REDMOND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. August 20, COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Miller and O Hara

Transcription

1 REDMOND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Chandorkar, Commissioners Gregory, Sanders, Murray, and Biethan COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Miller and O Hara STAFF PRESENT: RECORDING SECRETARY: Sarah Stiteler, Redmond Planning Department Lady of Letters, Inc. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Chandorkar 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 MINUTES AND SUMMARY: Commissioner Biethan made a MOTION to approve the meeting minutes of July 16, 2014 and the meeting summary of August 6, The MOTION was seconded by Commissioner Sanders. The MOTION passed unanimously (5-0). Public Hearing and Study Session, Bear Creek Design District 1 - proposed Zoning Code amendments, presented by Sarah Stiteler, City of Redmond Planning Department. Chairman Chandorkar opened the public hearing. Ms. Stiteler introduced the topic to the Commission, which last took up this issue August 6. A zoning map for the area shows the Bear Creek Design Districts 1 and 2, which total approximately 126 acres in size. Design District 1 is predominantly outside of the 100-year floodplain and was originally conceived as an area that would accommodate additional density. The area that is Design District 2 is in the floodplain. The Zoning regulations for both Performance Area 1 and Performance Area 2, included in this review, were adopted in At that time, there was discussion of a development in this area from the Aegis Company, which builds senior housing. The master plan for this development was for a residential use for seniors, 55 and above in age.. Around 2008, Aegis was no longer interested in the parcel. During the Neighborhood Plan process, other uses were considered for that property in addition to senior housing. The discussion and policy developed through the Bear Creek neighborhood plan update contemplates and anticipates the potential of other uses on the parcel, namely, multifamily housing. The outcome of this was Council adoption of the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan in Redmond Planning Commission 1

2 The proposal before the Commission is not a rezone, but rather an allowance for an additional land use on the property. In addition to senior housing for people age 55+, the proposal would allow non-age specific multifamily housing. This is not a proposed change in the allowed density or intensity in terms of maximum square footage that can be built. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would remain at 0.8, a number developed in The requirements for this site, in 2007, were also developed specific to the Bear Creek Design District to protect and enhance the groundwater, the aquifer, and the sensitivity of the critical areas on the site. The proposal would drop the requirement to conform to a specific site plan. It would allow the additional use of non-age specific multifamily housing at the same intensity. In addition, there are some proposed modifications to setbacks. The proposal also confirms trails, road easements, and dedication, which were part of the original regulations developed in Insuring protection of the wetland will also be included. There is additional language that speaks to the issue of protecting the groundwater, and prohibits permanent intrusion into the groundwater. When the Neighborhood Plan was developed, there was a discussion among the people in the neighborhood and the Citizen Advisory Committee that the neighborhood is lacking in community meeting space. A policy was thus developed to consider the development of community meeting space. Staff is proposing establishment of a development agreement with the property owner to set the minimum size of this space as 500 square feet. The space would be accessible to the public and by establishing these parameters through a development agreement for Council approval, the agreement would run with the land. The development agreement would contain specifics as to management and operation of that space. Ms. Stiteler presented the policy language of the Bear Creek Neighborhood Policy N-BC- 22 to the Commission, and showed how it spoke to allowing a singular vehicular access point to Avondale. It also provides a way for future adjacent redevelopment to use the same access point to Avondale. While this is not a rezone, the proposal does bring up the idea of including an indoor gathering space for the general public. The setbacks proposed to change would be on the third and fourth stories. For the first and second stories, the current setback is 10 feet from other streets and 15 from Avondale. The third story steps back considerably and the fourth story, even more. The proposed setbacks have been modified slightly, and would be more restrictive than what would be allowed in a comparable R18 zone, similar to the buildings across the street on the west side of Avondale. Traffic was analyzed for this proposal based on the existing FAR and looking at a potential average unit size of 700 square feet. Given the size of BCDD1 zone and developing it at 80%, and assuming an average unit size, 347 units could be developed. Looking at that, and considering multifamily versus senior housing, the proposal could represent a 2.6% increase in daily traffic on Avondale. The calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Afternoon peak traffic has been calculated to have Redmond Planning Commission 2

3 a potential increase of 128 trips. A neighborhood meeting in June on this topic yielded 55 members of the community in attendance. A Technical Committee report went out in July, and the Planning Commission reviewed that report August 6. This report will continue to be reviewed into October by the Commission and the Council. Commissioner Sanders asked about the parcel and how it aligned with the 100-year floodplain zone. Ms. Stiteler said FEMA maps were used for that determination. Commissioner Sanders said it was puzzling to her that the 100-year floodplain line seems to bisect the parcel. She asked how land uses were allowed in the area, possibly as an agreement between landowners. Ms. Stiteler said she did not have more information on that, but said she could get more information. Commissioner Sanders asked about the setbacks from Avondale and if there were other setbacks required to the floodplain. Ms. Stiteler said there would be setbacks from property lines and/or other streets, such as the extension of 180 th. Commissioner Sanders asked how close a developer could be allowed to build next to the property edge against what is now a farm area. Ms. Stiteler said the current zoning rules would apply for the first and second story of a building. The setbacks would be 10 feet and would not be part of the changes in the proposal. Commissioner Sanders asked if the community meeting space would be required, and if this came out of the Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Stiteler said that was indeed the case, and noted that the Neighborhood Plan speaks to the desire for community space several times. Commissioner Sanders asked if there would be a charge for this space. Ms. Stiteler said that could be the case, but that detail has not been worked out yet. Commissioner Sanders said, in a worst case scenario, there could be a steep fee that would discourage public use. Ms. Stiteler said there could be a fee, but the City s interest would be to make that fee nominal, if at all. Chairman Chandorkar asked if what appears like an irrigation canal on the maps forms the boundary of Performance Area 1 and 2. Ms. Stiteler said the zoning boundary was a little bit uneven. Chairman Chandorkar was concerned the irrigation canal would somehow get filled up in this proposal. He confirmed the proposal would not change the area of the floodplain determined in He noted that while the FAR is not proposed to change, the number of people allowed in this area has not been capped in any way. Thus, there could be more pressure on the same piece of land in terms of how many people could be living there. Ms. Stiteler agreed, that could be the outcome but that the amount of buildable area would not change. However, the difference between senior living facilities and non-age specific housing could involve more people living in this area. This will vary greatly depending upon the number of units that get built, and that depends on the average size of units. Overall, based upon the trip generation analysis, the senior housing option would generate less vehicle traffic. She said it was difficult to determine an absolute number, because the number of people living in this area cannot be determined exactly. Commissioner Biethan asked if school capacity and parking capacity would be included in the study session on this topic, in that multifamily housing versus senior housing could generate different kinds of activities. He asked if there was an issue about stormwater Redmond Planning Commission 3

4 capacity in this proposal. Commissioner Biethan asked if there would be a difference between senior housing and multifamily housing with regard to outdoor storage and recreation, and if these issues would be included in the Commission s discussion of this topic. Chairman Chandorkar said those topics would be included in the discussion. Susan Wilkins was the first to speak to the Commission as part of the public hearing. She lives at NE 99 th Court in Redmond at the top of Education Hill. She is a member of Water Tenders, an environmental group that pays attention to water quality issues in Bear Creek and the protection of salmon runs. She said that Bear Creek and Evans Creek were designated by King County as part of the long-term growth management plan to be protected for salmon runs. These two creeks, along with Soos Creek in Kent, form the water basins that are supposed to be protected long-term. Making sure the salmon survive is very important to Water Tenders. Water Tenders has not developed an official position on the proposal facing the Commission, but the protection of Bear Creek is a top priority for the group. Perrigo Creek will be realigned and daylighted in the near future, and it is a tributary of Bear Creek. Thus, protecting the water quality of Perrigo Creek will be important as well. Ms. Wilkins raised concerns about flooding capacity. What appear to be irrigation ditches on the maps are drainage ditches, which take the water away and keep the land drier for farming. Flooding in Redmond is a huge issue, Ms. Wilkins said, and right now, the Willowmoor Floodplain Task Force is dealing with homeowners along Lake Sammamish. Those homeowners have determined that their properties are damaged every time the lake level rises. Keeping the level of Sammamish at a constant 26 feet above sea level would require channeling a significant amount of flood water through the Sammamish River. That river meets up with Bear Creek, and if too much water goes through the Sammamish River, Bear Creek will back up into the City of Redmond. Ms. Wilkins said the Keller Farm, contained within the proposal area, can hold a lot of water. But she said the Commission should plan to make sure the City does not go underwater. She showed some photographs of flooding in this area, and said water that floods here can go into Downtown Redmond. Jon Spangler of the City of Redmond staff attends the Willowmoor Floodplain Task Force meetings, and Ms. Wilkins said that he agrees that preventing Downtown flooding is an important issue. She recommended that the Commission consult with Mr. Spangler. Ms. Stiteler noted that Ms. Wilkins had three sets of written comments that have been entered into the record. Commissioner Biethan asked Ms. Wilkins if she would have the same concerns about flooding if the site were developed with senior housing rather than multifamily housing. She said a flood consultant should be hired to determine where the true flood lines are. She said the FEMA maps are only to determine who gets paid in the event of a flood and they were also last updated in She did not think the FEMA maps were that accurate based on the 100-year flood line and where flooding is currently occurring. Chairman Chandorkar asked Ms. Wilkins if she would object to any construction in this area, or if she was simply in opposition to the change from senior housing development contained Redmond Planning Commission 4

5 in the proposal. Ms. Wilkins said she was objecting to any construction at all until there is an assurance that water would not be directed into Downtown Redmond. Commissioner Biethan summarized that Ms. Wilkins had concerns about the accuracy of the flood maps and how the proposed allowance for multifamily housing could potentially contribute toward development and more flooding. Ms. Wilkins said she was concerned about any development on the property. Commissioner Gregory noted that this was not a rezone, and that the land is already able to be developed for senior housing. He noted that the Commission is not considering if the property is to be developed. Rather, the Commission is looking at a proposal that would lift the age restriction of the housing on the site. Commissioner Murray agreed with Commissioner Gregory, but noted that Commissioner Sanders brought up at the last meeting on this topic that it would be an opportune time to reexamine this. In light of that, Commissioner Murray said it would be worthwhile to further discuss Ms. Wilkin s testimony during the study session. Commissioner Gregory agreed, and said there would be a huge difference between senior housing and multifamily housing. Steve Thompson next presented to the Commission. He lives at 9050 Avondale Road. He owns a home and vacant lot in the proposal area. He thanked the Commission for their work on this issue. He built his home in 1979, when Avondale was a two-lane country road. Keller Farm was an active dairy farm at that time and pumped manure to its fence line. In 1986, the City planned to expand Avondale to its present configuration. It was said at that time that the road would be developed into a four lane-road with a turn lane, such that homeowners would be able to turn left directly into their driveways. In the final plan, that was not true for many homeowners. Several homeowners in the neighborhood signed a letter at this time asking the City not to rezone because, as stated in the letter, the traffic on Avondale will exceed the limits recommended by the EPA, Washington State DOE, and the Federal Highway Administration for suburban residential use. Mr. Thompson said he and others were told years ago that a rezone could not happen because the homeowners were buffer zone between the higher density apartments across the street and the ranch estates in the valley. A spot rezone could not happen, residents were told, because the City had to look at the whole area. Moving ahead to 2007, Mr. Thompson said the Aegis senior living proposal was presented as a done deal. He said he is an active environmentalist, and he was concerned about protecting this land. The Aegis deal, he said, was considered a quasi-judicial action. The Planning Department simply moved the project along. However, a Bear Creek Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed in 2009 to look at the Neighborhood Plan, which had not been updated in many years. He and three others served on that Committee to develop the Plan. He did not realize at the time the zoning for Aegis was project-specific, as implied in the proposal facing the Commission this evening. If he had known this, he would have pushed earlier for the site to be returned to the earlier zoning configuration. Redmond Planning Commission 5

6 Mr. Thompson said the new proposal change is not minor, as the staff implies. To go from the Aegis proposal of around 215 units to 347 units is a big deal. He said the traffic impact would be huge. He said he has worked on senior housing units, and older people generate less traffic. During the CAC meetings, Mr. Thompson talked about incorporating businesses into unused land. He said the walk score of his neighborhood is bad for two reasons. One is that there are no pedestrian-friendly businesses in the neighborhood. The only businesses in the neighborhood are automotive-related. Secondly, there are inadequate crosswalks across Avondale. Businesses in the proposed rezone would be in the middle of the neighborhood, which Mr. Thompson did not want next door to him. He said that if neighborhoods are continually built that require cars, the carbon footprint gets bigger for the life of the buildings construction. High-density housing that requires the use of more individual cars is not good planning, he said. During the CAC meetings, the term multifamily urban was used to convey the idea of mixed-use, as it is occurring Downtown. This provision does not address the issues Mr. Thompson has raised, in his opinion. The CAC also discussed the need to provide access, in the future, for properties on the east side of Avondale which are south of the proposal area. Mr. Thompson said the traffic has become a dike that prevents residents of Redmond from accessing the road. He said a traffic signal in this area would be good. He did not see any provisions in the proposal that would allow the properties south of the development area to access Avondale. He said a multifamily type of development for this area would not work. Mr. Thompson said he was told by City staff that a traffic study would be coming out this summer to deal with this issue. After contacting staff, he determined a study from two years ago would be used and the City was just trying to get it finished. That study ignored all the recommendations of the CAC. The study proposed changing intersections, but not in the areas where the CAC was asking for crosswalks and traffic signals. He said the staff person he has worked with is no longer responding to his s. Chairman Chandorkar asked Mr. Thompson to sum up his concerns. Mr. Thompson said the motivation for the Aegis project was to allow the City to buy the wetlands. He has been told by the City there is no connection between that purchase agreement and the proposed rule change. Thus, he said, there should be no rush to push this rule change through without good planning to address all the issues involved. He urged the Commission to send this proposal back to City staff to address those other issues, of which he has a lengthy list. Chairman Chandorkar asked Mr. Thompson about the neighborhood meetings he spoke of earlier, and if traffic was the only issue discussed, or if flooding of Bear Creek was discussed, as well. Mr. Thompson said he did not recall exactly, but he believed flooding was discussed, especially around Friendly Village. Chairman Chandorkar asked if flooding was a continual concern every year. Mr. Thompson said the flooding levels can vary from year to year. He said there is a bridge over Bear Creek at Avondale that can flood and send water into the Bear Creek shopping center. He noted that surveyors have been out in the area recently to inspect the site. Redmond Planning Commission 6

7 Commissioner Murray noted that any written comments would be gladly accepted. He said that the rules of the Commission call for three minutes of testimony per person, with a total of 15 minutes total. He said Chairman Chandorkar was not trying to be rude or biased, but simply wanted to stick to protocol. He asked for more written comments if Mr. Thompson did not have enough time. Mr. Thompson said he would forward a list of items for the Commission to consider. Chairman Chandorkar closed the oral part of the public hearing, but decided to keep the written portion open for another week. Chairman Chandorkar asked if any additional issues needed to be added to the matrix. Commissioner Gregory asked if the property in this proposal is under contract and if anyone was interested in developing it. Ms. Stiteler said she has talked to a number of developers, and she has directed them to the attorney for the property owner. Commissioner Murray said he saw two major issues, including the idea of changing the designation from senior living to multifamily housing. That has implications for density in terms of traffic and crowding in the area. That point has to be considered, and Commissioner Murray confirmed that that issue was contained in the issues matrix. There is a second issue that speaks to the idea that development might not be going in the right direction for the property at all. He did not know if the Commission had the authority to question the 2007 report that allowed for development in the first place. If that issue is not on the table, then the only issue is to change the density capacity. Commissioner Gregory asked staff if there was an alternative to remand this project back to staff to reexamine the whole Bear Creek Design District, or if the work done in 2007 locked the Commission into proceeding a certain way. Commissioner Biethan asked if there was new information that would cause the Commission to have a different conclusion to the 2007 plan or its relevance today. The flooding, he noted, was spoken about several times during the public hearing and may not have been part of the discussion in He said Redmond is in a different development mode now with more people moving into the area. Commissioner Gregory said this appeared to be a situation of zoning creep. In 2007, the Aegis proposal sounded reasonable for just one small area, but the current proposed rule change seemed significant in light of the 700 square foot units that would be developed for multifamily housing. That would be a totally different use and have a different impact from what was discussed in Commissioner Gregory said this is not just an issue of changing an age restriction for development, due to the questions raised in the public hearing. Ms. Stiteler said the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan was a docketed item for the Comprehensive Plan docket. She pointed out that any person who was interested in the site could develop it at the 0.8 FAR and could build a senior housing facility today. With regard to the floodplain issues, Ms. Stiteler could not speak to how those were analyzed in However, the purpose of the ordinance for the creation of the Bear Creek Design District is for the protection of the area. It was created such that the developable portion, above the 100-year floodplain, should be allowed to have development at the 0.8 FAR. It was determined to be a single purpose or single use zone Redmond Planning Commission 7

8 at that time. In terms of looking at any potential change in the future, the Commission can make some changes through its process. Chairman Chandorkar asked if it would be acceptable to note that the Commission is not sure how to make a recommendation at this time, in that there seem to be a lot of questions the Commission has about the proposal. Commissioner Murray said he was concerned about traffic density, crosswalks, zoning creep, and allowing more people to move into this area. He said allowing for multifamily housing might not have been accepted in 2007 if a person had come in with such a plan rather than senior housing. He had significant pause about these issues and wanted to deal with them before he was comfortable with the rule change. Commissioner Biethan asked if the Commission could recommend no development on the site through some sort of rule change. Ms. Stiteler said that could be possible, in that this is a docketed item. However, she said that a recommendation of no development would be inconsistent with Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan policy. Commissioner Gregory said one option the Commission would have would be to turn down the rule change, thus remanding this item back to the docket. However, that would not prevent development of senior living units on the site. Commissioner Murray said he understood at the meeting two weeks prior that the property could stay vacant indefinitely because of the age restrictions on it. It would be more attractive to developers if the restrictions were lifted. It would be possible that a developer working on senior housing could move into this area tomorrow, but he thought that was unlikely. He said he did not want to make a decision on a rule change until he knew more about the impacts of the rule change on the Neighborhood Plan and its intent. Commissioner Gregory said that could be a clear message to the City Council, in that the Council has legislative authority over this proposal. He said he wanted to hear more about the appropriateness of multifamily development on this property. He said the docketed item would allow for a discussion of the Bear Creek Design District and a reexamination of the assumptions made in He said, if the Commission approved the rule change as proposed, any further discussion would not happen. He said it was obvious to him that the rule change is necessary because there is someone out there wanting to develop multifamily housing, not senior housing. He said he would make a motion to not approve the rule change and remand this issue back to the docket. Chairman Chandorkar said the written testimony would need to be complete before that happened. Commissioner Murray said he did not have enough information about this issue, and said he would add a review of the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan to the issues matrix. He would like to learn more about the crosswalk issue and the floodplain issue. Commissioner Sanders asked to clarify that this property could be multifamily as well as senior housing, and noted that there has been interest for both types of housing. Commissioner Murray reiterated that someone could come in tomorrow and start developing a senior housing project. Commissioner Sanders recommended denying the Redmond Planning Commission 8

9 proposal and adding some new options. Ms. Stiteler said that more information could be given to the Commission. According to the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan, multifamily development could be allowed on this property, but certain conditions would have to be followed. Chairman Chandorkar confirmed that this issue would remain open until the next meeting, at which point staff would provide more information about the Neighborhood Plan and floodplain issues. John Spangler and Cathy Beam, from City staff, have worked on this proposal and could provide more details. Commissioner Biethan said he would like to bring up with City Council that there are issues such as flooding that need more attention, regardless of the land use. He reiterated that the floodplain maps are simply for payment purposes, and he wanted the Commission to focus on where and when flooding was actually happening. Chairman Chandorkar said staff could come back with more information before this issue went to City Council. Commissioner Murray said staff should review if there is a difference between the 2007 assessment and today in terms of flooding impacts. He also wanted to know the impact of a higher population on this property, environmentally, with special attention to traffic, sewer, waste, and garbage collection. Chairman Chandorkar noted that, in 2007, there was a piece of the Shoreline Master Plan that called for wetland mitigation banking on the Keller Farm. He wanted more information on that point. Commissioner Murray said he wanted more details on providing more crosswalks in this area. Commissioner Biethan asked if the impact on schools could be included in the staff analysis. Commissioner Gregory said staff should get whatever information was available and the Commission could review it at the next meeting. Ms. Stiteler noted that the Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan was available online for review. Commissioner Sanders said a map of possible trails would be a good topic to consider. Ms. Stiteler showed the Commission a map of the trails, including the current and potential trails. Commissioner Sanders noted that having trail access to the park in this area would be a nice feature for the neighborhood. Chairman Chandorkar asked to go through the issues matrix and close whatever issues the Commission could close. Commissioner Murray said Issue 1 could be closed and replaced with the new issues raised in prior conversation at this meeting. Commissioner Sanders said Issue 2, regarding a change in the FAR, would have to remain open pending some of the previous questions raised. Issue 3 dealt with alternatives to using a development agreement to create public, accessible community space. Commissioner Sanders said she was satisfied with staff s response on this topic, and Issue 3 was closed. Thus, the only issue that remained open was Issue 2 from the current matrix. The Commission confirmed that the new set of issues raised at this meeting would be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Stiteler said, in regard to traffic, there was not a specific development proposal she could refer to as a way to provide more information. The location of crosswalks and other elements, as requested by Mr. Thompson, could only be determined when a proposed development comes forward. Staff is looking at this issue from a 30,000-foot level with Redmond Planning Commission 9

10 regard to pedestrian and vehicle access, with attention given to the Neighborhood Plan and the existing regulations. Beyond that, any issue would be more development-specific. Chairman Chandorkar asked if the Transportation Master Plan might shed more light on this situation. Ms. Stiteler said the neighborhoods connections map shows how the area could be accessed in the future, but it is unclear how a new development would impact this location. Commissioner Murray said that piece of the discussion should be part of the issues matrix, as well. REPORTS/SCHEDULING/TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING(S): Ms. Stiteler said there was an Open House at City Hall from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. on August 25 to discuss the proposed increase to allowed building heights in the Overlake Business and Technology area. Jeff Churchill is the staff member working on this topic, and any questions about this topic should be directed his way. There will be some sketches and imaging provided to give the public a better idea of what is proposed. In summary, the proposal would allow additional height, but not additional building area. The City Council discussed the SE Redmond Neighborhood Plan at its last meeting. There will be study sessions by the Council on August 26 and September 9. The docket is now undergoing a study session as well. Ms. Stiteler asked the Commission members for their schedules through the fall. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Murray to adjourn. MOTION approved unanimously (5-0). Chairman Chandorkar adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:18 p.m. Minutes Approved On: Planning Commission Chair Redmond Planning Commission 10