Council reviews draft Hwy 99 plan, approves law requiring report of lost, stolen guns

The Edmonds City Council got a closer look Tuesday night at a draft plan aimed at setting the stage for pedestrian-friendly and visually-appealing development along the 2-mile stretch of Highway 99 running through Edmonds.

The council also unanimously approved a new city ordinance, proposed by Councilmember Mike Nelson and discussed in detail last week, that requires gun owners to report lost and stolen firearms to police or face a $500 fine.

The Highway 99 presentation by consultant John Fregonese of Fregonese Associates was the next step in what has so far been a year-long process to create a plan for Highway 99 development.

It was followed by a public hearing, during which several citizens as well as some developers and Highway 99 property owners offered comments.

Looking south to the recently-completed renovation of Highway 99 in Shoreline, Fregonese said his work has been focused on “trying to tame that big road and make it a more pedestrian-friendly environment.”

The plan was built on a foundation of community values obtained through open houses in both March and November 2016, which were then translated into “practical solutions,” Fregonese explained.

Among the plan elements: standardizing commercial zoning to a height limit of 75 feet and modifying current design standards to require wider sidewalks, buildings closer to the property line with ground floor transparency, and an emphasis on side or rear parking. The plan also recommends building stepback and setback changes to ensure a better transition between multi-family/mixed-use buildings in commercial zones and adjacent single-family zones.

Also included in the work was establishing three specific areas of Highway 99: Gateway District, International District and Health District.

The 104-page draft plan released last week includes a list of proposed short- and long-term transportation investments with the aim of “getting people across the street,” Fregonese said. For example, there are currently no pedestrian crossings in the Highway 99 stretch between 238th and 228th Streets Southwest. There is also a proposal to improve the safety of pedestrian crossings south of the Highway 104 interchange by, in the long term, reconfiguring the highway on- and off-ramps and, in the short term, installing flashing beacons there.

It’s important to focus on the newly-constructed 228th Street Southwest link across Highway 99 that leads to Mountlake Terrace, Fregonese said, because it will have access to regional rail once Sound Transit’s Mountlake Terrace light rail station is completed in 2023.

The plan also calls for reworking the city’s zoning map. The city currently has two commercial zones along the highway, with the main distinction being different height limits — CG1 at 60 feet and CG2 at 75 feet. The recommendation is to move to a standardized 75-foot height.

Comments during the public hearing were generally positive, although one property owner did caution the council to consider being flexible with some of the setback and parking requirements as they may not work for all properties.

Some residents expressed worries about whether future development would increase traffic congestion on Highway 99 while others were concerned about the possibility that zoning changes could push them out of their current homes.

One developer planning a mixed-use residential/commercial project on 238th Street Southwest told the council he was looking forward to the plan’s approval, adding that he believes it will encourage future development investments given the Puget Sound region’s strong economic growth.

The timeline for actually implementing the plan depends on a number of factors, including the availability of funding to do the work. The Washington State Legislature in 2015 allocated $10 million toward the project, although under the current legislative timeline Edmonds isn’t scheduled to receive that money immediately.

The city council is scheduled to hold another public hearing on the plan during its Tuesday, March 21 meeting.

“It’s still Highway 99 but it’s much more pedestrian-friendly,” Fregonese said, pointing to an artist’s rendering of 234th Street Southwest as it is today, then after public and private investments — “with the crossings, with the medians, with the buildings closer to the street.

“This becomes a more appealing place to live, work and play,” he said.

In other business, the council also continued its review of possible alternatives for establishing buffer areas next to the Edmonds Marsh. The options are being considered as the city prepares its response to the Washington State Department of Ecology, which has been reviewing the city’s Shoreline Master Program. This issue got the lion’s share of attention during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, with several commenters suggesting that the council go beyond the three buffer options currently being considered and to create a fourth alternative that better protects the marsh from the effects of future development.

Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom also showed up to request that the council hold a public hearing on the issue before making a decision, and that request was echoed by some other speakers. Bloom, who while serving on the council steadfastly opposed possible future residential construction in shoreline areas, told the council that the current marsh buffer options being considered by the council “are about allowing condominiums, in other words, residential, in a future development proposal.”

“All of you know that,” Bloom continued. “There is no question that is the purpose of these options.”

Councilmembers Diane Buckshnis and Kristiana Johnson also expressed their support for creating a fourth option for the council to consider.

The Ecology Department has asked for a response from city regarding the Shoreline Master Program by March 30. The council is scheduled to hold another meeting to discuss the marsh buffer issue prior to making a decision on final language.

Also on Tuesday night, the council:

– Discussed but delayed action on a proposal to change the current city council meeting format so that councilmembers will again meet in committees.

– Approved by a 6-1 vote an application from Westgate Chapel requesting vacation of approximately 375 feet of right-of-way on 92nd Avenue West located adjacent to church property along Edmonds Way.

– Heard a presentation regarding the city’s preliminary December 2016 Quarterly Financial Report

— By Teresa Wippel

  1. A citizen justifiably commented about parking issues on 6th Ave. This situation would have not been allowed to persist had the city council not allowed the demise of the Parking Committee. It is obvious that that committee needs to be resurrected.

    1. The EDC and BID have both taken up the parking issue and have new proposals including employee parking zones. The new parking enforcement officer is on the way. Things will be changing in the very near future.

      1. These things will cause improvement, but a committee dedicated to dealing with parking issues is still needed. The EDC and BID can make recommendations and the parking enforcement officers can enforce the rules, but the committee is needed to come up with the appropriate rules.

  2. The fact of the matter is that downtown Edmonds has a growing parking problem. The issue needs to be proactively addressed as downtown merchants will be adversely affected in the near future. Many of us who live outside the bowl who patronize downtown businesses are and will find it increasingly difficult to shop and buy downtown. At some point, folks will just go elsewhere to shop where they can conveniently park. Enforcement helps but more is needed now to address the issue.

  3. A garage would be a great idea but it is extremely costly. I can’t recall what the Mayor told me it would cost – and I don’t want to throw out a number but per square foot was in the hundreds. Do you want taxpayers to pay for it?

    Like Mr. Tibbott said there are alternatives being looked at in terms of the number of parking permits the city issues, etc. The parking committee was around when the service trucks used to park on 4th and now they park on 6th, as well as, a number of individuals that park their cars near the police station thinking it is safer. The overnight and weekend parking of these service vehicles should be addressed, but I really don’t know how that can be done.

    I still like the idea of a trolley that seems to be successful during the holiday months. Could it be sustained year round?

    1. The December 2016 parking article by My Edmonds News referred to in this comment chain references Mr. Doherty stating $25,000 to $30,000 per garage parking space.

      1. With the high cost of land in the bowl, I would think that the estimate only covers construction costs. Also, I don’t no where it could be located. I believe there was a tentative proposal about 15 years ago; I don’t know what site for it was suggested.

        1. Research indicates that is just construction cost, and also that there are many variables affect the cost.

    2. Diane:
      The parking committee had 3rd Ave. by the park changed to 3 hour parking; the commercial vehicles then moved to 4th and 6th, at about the time the committee went away. I’m confident they wouldn’t be parking there now had we still had the committee.

  4. It is amazing that when you go to the mall and have to walk a mile from the far reaches of the parking lot no body complains. If you cant park in front of the store you want to shop at in Edmonds we have a parking problem. What we have are abuses of our parking rules. We have a store downtown and do not hear complaints from our customers. Lets stay positive.

  5. Parking on 4th near Walnut is terrible. We have the patrons and workers from restaurants, gyms, stores, etc. as well as an engineering office building on 4th all parking half way down the street–many without permits. Condo owners and apartment tenants struggle to find a place to park to load cars, etc. If anyone has visitors, they often end up parking down near Dayton–if they are lucky.
    You are right, Don. People don’t want to walk more than half a block anymore.

    1. Good points, though one might remember that Edmonds has hills, which malls don’t, and elderly who have trouble getting around, who don’t use malls. But with more and more housing going in all the time, parking will do nothing but get worse – time to be proactive. And speaking as someone with trouble walking far, we also need a few more disabled spots, and active enforcement when these are misused.

  6. I believe in supporting the merchants and willing to walk the extra distance to shop locally. The objection is no parking space.

    No the answer for something extra is not always to have the taxpayers pay for it as some council members seem to always say. They pay enough. If the merchants are happy with the status quo let it be so.

  7. The Development Code requirements for parking, particularly in multiple residential (RM) zones and the Downtown zones (BD) must be a part of this discussion. Inadequate parking allowances for residents are one of the primary causes of many of the cars parked on the streets, particularly in the downtown area and potentially in other areas of the City as well.

    Two recent projects in the planning / preliminary construction stages illustrate this. The mixed use building going in at the old Post Office site includes 26 residential units, but zoning only required 22 residential parking stalls for them. Fortunately, the developer recognized that to be inadequate and is including 37 parking stalls. The Westgate project just announced for the Bartells quadrant at Hwy 104 and 100th Ave includes 91 units, but zoning only required 110 residential parking stalls. Again, the developer recognized a problem and provided for 133 residential parking stalls.

    A review of those requirements, along with the impact on parking of potential density increasing changes currently being discussed for single family residential (RS) zones must be a part of the parking discussion.

  8. Yes–we need more handicapped spaces. But we also need to have enforcement for those who abuse this accommodation. I am open to compromise for the parking situation on 4th and 5th. But, we need to have COOPERATION. Regarding the problem around Walnut and 4th, perhaps we could have a meeting with the businesses and talk about the problems. I can well understand employees have a problem to park when they go to work. Let’s try and work it out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.