our new commercial space costing a tenant so much more than in other areas because they have to pay for such high ceiling space HVAC costs. Please give this your utmost care, education and thought because what you decide now either costs the city valuable real estate tax and sales tax income or enhances it, depending on whether or not you make the right decision. Sincerely, Karen M. Wiggins Downtown Edmonds Parking Chairman Wiggins Properties llc Packet Page 58 of 64 -----Original Message ----- From: Michael Meeks Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:52 AM To: Haakenson, Gary Cc: Ron Wambolt - Ed City Council; David Orvis; Deanna Dawson; Haakenson, Gary; Jennifer Gerend ; Mauri Moore; Michael Plunkett; Olson, Peggy; Spellman, Jana Subject: BD Zone... 110 James Street, Suite 100 • Edmonds, Washington 98020 T. 425.640.8660 F. 425.640.8665 www.dmeepa.com Where is >>>Jennifer Gerend, Edmonds Economic Development Director >>>when you need her? Let me get this straight from the city council minutes of Oct 3, Dec 12 & 19 of 2006, you propose to change the downtown zoning to eliminate the requirement for buildings to provide off street parking for their commercial tenants. How does this solve our continuing customer parking problem in Edmonds? You also are proposing a set back of up to 15 ft so the developer can increase building heights. Oh! and while we are at it let's increase the ceiling heights to 12' for the retail stores in the core business district. More costs to be borne by the buyer from the seller ... and probably less profits to the developer which will drive them to cities with more reasonable zoning costs. The proposals you are considering should go by the way of my idea for of a public toilet on the old ARCO site ..down the proverbial sewer. Who have you been talking to outside of your planning department? What would Jennifer's position be on these proposals? What is her email address? I know you must believe this to be the greatest 2006/2007 Christmas Present to Edmonds' development... BUT I for ONE would tell you to shelve it as just another BAD IDEA... Who will save us? rF 4 h Packet Page 59 of 64 a AK LqLANDAU ASSOCIATES January 4, 2007 Mayor Gary Haakenson 121 50' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds City Council 12 t 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: REZONING OF CERTAIN DOWNTOWN AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO AM-782 Dear Mayor and City Council: We are writing to voice our concern about the proposed changes to zoning in the downtown Edmonds area as described in the above -referenced City Council Agenda Memo. Our concern is related to the changes outlined on page 12 of Exhibit 2 of the Agenda Memo (proposed Chapter 16.43.030.D ECDC: Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements), which would apparently eliminate the requirement for commercial entities in the vicinity of our offices to provide for off-street parking. Landau Associates employs approximately 65 persons at its Edmonds office located at 130 2nd Avenue South. This location is within the area where zoning changes are being considered. Parking in the area is already quite difficult, both for our employees with City -issued street -parking permits and for our clients. We have been considering petitioning the City to make changes to the parking regulations that would allow for all -day employee parking on all streets in the vicinity of our offices because of the difficulties in finding parking. We frequently have clients circling the block in frustration, attempting to find parking so that they can attend a meeting at our offices. In short, the parking situation is bad enough and we respectfully request that no zoning changes be implemented by the Council that will worsen the situation and make it more difficult for us to do business in Edmonds. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Jay P.-Bower, P.E. Chief Operating Officer ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 9802D • (425) 77H907 • Fmc (425) 778-6409 • www.landoulnc.com Packet Page 60 of 64 SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • POMLAND AM-790 6. Repeal Ordinance No. 3608 - Moratorium in the Central Business District Special City Council Meeting Date: 01/09/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 10 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Potential deliberation and action regarding a proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action The City Council adopted Ordinance #3530 which established a moratorium on new building approvals exceeding 25 feet in height within the BC zone. The council most recently extended the moratorium by adopting Ordinance #3608. Narrative On December 12, 2006, with approval of the new BD - Downtown Business zones, the City Council voted to remove the current moratorium on buildings exceeding 25 feet within the existing BC zone. The draft ordinance included in Exhibit 1 has been drafted by the City Attorney to implement this action. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Prouosed ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/04/2007 04:08 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/04/2007 05:45 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/05/2007 08:54 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/04/2007 03:57 PM Final Approval Date: 01/05/2007 Packet Page 61 of 64 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to series of ordinances, the City Council established and has maintained a moratorium on construction in certain designated downtown business districts above 25 feet in order to resolve building height calculations, and WHEREAS, by the enactment of a contemporary ordinance, the City Council has amended the City Code to clarify height restrictions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 3608 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 62 of 64 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 63 of 64 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY' S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 92006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/1- 3 - Packet Page 64 of 64