REDMOND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. June 24, Captain. COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Chairman O Hara, Vice Chairman Biethan

Transcription

1 REDMOND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Murray, Miller, Haverkamp, Captain COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Chairman O Hara, Vice Chairman Biethan STAFF PRESENT: RECORDING SECRETARY: Jeff Churchill, Kim Dietz, Sarah Stiteler, Redmond Planning Department Lady of Letters, Inc. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman Murray in the Council Chambers at City Hall. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: There were no changes to the agenda. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no items from the audience. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY: MOTION by Commissioner Captain to approve the meeting summary of the June 10, 2015 meeting. MOTION seconded by Commissioner Miller. MOTION approved unanimously (4-0). Public Hearing and Study Session, 2015 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Plan Miscellaneous Amendments, presented by Jeff Churchill, City of Redmond Planning Department. Acting Chairman Murray noted that the oral and written public hearing on this topic would be extended to July 8 in order to give Commissioner Miller and other community members a chance to give their input. Mr. Churchill reviewed the proposal, and noted that the Redmond Zoning Code was adopted in 2011 after an extensive rewrite process. Since that time, various amendments from customers and staff have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council as an ongoing effort to improve the clarity and accuracy of the code. The last rewrite of the Code happened in October of In general, the package of amendments contains one small Comprehensive Plan amendment and a number of Zoning Code amendments that are aimed at clarity, user friendliness, and the implementation of provisions of the Transportation Master Plan that were adopted in The proposal would also make some minor zoning map amendments to deal withaddress some boundary alignment issues. In general, the Redmond Planning Commission 1

2 amendments are incorporated, administrative interpretations, that update the Code to make it consistent with changes in state law, and take account of current conditions. The hope is that the Planning Commission would come to a decisionmake recommendations on these amendments July 8 and the City Council would review the package in August or and September of Acting Chairman Murray opened the public hearing. Matt Perkins, representing Quadrant Homes, was first to testify. His address is SE 36 th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA He addressed the proposed revisions to the City s attached dwelling unit provisions, which areis in the Zoning Code Staff has said these amendments are necessary because current code is not consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan. Staff first identified this inconsistency a few weeks ago, Mr. Perkins believes, and he said these amendments are being rushed to adoption. His review of the Comprehensive Plan policies indicates to him that the proposed Code changes would be in consistent.with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins has difficulty understanding the urgency behind making these changes. The current Code has been in place for several years and has produced a variety of highquality, well-designed homes to add to the City s housing stock. Mr. Perkins urged the Planning Commission to slow down and take a comprehensive review of the proposed regulations to understand how they would impact City growth targets and the concept of creating a diverse array of home types. Mr. Perkins said there could be impacts on home builders and potential buyers, as well. Acting Chairman Murray asked if Mr. Perkins had sat down with staff on these issues. Mr. Perkins said his group has spoken with staff, but not in great detail. Commissioner Miller asked why Mr. Perkins thought these amendments would be more serious than administrative housekeeping. Mr. Perkins said the Comprehensive Plan speaks to encouraging a diverse number of housing types, and by limiting where attached dwelling units can be located, that could limit the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chairman Murray concluded the public testimony for this meeting and continued the public hearing to July 8. The Commission moved into a study session. Mr. Churchill noted that there was a proposal to revise affordable housing provisions for the Overlake Urban Center. The Center currently has a provision where there is an exemption for the first 100 units of housing that otherwise would be required to be affordable. The proposal would remove that provision. Several Two projects are at different stages in that area, and the people involved in those projects would like to speak testify to the Planning Commission. They are not able to be at the meeting tonight. Staff will work with those parties going forward. Mr. Churchill noted that the issue brought up by Mr. Perkins was number one on the issues matrix. There are three separate provisions that were omitted in the Code rewrite of One of them is about interspersing attached dwelling units (ADU s) with other kinds of units. The other is about density provisions for ADU sattached dwelling units. The third is about whether or not ADU sattached dwelling units are allowed in the North Redmond Planning Commission 2

3 Redmond Wedge Sub-Area. The Neighborhood Plan for North Redmond has a policy, Policy 45N-NR-45, which speaks about ADU'sattached dwelling units. That policy allows for the construction of attached dwelling units, also known as multiplex homes, which includes duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes, in the singlefamily urban zones with the exception of the Wedge Sub-Area to preserve mature trees, create new open space areas, establish neighborhood connectivity, and protect natural resources. The policy would ensure that multiplex units are interspersed with a variety of other housing types, thus avoiding the location of attached units adjacent to each other. That provision was codified, and what it said in the Redmond Community Development Guide between was that duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes are an allowed use on individual lots in locations designated as single-family urban in North Redmond neighborhood, provided that units are interspersed with a variety of other housing types and sizes. The policy also deals with density, and the idea is that in some neighborhoods, the Neighborhood Plan allowed certain ADU'sattached dwelling units to be built on lot sizes that are smaller than otherwise would be allowed to encourage large lot infill in developed neighborhoods. That was not allowed in the North Redmond Neighborhood Plan, but that provision was lost in the Code rewrite. So, the City is proposing to reestablish that and respect the density limits and the zoning when ADU'sattached dwelling units are involved in North Redmond and some other neighborhoods as well. Acting Chairman Murray clarified that the recommendations of the North Redmond Neighborhood Plan were codified and approved by City Council. Mr. Churchill noted that those provisions were lost in the drafting of the new Code, and this was discovered a few weeks ago. The reason to bring this forward is that this provision is in the Neighborhood Plan but was lost in the Code rewrite. The idea to have the Code reflect what is in the Neighborhood Plan. Acting Chairman Murray said this was not an issue for the Commission to debate, but instead a decision to support what should have been written in the Code all along. Commissioner Miller and the rest of the Commission agreed. Commissioner Miller said that Mr. Perkins points are valid, but they would be better discussed in a neighborhood forum. Acting Chairman Murray asked staff to send a message back to Mr. Perkins that if he wished to change that part of the Code, he should work through the Neighborhood Plan. The Commission agreed to close Issue One. Issue Two on the matrix was to clarify special requirements for professional services and other uses in the MP Zone. Mr. Churchill noted that professional services is defined as a use that requires a high degree of professional, scientific, or technical expertise and training. The purpose of this amendment was to note that in the manufacturing park zone, manufacturing is allowed, as well as professional services that would support an allowed use in the MP zone. Acting Chairman Murray said this issue was resolved for him. Commissioner Miller asked how this would be enforced by the City. Mr. Churchill said he would bring back some examples. Acting Chairman Murray closed this issue. Redmond Planning Commission 3

4 Issue Three on the matrix was to clarify the definition of full service hotel and conference center and related provisions. Commissioner Biethan had asked about this issue, and he wanted a clear standard for measurement. The Fire Marshal has helped staff add in the phrase occupant load, a measurement that can change depending on the use of the room, meaning people sitting or standing, for example. Commissioner Miller had an issue about parking for conference centers and parks. He said the measurement concept was based on peak capacity, and when that is used to determine parking lot sizes, larger lots are built that remain empty for the better part of the year. Commissioner Miller would like to find other parking requirements to apply to parks and conference centers and would like an alternative based on square footage. He wanted to make sure the Commission was applying the Transportation Master Plan, as interpreted through the Zoning Code, as a way to support efforts of sustainability and efficiency. He would like more alternatives for parking. Acting Chairman Murray closed Issues One, Two, and Three on the matrix and introduced Commissioner Miller s concern about parking capacity as Issue Four, which would be discussed on July 8. Old Town Historic Core Overlay and Zoning Code Amendment - Overlay and Associated Design Standards and Gilman Street Amendment to the Downtown Pedestrian Map, presented by Kim Dietz and Sarah Stiteler, City of Redmond Planning Department. Ms. Dietz spoke about the timing and methodology for reviewing the changes proposed to the Historic Core and the filters criteria by which the Commission will decide on review those changes. She has reviewed this amendment with consulted the Design Review Board (DRB) regarding proposed concepts for updates to the design standards portion of the Zoning Code, and incorporated their perspective in the proposed amendments for Planning Commission reviewsaid she would review that with the Commission. She also said she would present options for the Commission to consider review the options of how to digest this information and make decisions about it. This set of proposed updates includes amendments to the Comprehensive Plan policies and the Zoning Code; included among the proposed code amendments are updates to impact comprise this decision amendment, and staff is considering design standards, Sign Code, and the Pedestrian System Map, streetscapes, especially on including along Gilman Street. The Historic Core is proposed as a part of the Old Town Zone within Downtown. Existing conditions include historic and landmark buildings such as the Brad Best or Redmond State Bank Building, which is a landmark. Brick buildings are common in this area. Other materials, such as the Stone House, include a lot of river rock. The oldest structure Downtown is the Judge White House, which is located on Redmond Town Center property. The Elan Building is adjacent to the Historic Core and echoes some design standards of the Core. Staff says the Comprehensive Plan and current Zoning Code has provides a vision and design intent for this area, which includes a village character, small blocks, narrow sidewalks, a pedestrian area, and pedestrian-oriented architecture. Staff is trying to first Redmond Planning Commission 4

5 focused on determineing what design elements make sense for development in this area such that new structures would fit in with the character of the Historic Core. Staff has been asking asked designers, developers, and investors about what elements make a project successful. Issues regarding height, massing and stepbacks will be discussed at another a subsequent meeting. Tripartite architecture is something the DRB supports, and can apply to something that is modern or historic. This creates a timeless architecture for a building such that it would never not become outdated and would age gracefully. The building envelope in the Core is limited by the area in which a structure is placed. Ms. Dietz explained a tripartite design, meaning a building base, middle, and a cap. The base provides features a distinctive platform for the design, the cap makes a statement and or terminates the buildingion, and the middle creates a balance of design. The materials used on the building, the streetscape, and signs impact the design as well. Commissioner Haverkamp asked how tripartite architecture was different than other architecture. Ms. Dietz showed examples of different architecture to illustrate different designs. Commissioner Miller asked about the Elan building and how it respected the Historic Core. Ms. Dietz said the colors and windows of the Elan were able to accomplish this. Acting Chairman Murray pointed out that the sidewalks around the Elan were not narrow, however. He asked where narrow sidewalks would be retained, and Ms. Dietz noted that Leary is proposed to remain at largely the current would have those narrow sidewalks width. Acting Chairman Murray asked for clear rationale on which sidewalks would be narrow and which would not. Ms. Dietz noted that the sidewalk plan for Gilman was still in flux. Ms. Dietz continued that staff she is not proposing a lot of changes to the Comprehensive Plan, but there is a need to recognize the Historic Core in the Plan. The Core is proposed to be an overlay within the Old Town area. Acting Chairman Murray asked if there was a historic core in the Overlake Area. Ms. Dietz said she did not think any historic buildings were in that area, but there are some older properties that may be historic ion its north sideportion. Acting Chairman Murray said that if the language said that the City was recognizing a historic core in the urban centers, plural, then that might mean there are historic cores in other centers such as Overlake. Ms. Dietz clarified that this would be the Downtown section of the uurban ccenters element in the Comprehensive Plan. The Historic Core overlay maintains the allowed uses of the Old Town Zone. Proposed updates to the Ddesign standards do include will involve some substantial changes. There are proposals for some new pedestrian linkages and a change for Gilman Street. The proposed amendments also relate to Downtown shorelines and parks will involve some changes, as well. The new park Downtown was just a concept a short time ago, and staff wants to make sure it is recognized. The park is not in the Historic Core, but immediately adjacent to it. No changes for the City s landmarking program have been proposed, nor are there any additional landmarks proposed through this amendment action. This proposal merely involves deals with design standards and associated code dealing with new construction. The Technical Committee has reviewed this proposal as well. Redmond Planning Commission 5

6 Design standard principles have been developed with the help of the consulting group Makers and the City Council as well as information gleaned from the Planning Commission s recent retreat. These will be used to guide updates to design standards for the Historic Core as well as the rest of the Redmond. The Comprehensive Plan has been consulted to make sure the proposals are consistent with current codes and policies. Acting Chairman Murray asked for a hard copy of the proposals principles from staff to help keep the discussion on track. The Planning Commission s review and discussion schedule is proposed to would include seven meetings on these amendmentsproposals. Staff proposes to begin with Ttripartite design and, for example, would start as a larger discussion and move to more specific down into smtopicsaller focus points. The public hearing will occur on the first round of proposals starting July 15 and running continue through August 5, when the next round of proposals, including massing, height, and stepbacks will be addressed. There is a possibility to keep the hearing open for written testimony on August 12. Acting Chairman Murray said he would be out of the country August 12 and 19, but Chairman O Hara would run those meetings in his stead. Ms. Dietz said breaking up the proposals into chunks will help guide the Commission s review of and discussion research and questions on the individual issues. Ms. Dietz described spoke about two alternative approaches ideas that might be used during the Commission s meetings to support the Commission s consideration and guide the discussion regarding the proposed amendments. One approach is to present the intent and, including a visual examples of appropriate and inappropriate implementation for each design standard or other presentation by topic. This concept would involve limited text and more pictures. The other alternative would be to step through the Code section by section. The design criteria make up the meat of the Code and tell developers what they shall, should, and can do, and also identify incentives. Illustrations and photos will help determine how the Code is properly expressed in construction. Ms. Dietz showed the Commission how the visual by topic discussion might look and feel versus the idea of working looking through all the verbiage of the Code intent in the meeting. The Commission has identified four filters criteria including the ten design standard principles to use in its work and will use them to see how the different proposals fit with the Downtown character, how they impact mobility, and balancing community and property owner interests. Acting Chairman Murray asked if the Commissioners would prefer the visual by topic discussion or a discussion with more verbiage. Commissioner Haverkamp said she was concerned about not having all the Code language to make sure it would match with the photos and illustrations. Commissioner Captain would like that, too, but he was concerned about taking in too much information. He said he was comfortable with the visual by topic discussion. Commissioner Miller would like to know how these proposals relate to best practices, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan. Commissioner Miller was looking for a presentation that would explain that relationship. He did not want to scrimp on this point, as he wanted to make sure the Commission was consistent with its policies. Redmond Planning Commission 6

7 Ms. Stiteler said the Code language would be in Commissioners packets, but in the presentation, the photos could be the main part of the presentation. Acting Chairman Murray said that was a good compromise. Ms. Dietz said the design criteria would be available as well as a visual tool, even with a more streamlined visual presentation. Acting Chairman Murray said that would be a wise way forgood way to ensure that the Commission s decisions to be are consistent with City policy. Commissioner Haverkamp asked for more detail on existing code conditions in comparison with the changes proposed, such as in the case of on-street parking or sidewalk width. Acting Chairman Murray asked staff for a visual presentation that would be as comprehensive as possible and present images of what was desired versus what was not desired. Ms. Dietz noted that staff consulted the DRB on concepts for updates to the design standards portion of the Zoning Codeconsulted on these issues, and staff will share this information to the Commission through a memo that includes the DRB s recommendations on one side of the page compared to the new proposal on the other side. Acting Chairman Murray complimented Ms. Dietz and her other staff on finding a way to present this material and said this would be a helpful way to present information now and in the future. The Commission will receive the Technical Committee report on June 26, and Ms. Dietz asked the Commission to review this before the July 8 meeting. Any questions should come in before July 5. The opening of the public hearing will be July 15. The Commission agreed with the scheduling ahead. REPORTS/SCHEDULING/TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING(S): Ms. Stiteler said the continuation of this meeting s public hearing on July 8 had been established. There is no meeting on July 1. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Miller to adjourn. MOTION seconded by Commissioner Haverkamp. MOTION approved unanimously (4-0). The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:02 p.m. Minutes Approved On: Planning Commission Chair Redmond Planning Commission 7