TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Planning Commission. Technical Committee. Rob Odle, Planning Director

Transcription

1 CityofRedmond WASHINGTON TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION To: From: Staff Contacts: Planning Commission Technical Committee Rob Odle, Planning Director Lori Peckol, AICP, Policy Planning Manager Sarah Stiteler, AICP, Senior Planner July 25,2014 Project File Number: LAND Project Name: Related File Numbers: Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Reason the Proposal Should be Adopted: Bear Creek Design District 1 Zoning Code Amendment PR SEPA-2014-Ql091 City of Redmond Sarah Stiteler, AICP, Senior Planner The recommended amendments to the Redmond Zoning Code should be adopted due to: The proposal is consistent with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, as required by RZC AE; and The proposed amendments will provide additional flexibility where the current zoning is obsolete; and Requirements in support of critical areas on site have been maintained or enhanced. City Hall NE 85th Street PO Box Redmond, WA

2 LAND-20 I4-0 I 090 Technical Committee Report Page 2 of 12 I. APPLICANT PROPOSAL BACKGROUND AND REASON FOR PROPOSAL: The Bear Creek Design District (BCDD) was created in 2007 by Council's adoption of Ordinance The BCDD comprises two "performance areas" called BCDD 1 and BCDD2. BCDD 1 is the upland portion of the zone. BCDD2 is the lowland portion of the zone and is largely within the IOO-year floodplain. The purpose of the zone is to provide development potential on the upland portion of the BCDD in the northwest portion of the site in order to allow for the permanent protection of Bear Creek, its riparian corridor, and associated wetlands and floodplains (see map). Finding a way to accommodate development in the area while protecting unparalleled natural assets has been a longstanding goal of the City. The development clustering concept in the BCDD zoning helps achieve that goal. I 8CD02 N A Ordinance 2370, which created the BCDD, was the result of a request by Aegis Living to amend the zoning for the area commonly known as the Keller Farm. At the time, Aegis proposed to develop a senior living community with independent living and memory care units, together with onsite housing for some staff and services for residents such as banking. Aegis's plan clustered the development potential of the entire 126-acre area onto the roughly nine acres that are outside the floodplain. In the end Aegis dropped the project but the zoning remained, which provided for the location of retirement residence facilities, associated support services and affordable housing for employees. In 2011 the City Council adopted a major update to the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan with input from a citizen advisory committee and others in the neighborhood. Recognizing that the existing BCDD zoning is obsolete in the 2

3 LAND Technical Committee Report Page 3 of 12 absence of a proposal by Aegis, the Neighborhood Plan identifies potential changes to the zoning that should be considered and criteria that should be met before changing zoning regulations. This proposal responds to policy N-BC-22, which directs the City to consider zoning changes when certain criteria are met. II. RECOMMENDATION Update the Bear Creek Design District zoning regulations as shown in Exhibit A. This update would amend the BCDD zoning regulations to accommodate all-ages multi-family development. Staff proposes several changes to the BCDD zoning regulations to better implement the intent of the zone. Eliminate the requirement to conform to the 2007 Aegis site plan, including amending setback requirements Allow all-ages multi-family development at the same development capacity as existing senior, age 55+ multifamily Reflect neighborhood plan policies related to street and trail connections Modify building setbacks to allow greater flexibility, but retain requirement to step back building stories from Avondale Road and other property lines Require physical demarcation (appropriate fencing) between BCDD 1 and BCDD2 Prohibit permanent intrusion into the groundwater by parking garages, basements or similar structures Remove language in the regulations that addresses requirements already covered in the Redmond Zoning Code, such as affordable housing. The language existed prior to the adoption of the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan in 2011 that requires affordable housing for the neighborhood similar to other neighborhoods in the City Delete language which allows the measure of maximum height of a structure from the finished grade of a parking structure. Eliminating the requirement to conform to the 2007 Aegis site plan opens up the zone to development of a senior living community by any firm. It does not make sense to restrict development to a single proposal that is no longer active. Allowing all-ages multi-family broadens the types of uses that can be considered in a way that is consistent with the Neighborhood Plan. As noted, policy N-BC- 22 expressly considers the possibility of multi-family in this (and other) areas. Policy N-BC-22 as well as N-BC-50 address an important Neighborhood Plan goal, which is the provision of an indoor community gathering place. During the neighborhood plan update process, the citizen advisory committee noted the lack of indoor gathering places in the Bear Creek neighborhood even as the neighborhood continues to grow. Future development will likely further increase the demand for such a space. 3

4 LAND Technical Committee Report Page 4 of 12 As staff was working on this proposed Zoning Code amendment, the current property owners (the Keller family) established a purchase and sale agreement with a firm that develops multi-family housing. This developer has provided written agreement to establish a development agreement with the City that specifies that the developer will provide an indoor community gathering space that is a minimum of 500 square feet, suitable for meetings or similar gatherings, and that is accessible to the public during the day, evenings and on weekends. The development agreement between the developer and the City will specify that public access to the indoor gathering space must be maintained for as long as the development exists along with a maintenance plan and other requirements yet to be determined through the agreement. A development agreement is a Type 5 land use action with public hearing and decision by the City Council. Council's review and action on the development agreement would be concurrent with Council's review and action on the Zoning Code amendment. III. PRIMARY ISSUES CONSIDERED A. ISSUES CONSIDERED AND ALTERNATIVES Primary Issues Considered: Effectiveness of current zoning regulations Consistency with Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan Possible impacts Alternatives: No change. Staff considered keeping the BCDD regulations as is. The principal drawback with this approach is that the Zoning Code is very limiting in its current form. In essence, the code allows Aegis to develop a senior living community consistent with a conceptual site plan that was adopted concurrently with the zoning in There are several problems with this. Aegis dropped the proposal years ago and to the best of City staffs knowledge has no plans to revive the project. Even if Aegis did revive the project, there is no guarantee that the market would support what Aegis proposed in It is unlikely that another firm would decide to build the same concept that Aegis proposed in 2007 since the concept was designed with Aegis as the operator in mind. While making no change is not inconsistent with the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan, it also does nothing to advance the goals in the plan, among which are to protect the Bear Creek and Evans Creek systems and to provide additional housing, as well as affordable housing. 4

5 LAND-20 J 4-0 J 090 Technical Committee Report Page 5 of 12 Rezone BCDDI to Neighborhood Commercial or a multi-family zone. Policies N-BC-21 and N-BC-22 contemplate rezoning portions of the neighborhood, including BCOO I, to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or a multi-family urban zone (R-12, R-18, R-20, or R-30). Rezoning BCOOI would alleviate the problem of code obsolescence, but there are a number of reasons why a rezone is not appropriate at this time. Policies N-BC-21 and N-BC-22 are written on the assumption that a rezone request would be initiated by a private party wishing to pursue a NC or multi-family urban zone change. At this time there is no private sector partner wishing to pursue NC. Further, if the City rezoned BCOD to NC, it would likely foreclose the opportunity to locate an NC zone elsewhere in the Bear Creek neighborhood. Rezoning BCDD to any Multi-family Urban zone (such as R-18, R-20 or R-30) presents other challenges. As noted above, policy N-BC-22 assumes that such a rezone would happen at the request of a private party, and that there would be an accompanying site plan (similar to how Aegis provided a site plan). One of the reasons for requiring a site plan would be to evaluate impacts of a Multi-family Urban proposal. For example, setbacks in Multi-family Urban zones are much more permissive than in the BCDO zone. Without the ability to do that analysis, staff recommends against rezoning BCDO to Multi-family Urban. Also, the BCDD zone includes a number of special provisions related to site design that would not easily be replicated if BCOD 1 was rezoned to a Multi-family Urban zone. If attempted, the result would likely be a code that is cumbersome and difficult to follow. The recommended approach alleviates this problem. Analysis of Impacts A. Land Use Compatibility Future development of the site would be multifamily residential uses at the same density as is currently allowed; the proposed amendment would not require residents that are 55-plus years of age. The multifamily land use is consistent with established land uses on the west side of Avondale Road. Surrounding Land Use Designation The multifamily land use was created in 2007 with the Zoning Code amendment requested by Aegis and is consistent with established land uses on the west side of Avondale Road. The proposed amendment would not change existing zoning other than to allow residents of any age. 5

6 LAND Technical Committee Report Page 6 of 12 B. Environmental Issues The purpose of the larger, approximately 126 acre Bear Creek Design District is to provide development potential on the upland portion of the BCDD in the northwest portion of the site in order to allow for the permanent protection of Bear Creek, its riparian corridor. and associated wetlands and floodplains. A longstanding goal of the City has been to accommodate development in the area while protecting these environmentally significant areas. Clustering residential development within the northwest portion or BCDD I area helps achieve that goal. The proposed amendment would allow residents of any age; as a result the amount of traffic generated is likely to be higher than if limited to residents that are 55+ years of age. Auto emissions to the air and other oil and fuel emissions consequently will be higher with a non-age specific population. In addition, views of Mount Rainier from residences to the north of the site may be obstructed by future buildings that are constructed though staff has not analyzed whether there would be a material difference compared to the Aegis site plan. e. Transportation 1. Access. The site is located on the east side of Avondale Road and is currently accessed by an unpaved road which serves on-site tenant farmers. The proposed regulations clarify that access would be taken from the intersection of Avondale Road and 180 lh Avenue NE, and that a future developer would be required to build or dedicate the proposed new street connection to the extent that construction or dedication meets nexus and rough proportionality tests. 2. Trip generation. Trip generation rates for age specific multifamily residential (55+) versus multifamily residences for any age were determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Handbook, Volume 9, Using the allowed FAR of 0.8, total buildable area was calculated and a theoretical maximum number of 347 total dwelling units was determined, based on an assumption of average size of units at 700 square feet and deducting a percentage of the total buildable area for common area (hallways, etc.). Average rates of trips generated on a per unit basis were then calculated for the pm peak (see below) and total daily trips. The daily trip generation rate for the Multifamily use (ITE Category 220) is 6.65 trips per unit; when multiplied by 347 (units) calculates to approximately 2,308 additional daily trips. The daily trip generation rate per unit for the Senior Adult Housing, Attached (ITE category 252) is 3.44 trips per unit, or trips per day. 6

7 LAND Technical Committee Report Page 7 of 12 The net change between the two land uses is 1,114 trips per day. Traffic counts (2012) for Avondale Road south of 180 lh are 41,800 per day thus the additional trips represent a 2.66% increase in total daily trips. A verage Vehicle Trip Ends on a weekday: Weekday peak of adjacent street traffic for one hour between 4-6 p.m. Use Rate Number of Trips ITE Category 220: Multifamily ITE Category 252: Senior Adult Community, Attached Net change, pm peak 128 In addition, trip generation rates were calculated for a community meeting space 500 square feet in size, consistent with Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan policy N-BC-22. The closest ITE use category was Recreational Community Center. Further. the rate was divided in Y2, due to the smaller size of 500 square feet and assumes that 50% of the trips will be internal to the site. A verage Vehicle Trip Ends on a weekday: Weekday peak of adjacent street traffic for one hour between 4-6 p.m. based on 1,000 square ft. of gross floor area Use Rate Number oftrips Recreational 1.37 ( x 0.5 = Community Center of2.74) pm peak tri ps (community meeting space) B. COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES, APPROACHES The recommended approach is to approve changes to Bear Creek Design District 1 to allow multifamily residences for persons of all ages in addition to residences for people who are age 55 and older at the same allowed density as the existing zoning. Consistent with Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan policies, the City will work with the future developer of the site to establish a development agreement that includes provision of 7

8 LANO I 090 Technical Committee Report Page 8 of 12 an indoor community meeting space that is usable by the public. Council's action on the development agreement would be concurrent with action on the Zoning Code amendment. The City of Redmond and other cities use development agreements to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with policies, regulations and conditions. IV. SUPPORTING ANALYSIS A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The BCDO zoning regulations were adopted in 2007 under Ordinance There have only been minor amendments since then, for example to change the boundary between BC001 and BCDD2 to more accurately depict wetland buffer area and incorporate within BCDD2. Staff believes the existing zoning is obsolete as described above, and does not advance Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan objectives as effectively as it could. B. COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA FOR CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS RZC AE provides that all amendments to the Redmond Zoning Code must be consistent with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of how this proposal complies with the requirements for code text amendments. Consistency with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan N-BC-16 Focus urban development outside the Bear/Evans Creek Valley by clustering development outside the 100- yearfloodplain. Preserve undeveloped portions ofthe Bear/Evans Creek Valleyfor habitat enhancement or stream- and aquifer-friendly agriculture. The proposed update continues the policy of clustering urban development outside the floodplain. N-BC-22 Consider approving rezonesfrom Single-Family Urban or Bear Creek Design District Performance Area 1 to Multifamily Urban on the east side of Avondale Road between NE 88th Place and the entrance to the Avondale Green development when thefollowing conditions are met: At least 2.5 acres of land outside the 100- year floodplain are owned or controlled by one entity and are part ofa single development proposal: The applicant submits a conceptual site plan for approval concurrently with the rezoning application: 8

9 LAND Technical Committee Report Page 9 of 12 The site plan shows a single vehicular access point to Avondale Road or to another single ingress/egress; The development provides a wayforfuture adjacent redevelopment to use the same single vehicular access point to Avondale Road or another single ingress/egress: The rezone proposal includes a provision/or an indoor gathering place/or the general public, whether publicly or privately owned. and. The rezone application meets all other criteria/or Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The proposal is not for a rezone to a multi-family urban zone, but rather would allow general multi-family development in the BCDDI zone. The major difference is that by allowing general multi-family development within the construct of the BCDD I zoning, all of the site and design requirements that are specific to the BCDD are retained. Even so, the proposal is consistent with the policy. BCDD 1 is greater than 2.5 acres, is outside the floodplain, and has one owner (aside from the City, which owns a utility property). The proposed regulations clarify that access would be taken from the intersection of Avondale Road and 180 lh Avenue NE, and that a future developer would be required to build or dedicate the proposed new street connection to the extent that construction or dedication meets nexus and rough proportionality tests. Finally, the developer has agreed to provide an indoor gathering place in support of policy N-BC-22. The proposed regulations do not require a site plan to be provided at this time. As described earlier. a rezone to a multi-family urban zone would change many underlying site requirements, and so requiring a site plan in a rezone scenario would be appropriate. In this scenario, most of the underlying site requirements remain the same. Some building setbacks are proposed to be less stringent from the current regulations to allow additional flexibility in site planning for a multifamily use serving all ages, but continue to be larger than if the property were rezoned to a multifamily urban zone. N-BC-30 Design site plansfor new developments so that they accommodate planned street connections as shown in the Transportation Master Plan and Bear Creek Neighborhood Transportation Connections Map. The proposed amendment includes a requirement that development in BCDD I shall take access at the intersection of Avondale Road and 180 lh Avenue NE. Additionally, the proposed amendment states that for new development "construction of a portion or all of, or dedication of right-of- 9

10 LANO Technical Committee Report Page 10 of 12 way for, the new street connection as generally shown on Map-N-BC-l (the Bear Creek Neighborhood Transportation Connections Map) in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan" will be required. N-BC-50 Look/or opportunities to locate one publicly or privately owned indoor gathering place, such as a community hall or cafe. Such a place might also serve as a library book drop or include meeting rooms. Policy N-BC-22 also speaks to the importance of seeking opportunities to provide indoor community space. The City will work with the developer of the site to provide one indoor community space. A development agreement that describes the space and other details relating to maintenance and other management issues will accompany the Zoning Code amendment. State law dictates that a City's legislative authority is required to hold a public hearing for the development agreement, which will occur concurrent with adoption of the Zoning Code amendment. V. AUTHORITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW A. AMENDMENT PROCESS RZC Sections AE and K require that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code (except zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan) be reviewed under the Type VI process. Under this process, the Planning Commission conducts a study session(s), an open record hearing(s) on the proposed amendment, and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the decision-making body for this process. B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The Redmond Planning Commission and the Redmond City Council have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide whether to adopt the proposed amendment. C. WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) A Determination of Non-Significance and SEPA Checklist will be issued for this non-project action on July 30, D. 60-DA Y STATE AGENCY REVIEW State agencies were sent 60-day notice of this proposed amendment on July 25, 2014 E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The public has opportunities to comment on the proposed amendment through the Planning Commission review process and public hearing lo

11 LAND I 090 Technical Committee Report Page 11 of 12 which will be held on August 20, Public notice of the public hearing was published in the Seattle Times on July30, On June 12,2014, City staff held a neighborhood meeting at the Friendly Village Community Center. Approximately 55 individuals attended the meeting. Attendees expressed concerns about several issues including additional traffic congestion on Avondale Road, and the difficulty in accessing their homes, additional residential density, potential view obstruction, and environmental impacts such as noise, air pollution and damage to the adjacent wetland area. In addition, notice of the proposed amendment was sent to persons expressing interest, as well as online notification sources such as the monthly Neighborhood Newsletter and GovDelivery. F. APPEALS RZC AE identifies Zoning Code Amendments as a Type VI permit. Final action is held by the City Council. The action of the City Council on a Type VI proposal may be appealed by filing a petition with the Growth Management Hearing Board pursuant to the requirements. VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Recommended Amendment to the Redmond Zoning Code Exhibit B: SEPA Threshold Determination Conclusion in Support of Recommendation: The Technical Committee has found the proposal to be in compliance with the Redmond Zoning Code, Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Redmond Municipal Code, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (/:'-ZJ1-W 3:; C~ ~ - ROBERT G. ODLE, Planning Director Planning and Community Development Department Lmo DE BOLDT, Director of Public Works Public Works Department 11

12 LANO Technical Committee Report Page 12 of 12 12