[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6198762,"mediaKeyId","3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7","parentId",3842602,"title","Planning board approves most neighborhood center overlays; keeps mapping changes targeted to specific hubs","audioSeconds",243,"startMs",1003000,"endMs",1246000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7&start=1003&end=1246","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7/thumbnail_1003000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6198762/Edmonds/Snohomish-County/Washington/Planning-board-approves-most-neighborhood-center-overlays-keeps-mapping-changes-targeted-to-specific-hubs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198762-85e4458bedb743fc91b7fc44b585e19e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592254&Signature=f6LKSyxwN64GslvdRH3QUFCGvFF2GWzMSPmMJ710LdPRf8IoaiTcTyAxVWhjl68zW~LvObA9n4uNu6xdvbk487wfPxXQkbU5oI9Z2GHb3BYlF8h6FWrKhbsbVxGkiuoqXULOIrH8KUdI2Gl6hwK~y9EkzydVY3BbU47Ky8bOO96tUDERq~E8ZwrYSC09PC02PX23XlMDXGTaDRg~Ilnc6RQNaO0DZiny7nw0h1LwywdYUFNC29AUOI9y0N12QKr4-0oqFICvt3QAVnHIdiqHfe6PtOA2pBAnOQ3AXipmDkn5kBmbO2dtCaYEcwJ57qi54j5xdjaISqtohywjcGgROg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Edmonds City, WA","date","2025-06-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Edmonds Planning Board completed a map‑by‑map review of proposed neighborhood centers and hubs and approved the maps and required ground‑floor commercial overlays for several locations while declining to broaden mandatory commercial frontage in others.

Board actions focused on discrete centers rather than a citywide rule. The board approved the following centers and overlays as presented or as amended:

- 5 Corners: The board voted to designate 5 Corners as a Neighborhood Center and to apply a strong commercial ground‑floor overlay consistent with the active‑edge street design shown on the staff map. The motion to proceed as drawn passed with the board’s voice vote.

- Ferndale (Ferdale/Ferdil Avenue on the maps): The board approved the neighborhood center and the frontage/ground‑floor commercial overlay as drawn, allowing the 60% frontage flexibility (street or public‑space frontage) that staff had described.

- Map / Five Corners to Ferndale context: Board members repeatedly noted these sites already have existing commercial uses on much of the highlighted frontage; the overlay is intended to ensure future redevelopment continues to provide active frontages and public amenity space rather than leaving the entire design to internal, inward‑facing site plans.

- 5 Corners, South Lake Ballinger, Maplewood, East Seaview / Eastside (196 corridor) and the East Sea View parcels (near the Lynnwood‑adjacent commercial pocket): Staff presented site photos and parcel‑level rationale for each overlay; the board approved the pictured frontages and asked that design code language (active users, 45‑foot depth for ground‑floor commercial, and 60% edge coverage) be applied consistently.

- West Edmonds Way: Board members debated a motion to require ground‑floor commercial on all street‑facing parcels along West Edmonds Way and adjacent corridors. That motion failed; the board then voted to proceed with the West Edmonds Way map “as drawn” (i.e., the more limited overlay staff proposed). The board’s vote rejected a broader mandatory requirement and accepted staff’s focused, parcel‑by‑parcel approach.

- Maplewood: The board approved a slightly amended overlay — staff added areas up to the fire station and omitted one large condominium parcel from required frontage — after a friendly amendment and vote.

Why this matters: These map decisions finalize where the city will seek active ground‑floor uses tied to incentives (height/floor bonuses) and where single‑family and residential‑only outcomes remain more likely. The approved overlays concentrate commercial frontage where staff and the board determined pedestrian activity and existing businesses make it feasible.

Quotes

“We would like to ensure that they continue the way they are,” Planning staff said when presenting the 5 Corners parcels; board members repeatedly framed the overlay as a tool to keep pedestrian‑oriented activity along key intersections rather than to force conversion of stable residential blocks.

What the board directed staff to do

- Apply the ground‑floor design standards (active users along street or public space; 60% of frontage coverage; 45‑foot depth requirement) in overlay areas.
- For parcels where the board chose not to require commercial, staff should preserve the allowance for commercial use (permitted) but not mandate it as a condition of redevelopment or of incentives.

Discussion vs. decision

- Decisions: The board approved the 5 Corners, Ferndale, South Lake Ballinger, East Seaview/Eastside, Maplewood (as amended) overlays and accepted the West Edmonds Way maps as drawn (rejected a broader mandatory requirement).
- Discussion/direction: The board asked staff to refine the design standards and to present the final code text that will define the incentive formulas and the amenity expectations for the height/floor bonuses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Special Meeting 6/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Edmonds Planning Board approved neighborhood‑center boundaries and targeted ground‑floor commercial overlays for several hubs — including 5 Corners, Ferndale, Maplewood and South Lake Ballinger — while rejecting a motion to widen a required frontage rule along West Edmonds Way.","taxTitle","Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington","taxId",51965,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6198767,"Edmonds planning board declines to extend required ground‑floor commercial in Westgate and leaves slope protections under review",7366,234000,7600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7&start=234&end=7600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7/thumbnail_234000.jpg","/articles/6198767/Edmonds/Snohomish-County/Washington/Edmonds-planning-board-declines-to-extend-required-groundfloor-commercial-in-Westgate-and-leaves-slope-protections-under-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198767-5b6da1f835e08d781c179f81f7de8d7d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592254&Signature=CvFjG3E782PZlMnQyjWBa7HtUmJCmF9qxVrTZqWPB6EkhQ6EG4naVYbXz5PzzFOqyrycvOPZAiyO0m~U4QIpn4278efQ195iwI1KNkmwt9MKY2OmhEHuwabXLPQr2OC~VNVsxyIqXAo8VF03Rnn0muiPKyMEyi0i~EeK2fLglYt~zQrLYNjlvWstArkbCuhRJbi-XcMzJ-Pxpz2E3vNnX0G0hW6mJk3aJBN0Vmktc00wNHsGKepHS9Hoy-lSvYRKkF7rjLXVe27UE6eJfbeKU80EYk5JNUj7yM8nmsuSDKVhjMrRbCvuSBn4du6L9AHn73YLLq0TNGVJ9lgSR5x-Nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Edmonds Planning Board voted to omit an expansion of the required ground‑floor commercial overlay on properties west of 70 Eighth Avenue West in the Westgate area, and agreed to keep existing protected‑slope markings in place while staff returns with more background and technical context.

Board members debated whether to extend a commercial frontage requirement to the end of the block on 70 Eighth Avenue West. After discussion the board put a motion on the table to not extend the overlay; the motion passed. The board’s action leaves commercial use permitted but does not require ground‑floor commercial for the parcels west of the current blue overlay line.

Why this matters: Westgate is a mixed‑use neighborhood center where the city has been weighing incentives (height bonuses and other benefits) against requirements like active ground‑floor uses. Requiring commercial frontage in areas that are currently single‑family or low‑intensity residential could force redevelopment patterns that board members said should be left to market decisions unless there is clear public benefit.

Key facts and what was decided

- Motion (not to extend overlay): The board moved to omit the required ground‑floor commercial overlay for the properties west of 70 Eighth Avenue West (the blue line shown on the map). The motion carried. The board did not place new restrictions that would prohibit commercial use; it only declined to mandate it.

- Public hearing and slope protections: During public comment, residents urged the board to retain the Westgate “protected slopes” (magenta) lines and to treat slope safety as the top priority. One commenter said, “Keep the lines. . . . Safety has to be your number 1 priority.” The board did not remove or change the slope markings at this meeting; members asked staff to return with the history and technical basis for the Westgate slope demarcation so the board can consider whether to keep, change or standardize it across other hillside areas.

Supporting details and context

- Planning staff explained that commercial uses remain permitted on those parcels even if the overlay is not extended; the debate concerned whether the city should require ground‑floor commercial in exchange for incentives (for example, additional floor area or height). Several board members said they prefer leaving the decision to property owners and the market in this block, while others noted potential public benefits from active ground‑floor users near the high school and transit stops.

- On the slope issue, staff and several board members noted the magenta line in Westgate is a legacy mapping decision added during an earlier code update rather than the product of a current, parcel‑level geotechnical study. Members asked staff to bring back (1) the origin/history of that line, (2) any technical basis available, and (3) recommendations for whether the magenta demarcation should remain a site‑specific no‑build line or instead be handled through the city’s critical‑areas/geotechnical review process.

Quotes

“Keep the lines,” said Arlene (resident), arguing the Westgate slopes are degraded and that past slides show the system is vulnerable. “Safety has to be your number 1 priority.”

What’s next

The board will revisit the Westgate slope mapping after staff provides a history and the technical information requested. Staff said the city will later bring a citywide critical‑areas/code update; the board directed staff to treat Westgate’s slope line as a topic to resolve in that context rather than remove it at this meeting.

Discussion vs. decision

- Decision: The planning board formally declined to extend a required ground‑floor commercial overlay to the parcels west of 70 Eighth Avenue West (motion carried).
- Discussion/direction: The board deferred any change to the Westgate protected‑slope magenta line and asked staff to return with historic and technical documentation before the board considers modifying it.","The Edmonds Planning Board voted not to extend a required commercial ground‑floor overlay to parcels west of 70 Eighth Avenue West in Westgate, and heard public testimony urging the board to keep a magenta “protected slopes” line. The board agreed to revisit the slope‑line policy after staff provides background on its history and technical basis.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6198752,"Edmonds planning board keeps draft parking rules; delays adoption of new state law standards",191,5179000,5370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7&start=5179&end=5370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7/thumbnail_5179000.jpg","/articles/6198752/Edmonds/Snohomish-County/Washington/Edmonds-planning-board-keeps-draft-parking-rules-delays-adoption-of-new-state-law-standards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198752-b7d18b91603336c7c412d7cab12733b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592254&Signature=G8LwdC8Th2PdShxsbBCpNP8Vcn2Jy3IXUgv6YFBA5YRgskc3wyAQZ8bJxMeWBuf48g3R-b5BJwFxR2MaUlJDwXjQ9PVn-8sNkzv-n1V1Pl3jMLTxCCq4WjNeMVxrG-bNGP76v-A1PuPJAGVw~mG2tiAQomNJ427CKLhXlLdgSmKAUobegph0fLd3wXGsqR~rpdv1EKXTnBZY4P7h4qkkPB6WHZ~eASkG3PQGzIRL5jaz07RjpbqxC3Fk7ufYg7SpdaS9GD63ejCw55mQjyOn6PDYFV2E-ULoc408Ed7U4e899G6YEu18ruai9rWp2fn33oz7znErQ3Ca-x8H2xEbxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Edmonds Planning Board decided not to adopt the parking provisions from Washington House Bill 5184 at this time and instead to retain the draft parking rules in its current code update packet while scheduling further discussion.

Staff summarized the primary differences between the city’s draft parking requirements and HB 5184: the bill would eliminate minimum parking for small ground‑floor commercial spaces (under 3,000 square feet) and set reduced minimums for larger commercial uses, and it would change multifamily minimums (for example, offering no more than 0.5 spaces per unit for some categories). Board members discussed the tradeoffs between encouraging small business and managing vehicle demand and made a motion to keep the draft language for now so the board can consider the state law implications later.

Why this matters: Parking minimums are a lever for local affordability and walkability policy. Lower minimums can reduce development cost and make small commercial spaces viable for startups, but board members wanted more time to evaluate local traffic and parking impacts before changing city standards in response to state law.

Board action and rationale

- Motion: A board member moved to retain the draft parking language in the code update and not implement HB 5184 standards immediately. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Members said staff should return with a fuller discussion of whether to harmonize the code with HB 5184 before the state deadlines require action.

- Staff notes: The draft and the state law differ most notably for small ground‑floor commercial spaces (HB 5184 would require no minimum for spaces under 3,000 sq. ft.) and for certain multifamily parking minimums. Several board members supported a hybrid approach but deferred the final decision to a fuller follow‑up discussion.

Quote

“I do like the no requirements for, less than 3,000 square feet,” one board member said, noting the benefits for small businesses. But the board voted to keep the draft language for now to allow more discussion of local impacts.

Next steps

Staff will schedule a fuller discussion on parking standards — comparing the draft code, HB 5184, and local traffic/parking study inputs — before the board finalizes any change to parking minimums.","The board opted to retain the draft parking requirements in the proposed local code and not immediately adopt changes required by Washington House Bill 5184. Members said the statewide law (HB 5184) can be revisited later and that the board wants more discussion on commercial parking thresholds and small‑business impacts.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6198756,"Planning board removes residential‑exception overlay; allows single‑family rebuilds across mixed‑use zones",701,5509000,6210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7&start=5509&end=6210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3842602-9968308ed05c3d7f0d7565cbc6d0e4b7/thumbnail_5509000.jpg","/articles/6198756/Edmonds/Snohomish-County/Washington/Planning-board-removes-residentialexception-overlay-allows-singlefamily-rebuilds-across-mixeduse-zones","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198756-25a5a2f6330eb456ece7a18a1573ece5/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592254&Signature=hFOiWjimPzMSnd4~T2WjI2p46~gngYhplBTx15aOxrm8wbO5DUh7cpIcwebfRLEtz24mMPPwnLkr7z1YlLk-J7lulfF~OxV4n1NGboreDZBGQ3l~VkDc8VSVqzRXSmN7KXqK1deGGSy0~iTZ64hwLhK-6DpllKCbS6hPaFjl364o7Smfpzg7rI0iBftX6D-EaeFJc0HmAO4MbJ8fN~wrAR99V5umRFQsHxl0FoqkOKT-yip9eZdxl4Z~4NqTiC88jZSZMM7bpq6JBPfTz7EZAjPuBFlZCifTkjaE1a~1bCRZ8n00AcbeIuIh3orMi2rh-YX6FjqZ0VJPmTnyqXM1xg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Edmonds Planning Board voted unanimously to remove the residential‑exception overlay and allow single‑family development (including replacements and expansions) throughout mixed‑use zones in neighborhood centers and hubs, with the exception of parcels inside required ground‑floor commercial overlays.

Planning staff said the change removes an unnecessary layer of regulation and restores flexibility for existing homeowners. As presented by staff, the new approach permits:

- Existing single‑family homes to remain and expand under Low‑Density Residential (LDR) standards (setbacks and lot coverage limits), and
- New single‑family builds on lots within mixed‑use zones subject to LDR dimensional standards and other limits (for example rear/side setbacks and ADU allowances), except where the board has required ground‑floor commercial in an overlay.

Why this matters: Under prior drafts, some lots inside the neighborhood‑center footprint had been treated as nonconforming for single‑family uses, with a discrete residential‑exception overlay granting limited rights. The board concluded that applying single‑family allowances consistently across mixed‑use zones (while preserving mandatory ground‑floor commercial where the board had specifically required it) reduces confusion for homeowners and staff and keeps redevelopment choices market‑driven.

Clarifying details provided by staff

- LDR standards that apply: typical perimeter setbacks (front/back/side) and limits on footprint expansion apply for single‑family projects; ADUs and middle‑housing types remain allowed under the code where permitted.
- Redevelopment: If a lot is fully redeveloped, parcels inside a required ground‑floor commercial overlay must meet the overlay rules (active ground‑floor uses) as part of the new project; where no overlay exists, single‑family rebuilds are permitted under LDR provisions.

Board action

The board moved to eliminate the residential‑exception overlay and adopt the staff approach to allow single‑family uses across mixed‑use zones (except where the ground‑floor overlay requires commercial). The motion passed unanimously. Staff will include the change in the revised draft code the board will review prior to forwarding a recommendation to council.

Quote

“The restriction exception overlay does not exist anymore,” planning staff said during the meeting, describing the draft change that allows single‑family expansion and rebuilds within the NCH designation where appropriate.

What’s next

Staff will revise the draft code to remove the separate residential‑exception overlay language and to add clarifying text explaining how LDR standards and overlay requirements interact. The board asked staff to ensure the draft makes explicit that mixed‑use designation remains (commercial permitted) and that the change is intended to increase clarity for homeowners rather than to force a single use outcome.","The Edmonds Planning Board voted unanimously to eliminate the residential‑exception overlay and allow single‑family development and expansions throughout the city’s mixed‑use neighborhood center/hub zones, except where a ground‑floor commercial overlay remains required.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board approves most neighborhood center overlays; keeps mapping changes targeted to specific hubs

Edmonds planning board declines to extend required ground‑floor commercial in Westgate and leaves slope protections under review

Edmonds planning board keeps draft parking rules; delays adoption of new state law standards

Planning board removes residential‑exception overlay; allows single‑family rebuilds across mixed‑use zones