Document Redmond_doc_0a83af77c5

Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Mixed-Use Development Pedestrian-Oriented Streets Parks and Open Spaces Transit Service August 30, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Prepared in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act Chapter 43.21 of the Revised Code of Washington SEPA Rules Chapter 197.11 of the Washington Administrative Code and Redmond Community Development Guide Chapter 20F .20.40, Environmental Review Date oflssue of Draft SEIS: March 23, 2007 Deadline for Comments: 5:00p.m., April23, 2007 Date oflssue of Final SEIS: August 30, 2007 Robert G. Odie City of Redmond SEPA Responsible Official II tam J. Campbell v City of Redmond SEPA Responsible Official ---PAGE BREAK--- . - - · · · · - - CityofRedmond WASHINGTON August 30, 2007 Dear SEIS Recipient, This letter is to inform you that the City of Redmond has issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on Redmond's Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Update and Implementation Project. The Overtake study area is bounded on the west by 148th Avenue NE, on the north by NE 60 1h Street and State Route (SR) 520, and on the east by West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, which also forms the southern boundary with NE 20th Street. In March 2007, a Draft SEIS was issued which analyzed impacts associated with the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative for potential future land use changes and public investments for Overlake through 2030. The two alternatives largely maintain the vision adopted in 1999 as part of the Overtake Neighborhood Plan, but differ in describing how the vision is achieved by 2030. These differences include the amount and character of residential and commercial development and the level of public action and investment taken, such as investment in transportation, parks and open space, and stormwater management improvements. The proposed Action Alternative includes the adoption of updates to the ONP, related portions of Redmond's Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG), and other implementation documents, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan. The Final SEIS includes an analysis of the environmental impacts and a compilation of public comments on the Draft SEIS, and responses to those comments. Redmond city staff prepared the Final SEIS responses, with assistance from the consulting firm of David Evans and Associates, Inc. These are contained in Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS. Paper copies of the Final SEIS may be purchased for $1 0 at the Permit Center at Redmond City Hall (2"d floor), 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, W A. Compact discs with the Final SEIS in electronic form are also available at no charge. Electronic copies may be downloaded from the web at http://www.redmond.gov/intheworks/Overlake/finalSEIS.asp. This update is an important step in continuing to shape Overtake's future. If you would like more information, please contact Lori Peckol at 425/556-2411 or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Robert G. Odie foe. City of Redmond SEP A Responsible Official f' v William J. Campbell iV City of Redmond SEP A Responsible Official City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA • 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- i Fact Sheet Project: Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Location: The Overlake Neighborhood is in the southwest corner of Redmond. The western boundary is 148th Avenue NE; the northern boundary is NE 60th Street and State Route 520; the eastern boundary is West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, the latter of which also serves as a southern boundary to NE 20th Street. Description of Proposal: The proposed action is the adoption of updates to the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP), related portions of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG), and other implementation documents, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan. The proposed action also includes adoption of the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy. The purpose of the update is to refine the adopted vision for Overlake, reflect changes in the area since adoption of the plan in 1999, and promote implementation of the plan. This document is a supplement to the Integrated Growth Management Act (GMA) Document and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in 1999 for the Overlake Neighborhood Plan and Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) Update. It evaluates an Action and No Action Alternative through the planning horizon of 2030. The two alternatives largely maintain the vision adopted as part of the ONP, but differ in describing how the vision is achieved by 2030. These differences include the amount and character of development and the level of public action and investment taken, such as investment in transportation, parks and open space, and stormwater management improvements. Under the Action Alternative, the Overlake shopping area would transition to an urban residential/mixed use neighborhood and most of the remaining 1 and 2 story structures in the employment area would be redeveloped. This alternative provides for the addition of approximately 5,800 dwellings and up to 4.5 million square feet of new commercial space in the study area through 2030, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Downtown Seattle to the Overlake Transit Center in the study area, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The City of Redmond would take action on proposed amendments in phases, in recognition of anticipated work between the cities of Redmond and Bellevue to jointly update agreements for phasing of growth and investments in Overlake and the Bel-Red Corridor. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) also evaluates a No Action Alternative, which assumes that no significant changes would occur to the existing neighborhood plan, zoning, or planned improvements for Overlake. This alternative anticipates that approximately 2,300 dwellings and 1 million square feet of new commercial space in the study ---PAGE BREAK--- ii area would be added to the area through 2030, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline, and that future development would be primarily suburban in form. In 1999, the City of Redmond adopted the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use the investments of time and resources involved in preparing the 1999 FEIS and to make development review more timely and predictable. Redmond intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action and to provide for phasing of the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the phases and subsequent proposals. Proponent: City of Redmond Lead Agency: The City of Redmond is Lead Agency for environmental review of the Overlake Neighborhood Plan. Responsible Officials: Robert G. Odle, Director, Redmond Planning and Community Development Department William J. Campbell, Director, Redmond Public Works Department Staff Contact: Lori Peckol, Policy Planning Manager, Redmond Planning and Community Development PO Box 97010, MS: 4SPL Redmond, WA 98073-9710 [PHONE REDACTED] Licenses, Permits and Approvals Required: Amendments to City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Guide, and functional plans, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan Contributors: City of Redmond Planning and Community Development Department City of Redmond Public Works Department City of Redmond Parks Department Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering Geomatrix KPG, Inc. David Evans and Associates Date of Issuance of Draft SEIS: March 23, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Date and Location of Open House on the Draft SEIS: March 29, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the North Bellevue Community/Senior Center, 4063 148th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington. Date Comments Due on Draft SEIS: April 23, 2007. Date of Issuance of Final SEIS: August 30, 2007 Date of Final Action by the Lead Agency: The Redmond City Council adoption of Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Guide Amendments is expected by the end of 2007. Adoption of Phase 2 is anticipated in 2008. Subsequent Environmental Review: Redmond intends to phase the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. The phases would be defined in coordination with the City of Bellevue. Redmond also intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use investments of time and resources in preparing this document and to make development review more timely and predictable. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the subsequent proposal. Location of Background Reports and Reference Materials: City of Redmond Planning and Community Development Department 15670 NE 85th Street Fourth Floor South City Hall Redmond, Washington Background information referenced in this document is also available online at www.redmond.gov/intheworks/overlake. Copies: Paper copies may be purchased for $10 at the Permit Center at Redmond City Hall (2nd floor), 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA. Compact discs with the Final SEIS in electronic form are also available at no charge. Electronic copies may also be downloaded at www.redmond.gov/intheworks/overlake. ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Table of Contents FACT SHEET i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. Location of Study Area 2 1.3. Project Background and Purpose 5 1.4. The ONP, Bel-Red Corridor Project, and BROTS 6 1.5. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 6 1.6. Description of the Alternatives 7 1.6.1. No Action Alternative 7 1.6.2. Action Alternative 8 1.7. Public Involvement Process 10 1.7.1. Overlake Neighborhood Plan 10 1.7.2. SEPA/GMA Public Process 12 1.8. Summary of Differences between Draft and Final SEIS 12 1.9. Environmental Summary 13 2. OVERLAKE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ALTERNATIVES 23 2.1. Existing Neighborhood Vision 23 2.2. 2030 Alternatives 23 2.2.1. No Action Alternative: Key Features 24 2.2.2. Action Alternative: Key Features 30 2.2.3. Alternatives Considered but Rejected 40 3. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 41 3.1. SEPA Requirements 41 3.2. ONP Relationship to the Growth Management Act 42 3.3. ONP Relationship to Countywide Planning Policies 42 3.4. ONP Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 45 3.5. Land Use 45 3.5.1. Existing Conditions 45 3.5.2. Land Use Impacts 52 3.5.3. Mitigation for Impact on Land Use 65 3.5.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 65 3.6. Transportation 66 3.6.1. Methodology 66 3.6.2. Existing Conditions 68 3.6.3. Alternative Descriptions 87 3.6.4. Transportation Impacts 104 3.6.5. Mitigation Measures 120 3.6.6. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 121 ---PAGE BREAK--- v 3.7. Light and Glare 122 3.7.1. Potential Impacts 122 3.7.2. Mitigation 123 3.7.3. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 123 3.8. Air Quality 124 3.8.1. Method of Analysis 124 3.8.2. Existing Conditions 125 3.8.3. Potential Air Quality Impacts During Construction 126 3.8.4. Potential Air Quality Impacts from Operation 126 3.8.5. Mitigation 128 3.8.6. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 129 3.9. Noise 130 3.9.1. Construction Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 131 3.9.2. Operational Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 132 3.9.3. Mitigation for Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 132 3.9.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for Both Alternatives 133 3.10. Water Quality: Streams 133 3.10.1. Existing Conditions 133 3.10.2. Potential Construction and Operation Impacts 134 3.10.3. Mitigation 137 3.10.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 138 3.11. Water Quality: Lake Sammamish 138 3.11.1. Existing Conditions 138 3.11.2. Potential Impacts 139 3.11.3. Mitigation for Both Alternatives 139 3.11.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 140 3.12. Wetlands 140 3.12.1. Existing Conditions 140 3.12.2. Potential Impacts 141 3.12.3. Mitigation 142 3.12.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 142 3.13. Public Facilities 142 3.13.1. Water Supply 142 3.13.2. Sewer Facilities 144 3.13.3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space 145 3.13.4. Electrical Facilities 151 3.13.5. Public Schools 155 4. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 157 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 209 5.1. Federal Agencies 209 5.2. State Agencies 209 5.3. Regional Agencies 209 5.4. King County Agencies and Offices 209 ---PAGE BREAK--- vi 5.5. Neighboring Cities 210 5.6. Utilities and Services 210 5.7. General Interest Groups 210 5.8. Libraries 210 5.9. Newspapers 210 6. LIST OF ACRONYMS 211 ---PAGE BREAK--- vii List of Figures 1-1 Vicinity Map 3 1-2 ONP Study Area 4 2-1 No Action Alternative – Overlake Village 26 2-2 No Action Potential Commercial Growth by TAZ 27 2-3 No Action Potential Residential Growth by TAZ 28 2-4 No Action Alternative Transportation Projects 29 2-5 Action Alternative – Overlake Village 34 2-6 Action Potential Commercial Growth by TAZ 35 2-7 Action Potential Residential Growth by TAZ 36 2-8 Action Alternative Non-Motorized Transportation Projects 37 2-9 Action Alternative Transit Projects 38 2-10 Action Alternative Roadway Projects 39 3-1 Overlake Urban Center and Transportation Analysis Zones 44 3-2 Generalized Land Use Map (2005) 46 3-3 Existing and Projected Development by TAZ 62 3-4 Study Area and Street Classification 70 3-5 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service (2005) 73 3-6 Existing Local Transit Routes 75 3-7 Existing Regional Transit Routes 76 3-8 Existing Regional Express Transit Routes 77 3-9 Illustration of Sidewalk Standards 80 3-10 Summary of Sidewalk Inventory 81 3-11 Existing Bicycle Lanes and Trails 83 3-12 Existing Bicycle Level of Service 85 3-13 No Action Alternative Planned Transportation Improvements 90 3-14 Action Alternative Planned Roadway Improvements 91 3-15 Action Alternative Proposed Transit Improvements 95 3-16 Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 103 3-17 No Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Volumes at Intersection Approaches 106 3-18 Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Volumes at Intersection Approaches 107 3-19 TMP Screenlines #3 and #6 110 3-20 No Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service and Delay 115 3-21 Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service and Delay 116 3-22 Existing Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces in Overlake (2006) 147 3-23 Action Alternative Overlake Village Park Plan 150 ---PAGE BREAK--- viii List of Tables 1-1 Summary of Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update Alternatives 9 2-1 Overlake No Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 25 2-2 Overlake Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 31 2-3 Overlake Moderate 2030 Alternative Land Use Estimate 40 3-1 Land by Acreage (2005) 47 3-2 Definitions of Land Use Categories 48 3-3 Change in Population: 1980-2000 49 3-4 Existing Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond (2005) 49 3-5 Overlake Neighborhood Commercial Growth – Existing and Pipeline Projects 50 3-6 Land Use for Existing Conditions, No Action and Action Alternatives – Overlake Village and Employment Area 51 3-7 Projected Total Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond, 2030 52 3-8 Comparison of Consistency of No Action and Action Alternatives with CPP LU-45 53 3-9 Comprehensive Plan Policies Pertaining to Overlake 56 3-10 Comparison of the Proposed Overlake Neighborhood Plan with Requirements for Neighborhood Plans 60 3-11 Description of Average Intersection Level of Service 67 3-12 Level of Service Definitions 68 3-13 Existing (2005) PM Peak Average Intersection Level of Service and Concurrency Level of Service in the Overlake TMD 72 3-14 Bicycle Level of Service Definitions 86 3-15 Proposed Roadway Improvements 88 3-16 Action Alternative Proposed Transit Facility and Service Improvements 94 3-17 Action Alternative Proposed Transportation Demand Management Actions 97 3-18 Action Alternative Proposed Parking Management Actions 98 3-19 Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 101 3-20 Screenline Vehicle Volume to Capacity Ratios 108 3-21 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay 114 3-22 Existing, 2030 No Action and Action Alternative Levels of Service at Intersections Outside the Overlake Study Area 118 3-23 2030 Volume to Capacity Ratios and Concurrency Levels of Service 119 3-24 Calculated Maximum Peak-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) 127 3-25 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 131 3-26 Action Alternative Projected Electrical Load Increases by TAZ 153 3-27 Summer Loads for Sammamish-Kenilworth-Lakeside Transmission Line 153 3-28 Summer Loads for Sammamish-North Bellevue-Lakeside Transmission Line 154 3-29 Capacity and Enrollment of Public Schools Serving Overlake (2007) 155 3-30 Lake Washington School District Student Generation Rates (2007) 156 3-31 Estimated New Students Generated under Each Alternative in 2030 156 ---PAGE BREAK--- ix List of Appendices A Redmond Comprehensive Plan Draft Proposed Updates for Overlake B Redmond Community Development Guide Draft Proposed Updates for Overlake C Draft Proposed Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy D 2030 Land Use by Transportation Analysis Zone: No Action and Action E Transportation Methodology, Supplemental Information on Existing Conditions, and Transportation Projects under the No Action and Action Alternatives F Air Quality Technical Appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Introduction The City of Redmond is considering amendments to the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP). The purpose of these amendments is to refine the adopted vision for Overlake, reflect changes in the area since adoption of the plan in 1999, and promote implementation of the plan. This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluates the impacts of adopting the proposed amendments (Action Alternative) as well as the impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Both alternatives have a 2030 planning horizon. These alternatives are described briefly below; additional detail is provided in Chapter 2. The proposed action will involve updates to the ONP, related portions of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide, and functional plans, including the Transportation Master Plan. The Action Alternative also includes proposed adoption of the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy. In addition to City initiated amendments, the proposed Action Alternative includes two privately initiated amendments. The Group Health Cooperative has proposed policies and regulations specific to the Overlake Design District, a portion of the Overlake Neighborhood. OTO Development, Inc. has requested an increase to the allowed commercial floor area ratio for hotels in the proposed Overlake Village District (current Retail Commercial zone). This document supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) published in 1999 for the existing ONP. That document and this update were developed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules that encourage jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to integrate the analysis required under SEPA with the planning conducted pursuant to GMA. The intent is to ensure that environmental analysis under SEPA occurs concurrently with and as an integral part of the planning and decision making under GMA. The SEPA rules for integrated documents state that while there is no standard format for an integrated GMA document, there are minimum content requirements. This document is structured in the following way with SEPA requirements underlined: Chapter 1: Introduction and Environmental Summary Chapter 2: Overlake Neighborhood Plan Alternatives Chapter 3: Analysis of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Chapter 4: Comments and Responses Appendices: Technical Supporting Record In 1999, the City of Redmond adopted the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use the investments of time and resources involved in preparing the 1999 FEIS and to make development review more timely and predictable. Redmond intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action and to provide for phasing of the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the phases and subsequent proposals. 1.2 Location of Study Area Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the ONP study area while Figure 1-2 shows the specific study area. The southern portion of the study area, generally where Sears, Safeway, and Group Health are located, has been referred to with a variety of names since the 1999 update of the ONP, including: the shopping and mixed-use area, the Mixed-Use Core, and Overlake Village. Given existing conditions, the most appropriate term today may be “the shopping and mixed-use area;” however, this portion of the neighborhood is projected to evolve into an urban village under either alternative, although more so under the Action Alternative. Due to this projected future change, this area is shown as Overlake Village in Figure 1-2 and referred to as such in each of the alternatives. The ONP study area is located in the southwest corner of Redmond. The western boundary is 148th Avenue NE; the northern boundary is NE 60th Street and State Route 520 (SR 520); the eastern boundary is West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, the latter of which also serves as a southern boundary to NE 20th Street. The boundary for neighborhood planning areas is proposed to change as part of the Action Alternative. The area bounded by West Lake Sammamish Parkway to the north, Lake Sammamish to the east, the southern city limits (just south of an alignment with NE 20th Street), and 172nd Avenue NE and Bellevue-Redmond Road to the west is proposed as the Viewpoint Neighborhood. A separate neighborhood plan is underway for this subarea. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map Office I Mixed Use Commercial / Retail Mixed Use I Retail Residential Parks/ Natural Environment ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Figure 1-2: ONP Study Area ~ Overlake Village D Employment Area Residential Area Other Jurisdiction I • • I , _ • 1 Neighborhood Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 1.3 Project Background and Purpose The 1999 updates to the ONP established the long-term vision for the neighborhood. That vision calls for the Employment Area to continue to serve as a major corporate, advanced technology, and compatible manufacturing hub for Redmond and the central Puget Sound region. It will maintain its campus-like feel, with significant trees and tree stands, and buildings that are primarily mid-rise (up to 5 to 6 stories) in height. In the 1999 neighborhood plan, the shopping area in the southern part of Overlake, Overlake Village, is envisioned to evolve to include a greater mix and density of uses as part of mid-rise to 6- story) developments. The vision calls for this area to provide attractive places to live close to shopping, restaurants, employment, services, frequent transit service and other amenities. Existing and future development throughout the neighborhood is to be served through improved mobility choices, including convenient transit, pedestrian walkways and bikeways, and improved roadway connections. The objectives for the neighborhood plan update and implementation project are to: • Account for change: A number of changes are underway in Overlake since 1999, including relocation of Group Health’s inpatient services to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue and Sound Transit’s planning for extension of light rail transit (LRT) through Overlake. • Refine and clarify the vision: While the plan describes a broad vision for Overlake, refinements are needed to reflect recent and upcoming changes as well as to clarify goals for key elements such as parks, open space and transportation. • Extend the planning horizon to 2030: In order to plan effectively for extension of light rail transit and other facility improvements, the land use and transportation planning horizon need to be extended to 2030. • Identify actions to implement the vision and neighborhood plan: While development and investments since 1999 are carrying out much of the neighborhood plan vision, progress on the vision for Overlake Village has been much slower. In 2005, the Redmond City Council endorsed undertaking the Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project. The scope of the project included the following: • Working with property owners, people who work or live in the area, and other interested parties to review the vision, determine if refinements are needed, and to identify potential actions to achieve the vision. • Working with Sound Transit and other agencies to plan for an LRT alignment and station locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 • Updating the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Guide, and functional plans, including the Transportation Master Plan. • Developing a master plan and implementation strategy to guide infill development, transportation improvements and other investments in Overlake. 1.4 The ONP, Bel-Red Corridor Project, and BROTS The cities of Redmond and Bellevue have a long history of coordinated planning in the Overlake and Bel-Red Corridor sub-areas. In 1999, the cities adopted the Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) agreement. This agreement established the current commercial development cap for both cities. The Overlake development cap provides for a maximum of 15.4 million square feet of commercial floor area through 2012, while the Bel-Red development cap provides for 12.2 million square feet in the same time period. Residential development is excluded from this Agreement. The cap was created to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth and to maintain established level of service (LOS) standards for the areas. The agreement calls out specific transportation projects needed to serve development in the area and specifies funding amounts and responsibilities. In 2005, the City of Bellevue began the Bel-Red Corridor Project. The purpose of this project is to evaluate alternative land uses and transportation improvements for the Bel-Red Corridor, an existing light industrial and commercial area which is in transition, and to consider updates to Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan, sub-area plans, and Bellevue Land Use Code. In 2006, the Bel-Red Corridor Steering Committee chose three 2030 land use and transportation alternatives, together with a 2030 no action alternative, for evaluation in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The three action alternatives have many common features with regard to future development, but they differ in amount of land use and where concentrations of development might occur. All of the action alternatives also assume a full suite of transportation improvements. Each of the alternatives could accommodate a major recreational facility. The Bel-Red Corridor Project Draft EIS was released for review in January 2007. The cities of Redmond and Bellevue have updated each other on planning for these respective areas throughout the process. As a key implementation step for both projects, both cities have committed to undertaking the technical and policy work needed to update the existing BROTS agreement and provide for phasing of growth and transportation improvements. 1.5 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan specifically mandates the update of neighborhood plans, including the ONP: ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 NP-1: Prepare or update neighborhood plans every six years, and include a review of neighborhood plans to determine if they are adequate or require updating. Work with neighborhood representatives and the Planning Commission to prepare a recommendation on priority neighborhoods for consideration by the City Council. The reason for a separate subarea plan is rooted in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan’s Neighborhoods element and in recognition of the role neighborhood plans can play in helping to maintain and enhance Redmond’s quality of life. In particular, Overlake is noted in the Plan as one of Redmond’s two Urban Centers, a place for focused housing, office and retail growth; a broad array of complementary land uses; and transportation projects and programs that will increase mobility to, from, and within these urban centers. 1.6 Description of Alternatives The alternatives considered in this SEIS describe alternative ways to achieve the adopted vision by 2030 and differ in large by relating higher levels of public action and investment in improvements such as parks and transportation to higher levels of development, and vice versa. The alternatives build upon themes resulting from a public design workshop held in May 2006, as well as on the area’s existing including active retailers and businesses, and proximity to employment centers and residential neighborhoods. The alternatives include concepts related to land use character and amount; transportation; parks, open space, and recreation; and stormwater and the natural environment. 1.6.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is designed to present a baseline for impacts likely to occur if the ONP and BROTS are not updated. The No Action Alternative maintains the existing zoning adopted in the 1999 update of the ONP and includes only transportation projects contained in the City’s 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). These assumptions represent the expected conditions in the year 2030 unless further action is taken by the City. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, a few sites would likely redevelop by 2030. While these redevelopments would create a larger mix of uses in this area, including residences, a large portion of the area would retain its single-story, auto-oriented, strip mall character. This alternative assumes City investment in streetscape improvements along 152nd Avenue NE, while concentrating those improvements along the northern stretch of this corridor in coordination with anticipated redevelopment. Parks and open spaces would be limited and most likely privately developed. Stormwater management would be handled on a site-by-site basis. In the Employment Area, under- or undeveloped sites could develop or redevelop up to their existing zoning capacity. In the No Action Alternative, a higher total for commercial floor area is used than the current Comprehensive Plan target for Overlake of 15.4 million square feet because that target is constrained by the BROTS agreement which, if no action were taken by the City, would expire in 2012. In the Residential Area, some infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Transportation improvements in this alternative include a total of 14 projects. Included among these improvements are nine intersection widenings, a new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets, and limited pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. This alternative anticipates that approximately 2,300 dwellings and 1 million square feet of new commercial space would be added to the study area, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. Estimated totals for 2030 are shown in Table 1-1. 1.6.2 Action Alternative The Action Alternative is based on the premise that higher levels of action and investment by the City of Redmond and other public entities could support and encourage higher levels of private action and investment, and vice versa. Under this alternative, a large number of investments are proposed to improve transportation mobility and access to and within the Overlake neighborhood. This includes Sound Transit extension of LRT and development of two stations in Overlake, one in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and one near NE 40th Street. In Overlake Village, this alternative includes streetscape improvements along major corridors and creation of a system of parks and open spaces, including two regional stormwater management facilities. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, most properties would redevelop by 2030. The area would evolve to become a true urban residential/mixed use neighborhood. A park and open space system would develop in this area, linked by pathways to destinations within and beyond Overlake. While the base building height allowed by zoning would be up to 5 stories, the Action Alternative proposes allowing increases in building height, an increase in residential or commercial floor area, and an expansion of nonresidential uses within Overlake Village on an incentive basis for developer provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals such as public amenities, housing, retention of small local businesses, and environmental sustainability. The Action Alternative proposes allowing the addition of up to 3 floors above the base height, for a total maximum of 8 floors, for provision of up to 3 of these bonus features. The Action Alternative also retains an existing zoning provision that allows developers to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) to add up to one additional floor of building height and an increase in commercial floor area. The Action Alternative also proposes allowing building height up to a total of 9 floors within the Overlake Village District on an incentive basis for provision of significant community features, including dedication of 2 to 4 acres of land for a regional stormwater management facility. The Overlake Design District zoning, which applies only to the Group Health site, proposes to allow commercial buildings as tall as 10 stories and residential or hotel buildings as tall as 12 stories on an incentive basis for the provision of a number of significant amenities, including a major urban park a minimum of 2.5 acres in size. The Action Alternative also includes a proposed floor area ratio of 1.2 for hotel uses in the Overlake Village District. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 This alternative includes a total of approximately 90 transportation projects and actions, proposed to support the planned land use and complete gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improve local and regional transit service, complete roadway connections to improve local access, improve the efficiency of regional transportation facilities, and encourage use of transportation alternatives other than driving alone. This alternative anticipates that approximately 5,800 dwellings and up to 4.5 million square feet of new commercial space would be added to the study area, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. Estimated totals for 2030 are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Summary of Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update Alternatives No Action Alternative Action Alternative Overlake Village • Likely redevelopment occurs; development is suburban in form • No real neighborhood core, few amenities to attract residents • Potentially some privately developed open spaces • Most sites redevelop • 152nd Avenue NE develops as a lively urban street that attracts pedestrians to multiple activities • Developments are integrated and create a true urban residential/ mixed use neighborhood • Park and open space system with larger City developed open space “anchors” Employment Area • Properties redevelop up to current zoning limits • Small amount of multi-family residential development (along NE 40th Street) • Larger increase in employment to maintain/enhance Overlake’s economic role • More multi-family residential development (along NE 40th and NE 51st Streets) Residential Area • Continued infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots • Continued infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots Transportation • Invest in critical projects identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan • Continue current Transportation Demand Management and parking management strategies • Invest in significant transportation improvements and programs, including pedestrian and bicycle, transit, roadway, and transportation demand management and parking management Light Rail Transit No stations 2 stations 2030 Totals Multi-Family of dwellings) 3,890 7,383 ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 No Action Alternative Action Alternative Single Family of dwellings) 1,365 1,365 Office, Retail & Industrial (sq. ft.) 16.4 million 19.97 million 1.7 Public Involvement Redmond has conducted several community involvement efforts in connection with the development of the ONP Update. These efforts are summarized here. 1.7.1 Overlake Neighborhood Plan 1.7.1.1 Meetings with Stakeholders Redmond staff met with a number of property owners or managers, commercial brokers, business owners or managers, and employees in Overlake between December 2005 and March 2006. A key purpose of these initial meetings was to seek stakeholders’ perspectives on the long-term objectives described in the adopted vision for the neighborhood, including extension of LRT. A summary of these meetings was sent to all participants, as well as other business and property owners or managers. Summary information was also presented to Planning Commission and City Council members in April 2006. Redmond staff also met with stakeholders periodically throughout the process, including during development and refinement of the alternatives. 1.7.1.2 Public Design Workshop (Charrette), Cable Television, Internet, News Releases On May 5 and 6, 2006 approximately 50 citizens, including people who live or work in the area, business and property owners, and other interested citizens, participated in an intensive design workshop focused on Overlake Village. Participants worked using maps, photographs and in discussion groups to describe what was working in the area, what should be improved, and potential next steps. The result of this workshop (charrette) is the Overlake Urban Center Concept Plan, which is based on a of the concepts developed at the two-day event. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An announcement was posted on RCTV, the City’s cable television station, and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the event. In August 2006, a newsletter summarizing the public design workshop and the Overlake Urban Center Concept Plan was mailed to an interested parties list of approximately 350 citizens, property owners, businesses, and others. This newsletter also contained information on next steps and upcoming public meetings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 1.7.1.3 Open House, Cable Television, Internet, News Releases, Public Comment Cards, Meetings with Stakeholder Groups On November 15, 2006 approximately 30 citizens, in addition to city and agency staff, the Mayor, City Council members and members of Redmond boards and commissions, attended an open house at which three alternatives for Overlake in 2030 were presented for public comment. A presentation was given covering the project background, introducing the three alternatives, and describing the purpose of the open house as well as the various ways to provide public comment. Before and after this presentation, participants were invited to explore a number of stations that described different aspects of the three alternatives, including land use; parks, open space and stormwater; and transportation. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An additional newsletter summarizing the three alternatives was sent to the interested parties list of approximately 350 entities described above. An announcement was posted on RCTV and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the open house. To supplement feedback received at the open house, staff held a number of one-on-one and focus group meetings in December 2006 and January 2007. In addition, information on the three alternatives was posted on the City’s website and online comment forms were provided for additional feedback. A summary of all public comment was presented to Planning Commission and City Council in January 2007. 1.7.1.4 Other Meetings During the ONP update process, Redmond staff sought comment from several Redmond boards and commissions, including Planning Commission, Park Board, and Trails Commission. Members of all boards and commissions were invited to participate in public meetings throughout the project. Staff also sought the participation of and met with the Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce to seek input on the update. 1.7.1.5 News Articles and Public Notices As noted above, notices for all events were mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the planning process and information on events. Information about the ONP was published in various editions of the Redmond city magazine Focus on Redmond that were mailed to all residents and businesses in the City. 1.7.1.6 Public Hearings and the Final Decision on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan The Redmond Planning Commission and City Council will consider the ONP recommendations. The Planning Commission began review of phase 1 of the ONP proposal on May 23, 2007. The Commission opened a public hearing on May 30, 2007 and closed the hearing on June 20, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 .The Redmond City Council is expected to begin review of phase 1 of the ONP in fall 2007 and to take action by the end of 2007. 1.7.2 SEPA/GMA Public Process In addition to the public involvement opportunities presented during the development of the ONP, the SEPA process provides an additional public comment opportunity: the Draft SEIS comment period. While the preparation of a SEIS does not require a scoping period (WAC 197-11-620), the City of Redmond gave several agencies the opportunity to comment on the scope of this document, including the City of Bellevue, Sound Transit, and King County Metro; a letter was mailed December 8, 2006 to each of these jurisdictions. Two letters on the scope of the SEIS were received, one each from the City of Bellevue and Sound Transit. The comment period for the Draft SEIS began on March 23 and closed on April 23, 2007. On March 29, 2006 approximately 25 citizens, in addition to city and agency staff, the Mayor, City Council members and members of Redmond boards and commissions, attended an open house at which information on the proposed action and results of the Draft SEIS related to land use, transportation, and parks, open space, and stormwater were presented for public comment. A presentation was given covering the project background, summarizing previous public comment and responses, and describing the purpose of the open house as well as the various ways to provide public comment. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An additional newsletter summarizing the strategies for action was sent to the interested parties list of approximately 350 entities described above. An announcement was posted on RCTV and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the open house. To supplement feedback received at the open house, staff held a number of one-on-one and focus group meetings in April 2007. In addition, information on the strategies for action was posted on the City’s website and online comment forms were provided for additional feedback. 1.8 Summary of Differences between Draft and Final SEIS In response to public comment on the Draft SEIS and at the Public Hearing held by the Redmond Planning Commission in May and June 2007 on the proposed ONP update, a number of changes were made to the Final SEIS, as outlined below. Comment letters and written responses by the City which reference changes made to this document in response to specific comments are reproduced in Section 4 of this document. In sum, the changes include: • Adding subsection 3.13.5, Public Schools to the Public Facilities and Services discussion in response to comments by the Lake Washington School District; ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 • A number of revisions to text throughout the document related to transit projects in response to suggestions made by Sound Transit; and, • The inclusion of an eastbound SR 520 slip ramp to 152nd Avenue NE in transportation modeling in response to discussions with the City of Bellevue. In addition to changes made based on public comment, the transportation analysis (Section 3.6.3 through 3.6.6) was also updated with additional transportation modeling to reflect two changes to the Action Alternative: • A site-specific proposal for a hotel in Overlake Village; and, • Additional development on the Group Health site, including a hotel and approximately 300,000 square feet more retail and office space than analyzed in the Draft SEIS. The updated modeling also included analysis of the traffic effects at three intersections in or near the Viewpoint Neighborhood in response to public comment given during the Public Hearing held by the Redmond Planning Commission on the ONP update and Group Health proposed amendment. 1.9 Environmental Summary The following matrix summarizes the significant impacts to the elements of the environment caused by the ONP for the No Action and Action Alternatives. Suggested mitigation and unavoidable significant adverse impacts are also shown. More detailed information is provided in Chapters 2 and 3. The Technical Supporting Record contains a list of the principal analytical documents and other materials that were used in developing the ONP update. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Land Use: Adopted Plans No Action Alternative Inconsistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-45 requiring implementation strategies for Urban Centers. Doesn’t fully carry out Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan policy NP-1 regarding review and updates to Neighborhood Plans and does not provide much support for other policies related to Overlake. None available. Same as under impacts. Action Alternative Consistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-45 for Urban Centers. Consistent with Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan policy NP-1 for neighborhood plan updates, and other policies related to Overlake. None required. None. Land Use: Density No Action Alternative Have nearly reached development capacity (15.4 million square feet of commercial space). Neighborhood protection measures maintained. No remedy for restraints on development. May restrict future growth. Action Alternative Would increase allowed building height and floor area in the Overlake Village as an incentive for providing major public facilities and other amenities. Provides for phased increase in commercial FARs in Employment Area Would create additional capacity for development, adding an additional 4.5 million square feet of commercial space in commercial and mixed-use zones which would be the new basis for public facility planning. Neighborhood protection measures updated but substance maintained. Potential increase in commercial FARs in Employment Area would be phased. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Land Use: Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative Areas that would be expected to experience growth are Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 381, 382, and 385. Restrictions on future growth may diminish regional economic role of area. Development standards and neighborhood protection measures maintained. None. None. Action Alternative Areas that would be expected to experience growth are TAZs 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, and 385. Greatest potential for impacts would be in TAZs 379 and 381 (areas of most projected new growth). Quality of life for residents, employees, and others near Overlake Village could improve with greater opportunities to live in the area and a greater mix of uses and amenities to meet needs. Development standards strengthened and substance of neighborhood protection measures maintained. None. Neighborhood protection measures maintained in the ONP likely to result in few unavoidable, adverse impacts, but could include an increase in ambient light and noise with fewer direct impacts. Transportation No Action Alternative Construction impacts would include increased noise, emissions to the air and inconvenience to uses adjacent to project sites. Transportation model indicates increased traffic volumes over Existing Conditions and that concurrency level of service does not meet existing standard. Update to concurrency system is underway to promote transportation alternatives. Potential still exists to have substandard levels of service in this transportation district. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative Construction impacts would include increased noise, emissions to the air and inconvenience to uses adjacent to project sites. Transportation model indicates increased traffic volumes over Existing Conditions but lower volumes than No Action Alternative. Concurrency level of service is better than No Action Alternative but does not meet existing standard. Update to concurrency system is underway to promote transportation alternatives. Additional mitigation for roadways, transit service, and non-motorized modes described in Chapter 3.8. Potential still exists to have substandard levels of service in this transportation district. Transportation – Land Use Impacts No Action Alternative Short-term impacts from construction, including re- routing traffic, noise, and emissions. Fewer long-term impacts such as acquisition of right-of-way would be anticipated, compared to Action Alternative. During project design or review, mitigating measures may be identified. Potential inconvenience to residents and businesses could occur, depending on the individual project. Action Alternative Short-term impacts from construction, including re- routing traffic, noise and emissions. Some projects would require acquisition of right-of-way, and/or acquisition of existing structures. Same as under No Action. Same as under No Action. Light and Glare Both alternatives No significant differences are anticipated between alternatives. Comprehensive Plan policies require light impacts to be confined to the site in new developments. ONP policies contain neighborhood protection measures, such as wider setbacks and more intense buffer plantings to attenuate impacts from glare and light. None. Some increase in ambient light would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality Both Alternatives Dust from excavation and grading during construction would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Some phases of construction would cause odors detectable to some people away from the activity, particularly during paving operations using tar and asphalt. CO concentrations do not exceed standard under either alternative. Some decrease in concentrations due to use of cleaner fuels and less polluting engines. Water or other dust suppressants could be used on construction roadways or exposed soils. Truck wheels could be washed, and streets kept clean. Use of lower emission fuels, well maintained equipment, and less polluting engines could lessen air quality impacts. Not possible to determine at this point. Would be assessed using modeling based on design-quality information during project-level review required by air quality conformity rules. Noise Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. Temporary increases in sound levels along the construction routes due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. Slight noise impacts (increases less than 5 dBA) at the majority of locations compared with existing sound levels. Existing sound levels in some parts of the study area are already beyond generally acceptable levels according to most criteria and the alternative future actions would have little effect on traffic noise levels near most of the arterials previously examined. Project-specific noise impact evaluations for major transportation facilities may be performed, and noise mitigation measures may be required, in accordance with noise regulations and policies in Redmond and Bellevue. Possible mitigation measures include noise barriers, speed reductions, truck routes, and building construction techniques and materials designed to reduce interior noise levels. Project-specific analysis would be required to determine permanent unavoidable adverse impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Water Quality: Streams No Action Alternative New development could increase the risk of discharges during construction. Transportation projects located near streams or drainages could result in impacts from construction (increased turbidity) or increased runoff. Increased traffic volume likely to increase total amounts of pollutants from vehicles in runoff. Unlikely that amount of runoff caused by new impervious building surfaces would be significant. Construction of some transportation projects would increase impervious surface and therefore create increased runoff (with associated pollutants) and chance of erosion. Comprehensive Plan policies require limiting impervious surfaces on sites and Redmond has adopted regulations consistent with Department of Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Fewer number of transportation projects than Action Alternative, so somewhat lower overall risk of impacts from these projects. Mitigation for runoff addressed under Redmond’s 2007 Clearing, Grading and Stormwater Management Technical Notebook for each project. Direct impacts during construction can be managed by the use of proper erosion control techniques. Project-specific mitigation will be developed for short-term and long-term potential impacts of erosion and increased runoff. With implementation of required on-site stormwater facilities, no significant adverse impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative New development could increase the risk of discharges during construction. The greater amount of development under this alternative could increase the chances of sediment discharges during construction (therefore, relatively greater chances than under No Action). Transportation projects located near streams or drainages could result in greater impacts from construction (increased turbidity) or increased runoff. Development of regional stormwater management facilities and encouragement of use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would likely reduce runoff and improve water quality. Regional facilities would provide immediate benefits upon construction to the Overlake South Basin as compared to site-by-site facilities which develop incrementally. Development of regional stormwater management facilities in Overlake South Basin. Flow control and water quality improvements in Overlake North Basin. Policy encouragement of use of LID techniques. Others same as described for No Action. With implementation of regional and required stormwater facilities, no significant adverse impacts. Water Quality: Lake Sammamish No Action Alternative No additional impervious surfaces from building construction are expected in TAZs 379 and 375, portions of which are in the West Lake Sammamish Basin. None required. None. Action Alternative Minor impacts from increased impervious surfaces in TAZs 379 and 375, portions of which are in the West Lake Sammamish Basin. New development and construction will be managed in accordance with Redmond’s 2007 Clearing, Grading and Stormwater Management Technical Notebook. Erosion control for land clearing and treatment to remove phosphorus from stormwater will be required. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Wetlands No Action Alternative No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) updated in May 2005. No significant impacts to wetland resources are anticipated from any transportation projects or land use actions. None. None. Action Alternative Some transportation projects could have low to moderate potential for impacting wetlands directly and indirectly. In general, impacts are mitigated by compliance with existing regulations, including compensatory mitigation. Special project-specific design consideration and construction techniques may be required. Existing Redmond regulations prohibit modification of some wetlands and require avoidance of all wetland impacts if possible. Short-term impacts. Public Facilities: Water Supply Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s Water System Plan to be updated in 2010. Additional water storage in the Overlake/Viewpoint Service Area will be needed. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit the most. Update Water System Plan. Monitor new development to ensure supply is adequate. None. Public Facilities: Sewer Both Alternatives ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s General Sewer Plan to be updated in 2007. Under any alternative, additional development in Overlake could impact or exacerbate improvements needed to the King County Lake Hills trunk and Northwest Lake Sammamish Interceptor. Coordinate with King County Department of Natural Resources on improvements to these facilities. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No Action Alternative System upgrades needed in the Overlake North Basin due to development in TAZ 381 and 385. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit the most. Ongoing monitoring and replace pipes as needed. None. Action Alternative Further study capacity of Bel-Red Basin given increased development in TAZ 375 and 379. System upgrades needed in the Overlake North Basin due to development in TAZ 381 and 385. Potential parallel facilities needed in Overlake South Basin. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit this most. Update General Sewer Plan with development projections. Ongoing monitoring and replace pipes as needed. None. Public Facilities: Electrical Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with PSE plans. PSE will continue to seek opportunities to increase capacity in the general Overlake area. In accordance with Initiative 937 (2006), 15% of this energy will come from renewable sources. Coordinate with PSE on opportunities for increasing electrical capacity. None. Public Facilities: Parks & Open Space No Action Alternative Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies two potential park areas. Policies support development of parks system in Overlake Village. None. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative The ONP maintains the two designated parks and adds a system of parks, open spaces, and other public spaces to Overlake Village. Trail connections and pathways link park and open spaces throughout the neighborhood and to nearby facilities. None. None. Public Facilities: Schools No Action Alternative Additional capacity at Lake Washington School District facilities serving the Overlake Neighborhood will be needed to accommodate the additional demand generated from projected residential development. Maintain requirement for residential development to pay school impact fees to Lake Washington School District to offset costs associated with a growing student population. None. Action Alternative Additional capacity at Lake Washington School District facilities serving the Overlake Neighborhood will be needed to accommodate the additional demand generated from projected residential development. This alternative is expected to generate approximately 420 students more than the No Action, an increase of 31% over the No Action demand. Same as under No Action. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 2. Overlake Neighborhood Plan Alternatives The proposed ONP update, together with other sections of the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan, is designed to guide development in the Overlake Neighborhood through 2030. The ONP update consists of vision statements, policies, and development standards. The environmental impact analysis of the ONP update is in Chapter 3 and includes analysis of the proposed policies, development regulations, and proposed Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy, which are contained in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. 2.1 Existing Neighborhood Vision The 1999 updates to the ONP established the long-term vision for the neighborhood. That vision calls for the Employment Area to continue to serve as a major corporate, advanced technology, and compatible manufacturing hub for Redmond and the central Puget Sound region. It will maintain its campus-like feel, with significant trees and tree stands, and buildings that are primarily mid-rise (up to 5 to 6 stories) in height. The existing plan envisions Overlake Village to evolve to include a greater mix and density of uses as part of mid-rise to 6- story) developments. The vision calls for this area to provide attractive places to live close to shopping, restaurants, employment, services, frequent transit service and other amenities. The residential areas, generally located in the northeastern portion of the neighborhood, will continue as attractive and well maintained neighborhoods, with little cut-through traffic. Neighborhood parks serve these areas. Existing and future development throughout the neighborhood is to be served through improved mobility choices, including convenient transit, walkways and bikeways, and improved roadway connections. 2.2 2030 Alternatives The alternatives considered in this SEIS describe alternative ways to achieve the adopted vision by 2030 and differ in large by relating higher levels of public action and investment in improvements such as parks, stormwater management facilities and transportation to higher levels of development, and vice versa. The alternatives build upon themes resulting from a public design workshop held in May 2006, as well as on the area’s existing including active retailers and businesses, and proximity to employment centers and residential neighborhoods. The alternatives include concepts related to land use character and amount; transportation; parks, open space, and recreation; and stormwater and the natural environment. The alternatives were developed by analyzing residential market and economic conditions for the area, regional economic forecasts, existing land use and ownership patterns, the availability of ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 vacant or underutilized land, development capacity under existing and alternative zoning scenarios, transportation conditions and potential improvements, and other considerations. Input on the alternatives was sought from the public, including people who own or manage property in the area, employees, residents, the Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce, and members of Redmond’s boards and commissions. Three alternatives were initially developed for 2030: Existing Patterns, Moderate and Ambitious. Based on public comment and further analysis, City staff recommended and the Redmond Planning Commission and City Council supported analyzing two alternatives in the SEIS: No Action and Action. The Action Alternative is a modification of the Ambitious Alternative, based on public comment and evaluation. Council and Commission’s endorsement of the modified Ambitious Alternative as the Action Alternative was based on: 1) public feedback; 2) the results of transportation modeling and other evaluations completed to date; 3) interest in further pursuing concepts that are in this alternative; and, 4) an interest in carrying forward for further evaluation the most inclusive alternative. 2.2.1 No Action Alternative: Key Features The No Action Alternative maintains the existing zoning adopted in the 1999 update of the ONP and includes only transportation projects contained in the City’s 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). These assumptions represent the expected conditions in the year 2030 unless further action is taken by the City. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, a few sites would likely redevelop by 2030. While these redevelopments would create a larger mix of uses in this area, including residences, a large portion of the area would retain its single-story, auto-oriented, strip mall character. This alternative assumes City investment in streetscape improvements along 152nd Avenue NE, while concentrating those improvements along the northern stretch of this corridor in coordination with anticipated redevelopment. The street section of 152nd Avenue NE would be reduced from its current configuration to one lane of traffic in each direction, on-street parking, and a 12’ sidewalk, including a 4’ planting strip or furniture zone. Parks and open spaces would be limited and most likely privately developed. Stormwater management would be handled on a site-by- site basis. Figure 2-1 illustrates the land use concepts associated with this alternative. In the Employment Area, under- or undeveloped sites could develop or redevelop up to their existing zoning capacity. A higher total for commercial floor area is used than the current Comprehensive Plan target for Overlake of 15.4 million square feet because that target is constrained by the BROTS agreement which, if no action were taken by the City, would expire in 2012. Figure 2-2 illustrates potential commercial growth by 2030 under this alternative in each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Overlake. The largest amount of commercial growth under No Action would occur in TAZ 381, while other TAZs within the Employment Area and Overlake Village would grow moderately. The largest amount of residential growth under No Action would occur in TAZs 373 and 374 in Overlake Village, while the number of residential dwellings in other TAZs within the Residential Area and the Employment Area would increase at a low to moderate amount. In the Residential Area, development of remaining vacant and underutilized lots would likely occur and in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Employment Area, some multi-family residences are envisioned to be added. Figure 2-3 illustrates potential residential growth by 2030 under this alternative in each TAZ in Overlake. Table 2-1 shows the No Action Alternative land use projection that was used in transportation modeling. Table 2-1: Overlake No Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 Multi- Family (dwellings) Single Family (dwellings) Total Residential (dwellings) Office (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) Total Non- Residential (sq. ft.) 3,890 1,365 5,255 14,182,000 1,099,612 1,130,898 16,412,510 Figure 2-4 shows the location of transportation projects included in the No Action Alternative. A total of fourteen projects are included: • Nine intersection widenings; • One new access point on Bellevue-Redmond Road; • One new signal at 150th Avenue NE and NE 51st Street; • A new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets; • Pedestrian crossing improvements on NE 40th Street between the SR 520 on- and off- ramps; and, • Signal and pavement markings where the SR 520 bike trail crosses NE 51st and NE 40th Streets. The No Action Alternative is designed to present a baseline for impacts likely to occur if the ONP and BROTS are not updated. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative – Overlake Village VI ag at Overl1he Sial/on Overlake Village No Action Legend Commercial infill L Parcel-by-parcel mixed use redevelopment orlnfill Mixed use emphasizing residenllal • • • • Streetscape improvements 1 • • Street Improvements and development that cre~te a pleasant walking and lively urban envuonment Overlake Village~ I) 1"'e - r - * General vicinity or potential privately developed open space or plaza coordinated w1th redevelopment General vicinity of trail connectiOflS to open spaoes ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Figure 2-2: No Action Potential Commercial Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone Potential Commercial Growth by 2030 c:Jo D 1-250,000 SF N - 250,001- 750,000 SF n - 750,001- 1,000,000 SF ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Figure 2-3: No Action Potential Residential Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone ' Potential Residential Growth by 2030 c:Jo c:J1-250Units N - 251 - 750 Units - 751 - 1 ,ODD Units ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Figure 2-4: No Action Alternative Transportation Projects Signal/Pavement Markings Pedestrian Crossing Improvement New Bridge Intersection Widening New Signal New Access N study Area ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 2.2.2 Action Alternative: Key Features The Action Alternative is based on the premise that higher levels of action and investment by the City of Redmond and other public entities could support and encourage higher levels of private action and investment, and vice versa. Under this alternative, a large number of investments are proposed to improve transportation mobility and access to and within the Overlake neighborhood. This includes Sound Transit extension of LRT and development of two stations in Overlake, one in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and one near NE 40th Street—this project is currently in the early stages of design and environmental review by Sound Transit. In Overlake Village, this alternative includes streetscape improvements along major corridors and creation of a system of parks and open spaces, including two regional stormwater management facilities. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, most properties would redevelop by 2030. Mixed use developments with a residential focus would be located primarily to the north of NE 24th Street, with some similar development in the southeast corner of the intersection of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE. Redevelopment in the southwest quadrant of the area would have more of a regional retail focus with some residential opportunities. The area would evolve to become a true urban residential/mixed use neighborhood. Figure 2-5 illustrates land use concepts associated with this alternative. A true park and open space system would develop in Overlake Village, with trails linking up to seven different sites. The anchor of this system would be a larger public park developed in the vicinity of the Group Health property which would provide significant opportunities for community gathering. Three smaller parks would provide opportunities for residents, employees, and visitors to recreate. A retail plaza in the vicinity of the Sears property would provide an active public space near shopping. Also in the vicinity of the Sears site, a regional stormwater management facility integrated into open space would provide a green space for the community. The final site within this system would be a more traditional regional stormwater management pond in the vicinity of SR 520, north of Safeway. While the base building height allowed by zoning would be up to 5 stories, the Action Alternative includes the concept of allowing increases in building height and a small increase in residential or commercial floor area within the Overlake Village on an incentive basis for developer provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals such as public amenities, housing, retention of small local businesses, and environmental sustainability. The Action Alternative proposes allowing the addition of up to 3 floors above the base height, for a total maximum of 8 floors, for provision of up to 3 of these bonus features. The Action Alternative also retains an existing zoning provision that allows developers to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) to add up to one additional floor of building height and an increase in commercial floor area. The Action Alternative also proposes for consideration allowing building height up to a total of 9 floors within the Overlake Village, an increase in the residential floor area ratio (from 2.5 to and an increase in the commercial floor area ratio (from .36 to .55) for provision of significant community features, including dedication of 2 to 4 acres of land for a regional stormwater management facility. The Overlake Design District zoning, which applies only to the Group ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Health site, would allow commercial buildings as tall as 9 stories and residential or hotel buildings as tall as 12 stories in return for the provision of a number of significant amenities, including a major urban park roughly 2.5 acres in size. In the Employment Area, more sites would redevelop than under the No Action Alternative as increases in zoning are phased in over time. Total commercial development throughout the neighborhood could reach nearly 20 million square feet. Figure 2-6 illustrates potential commercial growth by 2030 under this alternative in each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Overlake. The largest amount of commercial growth under the Action Alternative would be anticipated in TAZs 379 and 381, while the amount of commercial growth in other TAZs within the Employment Area and Overlake Village would be less but still significant. This alternative envisions a potential increase to the allowed commercial floor area ratio in the Employment Area. The Action Alternative envisions that this increase would be phased, linking such increases to improvements to regional transportation facilities or services that facilitate the movement of people and goods through the area, progress on achieving the Overlake mode-split goal, or increased opportunities for employees to live in the neighborhood. The most significant amount of residential growth under the Action Alternative would be anticipated in TAZs 373 and 374 in Overlake Village. The amount of residential growth in other TAZs within Overlake Village and the Employment Area would be more moderate. In the Residential Area, development of remaining vacant and underutilized lots would likely occur. Figure 2-7 illustrates potential residential growth by 2030 under this alternative in each TAZ in Overlake. Table 2-2 shows the Action Alternative land use projection that was used in developing the transportation network. Table 2-2: Overlake Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 Multi- Family (dwellings) Single Family (dwellings) Total Residential (dwellings) Office (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) Total Non- Residential (sq. ft.) 7,383 1,365 8,748 18,774,652 1,201,479 0 19,976,131 The transportation projects included in the Action Alternative include all of the transportation projects in the No Action Alternative or replacements of those projects, as well as other projects developed to address transportation needs in the neighborhood. The list of recommended projects was based on deficiencies indicated by transportation analysis, as well as public outreach. The list includes a significant number of improvements for non-motorized travel as well as projects to improve transit service and the roadway network. Figures 2-8 through 2-10 show the non-motorized, transit, and roadway projects included with this alternative. Significant investments would be made to the pedestrian and bicycle environments throughout the Overlake Neighborhood. These investments, shown in Figure 2-8, include: ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 • Completing sidewalks and bicycle lanes where missing; • Developing urban pathways along 156th and 148th Avenues NE and NE 40th Street as an efficient and cost-effective way to meet pedestrian and bicycle standards; • Installing pedestrian crossings with signals or in-pavement lights where necessary; • Grade separating the SR 520 bike trail at the intersections of NE 51st and NE 40th Streets and 148th Avenue NE; and, • Constructing pedestrian overpasses as necessary on 148th Avenue NE and SR 520. A significant number of transit projects are identified in the Action Alternative to improve transportation options for neighborhood residents, employees and visitors. These projects, shown in Figure 2-9, include: • Sound Transit LRT service with stations located in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and near the existing Overlake Transit Center at NE 40th Street, with alignments through Overlake Village along 152nd Avenue NE from either NE 20th or 24th Streets or behind Safeway and then using the SR 520 right-of-way from Overlake Village to the Employment Area and beyond; • Two King County Metro bus rapid transit (BRT) services, one from Downtown Redmond to Overlake, Crossroads, and Downtown Bellevue and another from Overlake Transit Center to Eastgate; • Improved Sound Transit, King County Metro, or Community Transit (Snohomish County) peak period bus service to Park, Issaquah/Sammamish, and North Seattle; • Transit signal priority at nine intersections; and, • Queue bypass lanes at four intersections. Roadway projects in the Action Alternative are focused on managing the existing network so that it functions more efficiently, and expanding the street grid in the Overlake Village area. These projects, shown in Figure 2-10, include: • Twelve intersection improvements, including widenings; • Two new signals, one each at NE 30th Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road, and NE 51st Street and 150th Avenue NE; • Roadway widenings along portions of West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue- Redmond Road; ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 • Access management along NE 24th Street and 148th Avenue NE; • Three projects to coordinate with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and other stakeholders to improve SR 520 from the I-405 interchange to SR 202; • A new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets; • An extension of 150th Avenue NE north to provide access to the Microsoft Red-West campus; • A slip ramp from eastbound SR 520 to 152nd Avenue NE; and, • Three new street connections in Overlake Village, including NE 28th Street, NE 23rd Street, and an extension of the existing 151st Avenue NE. As transportation options improve in Overlake, additional transportation demand and parking management actions will be implemented. The possible actions included in the Action Alternative are: • Create a residential parking permit program in residential areas bordering the Employment Area, as needed; • Further refine parking standards by use; • Refine credits for mixed use developments that offer shared parking; • Maintain the maximum parking standard for office uses at 3.0 per 1,000 square feet; • Reduce parking requirements for developments near transit facilities; • Eliminate minimum parking standards; • Create paid on-street parking with 2-hour time limits; • Create incentives to reduce or eliminate free employee parking; and, • Encourage methods that recognize the cost of providing parking, including separating office and parking space costs in leases. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Figure 2-5: Action Alternative - Overlake Village Overlake Village Village Actions Mixed UM (commercial & resldenlial) maintaining regional retail Mixed use maintaining commercial Mixed use emphasizing residential ~ Comer$1one SiJes New local street Gen~ streetscape improvements Street improvements and development that eteato a fNely, walkable retail street Urban palhway lnlersecaon improvernenls Allemale alignments for polenbal regional lighl rail Alternate lOcations for potential light rail stations 0 0 Alternate alignments for bus rapid transit • • Allemalo Jocalions for bus rnj>ld aransil stops * General vicinity of a major par1< coordinated with redevelopment * General vicinity of plazas or small part10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board) 3.6.2 Existing Conditions 3.6.2.1 Roadways The arterial street classifications were combined for Redmond and Bellevue and are shown in Figure 3-4. Within the City of Redmond, the following streets are listed as the Principal, Minor and Collector arterials: Principal Arterials • 148th Avenue NE from NE 20th Street and Redmond Way • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road • West Lake Sammamish Parkway north of Bellevue-Redmond Road Minor Arterials • 156th Avenue NE from Bellevue-Redmond Road to NE 51st Street • Bellevue-Redmond Road from NE 20th Street to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • NE 40th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • NE 51st Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway Collector Arterials • 150th Avenue NE from NE 36th Street to NE 51st Street • NE 36th Street from 148th Avenue NE to SR 520 ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 • 152nd Avenue NE from NE 20th Street to NE 31st Street • NE 31st Street from 152nd Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE • 156th Avenue NE from NE 51st Street to NE 60th Street • NE 60th Street from 154th Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE • NE 20th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road • 156th Avenue NE from NE 51st Street to NE 60th Street The Principal and Minor Arterials are generally multi-lane roadways in each direction, whereas Collector Arterials are single-lane roadways in each direction. Intersections with arterials are controlled by traffic signals. ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 Figure 3-4: Study Area and Street Classification N A Freeway Principal Artirial Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Local Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 3.6.2.1.1 Daily Traffic Volumes Existing (2005) average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) volumes were provided by the cities of Bellevue and Redmond. Among the arterials within the Overlake area, 148th Avenue NE carries the highest number of vehicles in a range from 22,000 to 59,800 vehicles per day. The remaining north-south arterial routes (156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway) receive daily usage generally ranging from 13,900 to 34,300 vehicles. NE 40th Street is a major east- west corridor within the Overlake area carrying daily traffic of 35,100 vehicles in the vicinity of the SR 520 interchange. P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes are typically 8 to 12 percent of the daily total volumes. The existing PM peak hour volumes are shown in Appendix E. 3.6.2.1.2 Intersection Traffic Operations Using the existing traffic volumes, the intersection LOS for traffic operation and concurrency were calculated. The 2005 PM peak hour intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 3-13 and illustrated in Figure 3-5 within and surrounding the Overlake area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Table 3-13: Existing (2005) PM Peak Average Intersection Levels of Service and Concurrency Levels of Service in the Overlake TMD Concurrency Analysis Intersection Intersection Delay (Seconds) Delay Based LOS V/C LOS 140th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 35.2 D 0.97 E 140th Avenue NE NE 20th Street 59.1 E 0.94 E 140th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 50.6 D 0.87 D 148th Avenue NE NE 51st Street 31.7 C 1.09 F 148th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 28.1 C 0.96 E 148th Avenue NE NE 36th Street 23.1 C 0.8 D 148th Avenue NE NE 29th Place 66.7 E 1.32 F 148th Avenue NE EB 520 Off-Ramp 46.3 D 1.01 F 148th Avenue NE EB 520 Ramps 11.2 B 1.01 F 148th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 101.2 F 1.31 F 148th Avenue NE NE 22nd Street 13.5 B N/A N/A 148th Avenue NE NE 20th Street 53.1 D 1.14 F 148th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 97.6 F 1.3 F 150th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 21.9 C 0.59 A 152nd Avenue NE NE 24th Street 25.0 C 0.48 A 156th Avenue NE NE 51st Street 26.0 C 0.78 C 156th Avenue NE NE 45th Street 11.1 B N/A N/A 156th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 39.1 D 1.05 F 156th Avenue NE NE 36th Street 78.3 E 1.2 F 156th Avenue NE NE 31st Street 31.0 C 0.93 E 156th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 21.6 C 0.91 E 156th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 30.5 C 0.98 E 159th Place NE NE 40th Street 106.2 F 1.09 F Bel-Red Road NE 24th Street 28.2 C 0.77 C W Lk Samm. Pkwy WB 520 On-Ramp 43.3 D N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy EB SR 520 Off-Ramp 46.5 D N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy Marymoor Parkway 10.6 B N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy NE 51st Street 12.0 B 0.79 D Bel-Red Road W Lk Samm. Pkwy 45.6 D 1.02 F Bel-Red Road NE 40th Street 47.5 D 0.96 E Bel-Red Road NE 20th Street 34.0 D 0.76 C WB SR 520 Ramps NE 51Street 5.8 A 0.39 A EB SR 520 Ramps NE 51Street 10.9 B 0.51 A EB SR 520 Ramps NE 40th Street 19.8 B 0.53 A WB SR 520 Ramps NE 40th Street 56.2 E 0.71 C District Average N/A N/A 0.92 E Source: Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering, 2006 and Bel-Red/Overlake Transportation Study Annual Reconciliation Report for 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Figure 3-5: Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service (2005) a- LOS ~ Delay N ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 Most intersections evaluated as part of this study currently operate at LOS D or better. The following eight intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour: • 148th Avenue NE and NE 24th Street (LOS F) • 148th Avenue NE and Bellevue-Redmond Road (LOS F) • 159th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street (LOS F) • NE 40th Street and SR 520 Off Ramp(LOS E) • 156th Avenue NE and NE 36th Street (LOS E) • 148th Avenue NE and NE 29th Place (LOS E) • 140th Avenue NE and NE 20th Street (LOS E) • 148th Avenue NE and NE 20th Street (LOS E) The concurrency V/C ratios and LOS were calculated with the assumptions that the committed roadway improvements in the CIP would be completed and that the pipeline development projects as of November 2005 would generate additional trips to the existing volumes. The November 2005 concurrency analysis shows that the Overlake TMD would operate at a V/C ratio of 0.92 when the pipeline development projects and the CIP improvements are completed. 3.6.2.2 Transit Services King County Metro, Community Transit (Snohomish County) and Sound Transit currently provide bus service within the Overlake area. King County Metro provides all of the local and regional service. All three transit agencies provide regional express service to other areas of the metropolitan area. Local transit service offers connections to major destinations in Redmond. All routes make connections at either the Overlake Park and Ride or the Overlake Transit Center. Figure 3-6 illustrates the local routes. Regional transit service offers connections to regional destinations in the Puget Sound Region. All routes have 45 minute or less headways during the peak period and make connections at either the Overlake Park and Ride or the Overlake Transit Center. Figure 3-7 illustrates the regional routes. Regional express transit service offers connections to urban centers, town centers and other destinations in the Puget Sound Region. All routes have 30 minute or less headways during the peak period. Figure 3-8 illustrates the regional express routes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 Figure 3-6: Existing Local Transit Routes 222 233 IIIII II 249 253 269 N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 Figure 3-7: Existing Regional Transit Routes 225 229 230 232 - 245 ~l 111 II I I 247 N I A J ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 Figure 3-8: Existing Regional Express Transit Routes / ) )'1(3orihS11 242 ri 250 256 261 266 268 644 441 111111111 545 564/565 BusStop N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 3.6.2.3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3.6.2.3.1 Pedestrian Program Plan In November 2005, the City of Redmond approved the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to guide the City’s transportation programs and projects. The TMP is based on the Comprehensive Plan and is designed to achieve the community goals and objectives. As part of the TMP, the pedestrian program plan focuses on improving the pedestrian environment to encourage walking. As a way to improve the pedestrian environment, the plan defines what the City’s sidewalk and crossing guidelines are and where these guidelines shall be put into place for evaluation. 3.6.2.3.1.1 Sidewalk Guidelines defined in Redmond’s TMP Minimum Requirements along street (see Figure 3-9): • Arterial with posted speed greater than 45 miles per hour: 5-foot planting strip and 6- foot sidewalk • Arterial with posted speed of 35 to 45 miles per hour: 8-foot sidewalk • Collector: 6-foot sidewalk • Local: 6-foot sidewalk • Minimum Requirements along multi-modal corridor: shown in Figure 3-9 • Non-retail without on-street parking: 5-foot planting strip and 8 foot sidewalk • Non-retail with on-street parking: 4-foot planting strip and 8-foot sidewalk • Retail with on-street parking: 4-foot planting strip, 8-foot to 12-foot sidewalk 3.6.2.3.1.2 Pedestrian System Sidewalks and informal paths exist along most roadways in the Overlake Neighborhood. However, an inventory of existing pedestrian facilities revealed some missing gaps. Several segments along Bellevue-Redmond Road, West Lake Sammamish Parkway, NE 51st Street and NE 31st Street do not have sidewalks. The following list highlights those areas with missing sidewalk segments: • Along the east side of Bellevue-Redmond Road between 156th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street. • Along West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road. For the section north of NE Marymoor Way pedestrian facilities are provided by the Sammamish River Trail which runs parallel to the street. • A short segment along the northeast side of NE 31st Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 • The south side of NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway NE. • The east side of the SR 520 overpass on 148th Avenue NE. For areas with a pedestrian facility, the arterial roadway segments were evaluated with the sidewalk guidelines defined in the TMP. Figure 3-10 shows results of the sidewalk inventory. Based upon the hierarchy of pedestrian environments and guidelines, only sections along 148th Avenue NE, 152nd Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, West Lake Sammamish Parkway, NE 20th Street and NE 40th Street meet the sidewalk guidelines. These locations include the following: • The west side of 148th Avenue NE between NE 60th Street and NE 29th Place. • The west side of 156th Avenue NE between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road and the east side between NE 40th Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road. • A short segment along the west side of 152nd Avenue NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street. • A short segment along the east side of West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE Marymoor Way and NE 51st Street. • The north side of NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE. • A short segment on both sides of NE 40th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 150th Avenue NE. ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 Figure 3-9: Illustrations of Sidewalk Standards Source: City of Redmond Transportation Master Plan (November 2005). Aruriol >45 Str t Mph (Qut~ ol cvrridorJ¥1d pH~•suoo PIKes) 0 G 30- ~5 LJ mph H eou.ctor 2~ Stre~H.s 35 mph Connedo r < 25 and Local niph Streets AU Streets 25 In multlmodal mph corridors and ped•strlan places (se1oflgure 5a.7) ~ 8' ~ ~ 6' H ~ ~ 6' H Tolerant Design not applicable not applicable not applicable 7' l·i ~ w~}k f S' ,l 6' ~ll!r~~:i .LJ ! 6 ' H t . J S' Pedestrian Supportive Design 0 sidewalk K1 tit . x~ o 0 e sidew~tk Htbock •forOty Centef'Pedi!stri.ln Syl-romwe S«tionlOC . .CO.lO:S-020 ~nd 1M-Ol0 of Redmond Commun[ty Devdopm•M Guide ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 Figure 3-10: Summary of Sidewalk Inventory ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 3.6.2.3.2 Bicycle System An inventory of bike facilities in the Overlake Neighborhood revealed that cyclists encounter a variety of bike conditions both on and off road. The City of Redmond has dedicated bike lanes and multi-use trails developed for parts of the neighborhood. Currently, shared roadway bike routes have not been designated for this area. The existing bike lanes are located at the following locations: • Full width bike lanes on West Lake Sammamish Parkway between Leary Way/SR 520 westbound ramps and Bellevue-Redmond Road. The section between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road is a full shoulder that can accommodate bikes. • Three-foot bike lanes striped in both directions along NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway; the section between 154th Avenue and 156th Avenue NE has a full 5-foot striped bike lane in both directions. • Full width 5-foot bike lane striped in the southbound direction on Bellevue-Redmond Road between 155th Place NE and NE 30th Street. The existing trails located within roadway right of way are as follows: • SR 520 trail from West Lake Sammamish Parkway south and west beyond 148th Avenue NE. • The Sammamish River Trail, a recreational trail, from the corner of NE Marymoor Way and West Lake Sammamish Parkway and paralleling West Lake Sammamish Parkway for a short stretch between West Lake Sammamish Parkway and SR 520. It then forks off and parallels the Sammamish River. • An additional recreation trail paralleling West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE Marymoor Way and NE 51st Street. The existing bike lanes and trails are shown in Figure 3-11. ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 Figure 3-11: Existing Bicycle Lanes and Trails Wide Shoulders between NE 51stSt ~nd Bel-Red Rd - Bicycle Lane - Trail N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 3.6.2.3.2.1 Bicycle Level of Service The adequacy of the bicycle facilities on designated bicycle routes in the Overlake study area were evaluated using the concept of bike level of service (BLOS) as defined by the Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle Compatibility Index and Updates. It is a measure of on-road conditions and can not be applied to multi-purpose trails and other off-road facilities. Therefore, the evaluation of bicycle facilities was only applied to bicycle lanes and shared-use lanes (wider curb lanes). For the Overlake Neighborhood, the City’s arterials were evaluated using the BLOS concept. BLOS attempts to indicate the bicyclist’s comfort level for specific roadway geometries and traffic conditions. Each of the indicators listed below are weighted according to a mathematical equation. From this computation, scores were obtained. BLOS is defined using a range of scores. Table 3-14 describes the relationship between the score and the general conditions. The factors used to define the BLOS are: • Traffic conditions (average daily volumes, speeds, percent of heavy vehicles, on-street parking) • Roadway design (number of lanes, speed limit, width of outside lane, availability of shoulder) • Roadway surface conditions Figure 3-12 shows the results of the BLOS calculations. Most arterials in Overlake received a BLOS D or E. Generally, these arterials do not have any bike facilities in the form of dedicated bike lanes or wide shoulders. However, some streets with bike lanes with higher vehicular volumes rated a BLOS C or D such as West Lake Sammamish Parkway between SR 520 and Bellevue-Redmond Road. Roadways with bike lanes that are narrow with low vehicular volumes ranked a BLOS C such as NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and 162nd Avenue NE. Streets with bike lanes with low vehicular volumes ranked BLOS A, including NE 60th Street between 156th Avenue NE and 154th Avenue NE and BLOS B, including NE 51st Street between 162nd Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 Figure 3-12: Existing Bicycle Level of Service / ( 1 \ [ y 4 1 r~;'J I r / J' A \c - B 1 I c I t D E 11111111 F ~I N J\ ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 Table 3-14: Bicycle Level of Service Definitions LOS Score Descriptions of Level of Service Operations A < 1.5 Highest cyclist comfort. Little or no vehicular conflicts. Supportive infrastructure in place and/or very low vehicular volumes. B < 1.5 – 2.5 High degree of cyclist comfort. Little vehicular conflict. Some form of supportive infrastructure and/or low vehicular volumes. C < 2.5 – 3.5 Acceptable level of cyclist comfort. Some vehicular conflict. Some form of supportive infrastructure and/or lower vehicular volumes. D < 3.5 – 4.5 Some cyclist discomfort. More vehicular conflicts. Some form of supportive infrastructure with higher vehicular volumes. E < 4.5 – 5.5 High level of cyclist discomfort. Notable vehicular conflicts. Little or no supportive infrastructure with high vehicular volumes. F > 5.5 Highest level of cyclist discomfort. No supportive infrastructure with high vehicular volumes and possible high percentage of heavy vehicles. 3.6.2.4 Collisions The City of Redmond maintains a database for all collisions that occur within city limits. A review of the collision data for the period starting in May 2003 and ending in May 2006 revealed that the Overlake neighborhood does not have any collision hot spots. 3.6.2.4.1 Intersection Collisions In general, the average number of collisions per year at intersections in the area was below three. Only four intersections had more than three collisions per year: • 148th Avenue NE and NE 24th Street • 151st Place NE and NE 24th Street • 156th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street • 156th Avenue NE and NE 51st Street When the average number of collisions was normalized by the average daily traffic volumes per million vehicles, the resulting accident rates were below 1 percent. Only two intersections had rates between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. The most common collision types at intersections were rear endings followed by right angles. These types of collisions are typically associated with congestion. 3.6.2.4.2 Mid-block Collisions The average number of collisions per year at mid-block locations was also below three. Only four locations had more than three collisions per year: • 148th Avenue NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street • 156th Avenue NE between Bel-Red Road and NE 28th Street • NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE • NE 24th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 151st Place NE ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 When the average number of collisions was normalized by the average daily traffic volumes per million vehicles, the resulting accident rates were below 0.5 percent. Only two intersections had rates between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. The most common collision type at mid-block locations was rear endings, which are typically associated with congestion. A stretch of NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE had a higher number of right angle collisions, which suggests issues with driveway access and congestion. 3.6.3 Alternative Descriptions 3.6.3.1 Roadways The Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) is an interlocal agreement between the cities of Bellevue and Redmond to balance transportation and development to the mutual benefit of both communities through 2012. This Interlocal Agreement was originally completed in September 1999 and has been updated annually since then. The agreement identifies specific projects intended to accommodate growth and create transportation solutions in both Bellevue and Redmond. This study assumes that under the No Action Alternative all funded projects within and immediately surrounding the Overlake area and projects outside of the Overlake area associated with BROTS would be in place by 2030. Under the Action Alternative, the same improvements in the No Action Alternative and many additional improvements were assumed to be in place by 2030. Table 3-15 shows the roadway improvements to be completed under the No Action and Action Alternatives. Figure 3-13 depicts the roadway improvement projects assumed to be part of the No Action Alternative. (This figure also includes the Arterial Bus Rapid Transit route proposed by King County Metro, which is a part of the Transit Now program, and non-motorized signage and pavement marking improvements at the SR 520 and NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street intersections.) Figure 3-14 illustrates the roadway improvements proposed under the Action Alternative. These transportation improvement projects are also described more in detail in Appendix E. As part of the ONP update, the functional class of two arterials would be modified: • Bellevue-Redmond Road from NE 20th Street to West Lake Sammamish Parkway would be changed from a minor arterial to a principal arterial. • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road would be changed from a principal arterial to a minor arterial. These modifications are proposed to make these two street segments more consistent with the rest of their respective corridors. The revised street classifications also more closely relate to the functional classification definitions included the TMP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 Table 3-15: Proposed Roadway Improvements Alternative ID Location Action No Action Action Freeway Modifications RED-OV-043 SR 520/I-405 Interchange Add WB to NB ramp capacity RED-OV-044 SR 520 off-ramp at West Lake Sammamish Pkwy Add a lane on WB off-ramp RED-OV-090 SR 520 Study and Improvements east of 108th Ave NE Increase freeway capacity by adding general purpose lanes and making interchange improvements at key locations. RED-TMP- 005 SR 520/148th Ave NE Interchange Add a new off-ramp connecting to NE 31st Street New Streets RED-OV-037 NE 28th Street between 156th Ave NE and 152nd Ave NE Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-039 150th Ave NE from NE 51st Street to NE 55th Street Extend 150th Avenue NE RED-OV-045 NE 28th Street between new 151st Ave NE and 152nd Ave NE Construct new NE 28th Street as a local access street RED-OV-046 151st Ave NE between end of existing 151st Ave NE to new NE 28th Street Construct new 151st Avenue NE as a local access street RED-OV-048 NE 23rd Street from 152nd Ave NE to Bel-Red Road Construct new NE 23rd Street a local access street RED-OV-049 NE 23rd Street from 148th Ave NE to 152nd Ave NE Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-094 151st Ave NE between NE 20th and NE 24th Streets Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-079 NE 36th Street Bridge Over SR 520 Construct new NE 36th Street and bridge over SR 520 Street Modifications BROTS-11.1 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy /NE 51st Street Add second SB lane to south leg of intersection BROTS-22.3 156th Ave NE/Bel-Red Road Construct a SB right-turn lane BROTS-31.0 Bel-Red Road and W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Construct an additional SB left turn lane BROTS-4.1 159th Ave NE/NE 40th St Construct an additional NB left turn lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 Alternative ID Location Action No Action Action BROTS-79.0 148th Ave NE/NE 36th Street Provide dual SB left turn lanes and widen the WB approach to add right turn lane BROTS-8.1 150th Ave NE /NE 40th Street Construct a NB right turn lane and combine two 150th Ave NE intersections. BROTS-85.0 150th Avenue NE/NE 51st Street Add north leg to intersection and signalize intersection RED-OV-040 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy from NE 51st Street to Bel- Red Road Widen the street to include two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes and bike lanes RED-OV-041 148th Ave NE/NE 24th Street Intersection Add dual left turn lanes on the EB and WB approaches RED-OV-065 152nd Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 31st Streets Implement a multi-modal pedestrian corridor concept RED-OV-074 148th Ave NE/Old Redmond Road Lengthen NB left-turn lane on 148th Avenue NE RED-OV-075 NE 24th Street from 148th Ave NE to Bel-Red Road Implement more stringent access management RED-OV-076 156th Ave NE /NE 31st Street Construct an additional WB left turn lane RED-OV-077 156th Ave NE/NE 36th Street Construct an additional SB left turn lane RED-OV-078 Bel-Red Road/NE 30th Street Construct new right-in/right-out access to Microsoft Campus. RED-OV-080 152nd Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 31st Streets Reconfigure 152nd Avenue NE to one through lane in each direction, center left turn lane, bike lanes RED-OV-082 148th Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 36th Streets Implement more stringent access management RED-OV-086 Redmond Way/148th Ave NE Widen NB to include dual left turn lanes and two through lanes RED-OV-087 Bel-Red Road Widening Widen the street to include two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes and bike lanes RED-OV-088 Bel-Red Road/148th Ave NE Add dual left turn lanes on the EB and WB approaches RED-OV-092 Redmond Way/148th Ave NE Modify channelization so EB and WB lefts can go concurrently ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 Figure 3-13: No Action Alternative Planned Transportation Improvements 0 0 0 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Signal/Pavement Markings Pedestrian Crossing Improvement New Bridge Intersection Widening New Signal New Access N study Area ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 Figure 3-14: Action Alternative Planned Roadway Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 92 3.6.3.2 Transit 3.6.3.2.1 Transportation Master Plan The Redmond TMP places a strong emphasis on making transit an important mode in the transportation system. The introduction to the transit section of the TMP states: • Public transportation plays an important economic and social role in the City of Redmond. • Public transportation is an economic engine. • Public transportation mitigates traffic. The Transit System Plan (TSP) was established in the TMP to provide a better transit system for those traveling within Redmond, and for those traveling to and from areas outside Redmond. The TSP identifies the needs for both local and regional connections. It also states that the intent of the TSP is to present the current conditions and develop a list of future needs. Redmond will need to continue to work with transit agencies to plan for a more robust network of local connections that provide seamless transfers with regional routes to urban centers. The local and regional systems will need to provide a time competitive means of travel and offer enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections. 3.6.3.2.2 King County Metro Six-Year Transit Development Plan The King County Metro Six-Year Transit Development Plan, adopted in September 2002, establishes objectives and strategies to increase transit and rideshare services and add new transit-supportive capital facilities throughout King County. The City of Redmond has worked closely with King County Metro to incorporate into this plan many of Redmond’s transit policies adopted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The King County Metro plan recognizes that a core network of routes providing frequent, all-day connections between major destinations is needed. A web of local and intercommunity routes supports the core network and allows people to travel to both local and regional destinations. These hubs are identified as Downtown Bellevue, Overlake, Downtown Redmond, and Crossroads. In addition, a recent initiative passed in King County, known as Transit Now, will expand King County Metro Transit service by 15 to 20 percent over the next 10 years. Intended to help Metro keep pace with regional growth, this plan will provide bus rapid transit (BRT) service on 148th Avenue NE from Downtown Redmond to 156th Avenue NE and NE 8th Street to Downtown Bellevue. The No Action Alternative includes this BRT service improvement as shown in Figure 3-13. 3.6.3.2.3 Sound Transit East Link Light Rail Sound Transit has recently updated its Long-Range Plan regarding the future regional transit system. Consistent with the Long-Range Plan update, the next phase of light rail transit (LRT) improvements proposed in the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) package of mass transit projects includes the East Link Project. East Link is a proposed extension of the Central Link LRT system with a corridor extending approximately 19 miles from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Redmond via ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 I-90, Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, Bel-Red Corridor and the Overlake area. The Sound Transit Board has identified a package of projects to present to voters in November 2007. This package defines the East Link project’s length and general implementation schedule. The actual project length could vary between 11 and 19 miles and it is uncertain at this time when the East Link LRT line would serve the Overlake area. Although the LRT system itself will generate some construction and operational impacts in the Bel-Red Corridor and Overlake, this environmental document addresses only those actions taken by the City, as opposed to those taken by Sound Transit. A project-level EIS is currently underway for the East Link Project and a draft report is expected to be released in Fall 2008. The ONP assumes that the East Link light rail line would not serve Overlake by 2030 under the No Action Alternative. On the other hand, under the Action Alternative, the study assumed that the East Link light rail line would be extended from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond through Overlake with two stations in Overlake: the Overlake Village Station located in the vicinity of the 152nd Avenue NE and NE 24th Street intersection, and the NE 40th Street Station near the current Overlake Transit Center on 156th Avenue NE south of NE 40th Street. The proposed transit facility and service improvements in the Action Alternative are listed in Table 3-16, and are illustrated in Figure 3-15. The transit service and facility improvements assumed in the Action Alternatives are generally described as follows: • East Link Light Rail Line and stations; • Bus Rapid Transit Services; • Peak period regional bus express services; and, • Transit queue bypass lanes ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 Table 3-16: Action Alternative Proposed Transit Facility and Service Improvements ID Location Action RED-OV-001 Redmond to Bellevue via Overlake and Crossroads Arterial BRT provided by King County Metro RED-OV-002 Overlake/Eastgate Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Arterial BRT line that connects the Overlake Transit Center with Eastgate Park and Ride Lot, provided by King County Metro RED-OV-003 Redmond to Bellevue via Overlake and Crossroads Provide for uniquely designed bus shelters for the BRT lines RED-OV-004 Park Peak Period Commuter Bus Peak period express services provided by Sound Transit or Community Transit RED-OV-005 Issaquah/Sammamish Peak Period Commuter Bus Peak period express services provided by Sound Transit RED-OV-008a 148th Ave NE/NE 40th Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008c 148th Ave NE/Old Redmond Road (SB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008g 156th Ave NE/NE 36th Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008h 156th Ave NE/ NE 31st Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-009 Seattle to Downtown Redmond LRT provided by Sound Transit RED-OV-011 Overlake Transit Center Provide for LRT station RED-OV-071 NE 40th Street /SR 520 Interchange Provide direct access ramps from center HOV lanes to NE 40th Street RED-OV-085 North Seattle/Overlake Improved peak period express services between Overlake Transit Center and North Seattle, provided by Sound Transit or King County Metro RED-OV-089 Overlake Intersections Provide Transit Signal Priority along 148th, 156th, and 152nd Avenues NE. RED-OV-093 NE 24th Street and 152nd Ave NE Provide for LRT station ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 Figure 3-15: Action Alternative Proposed Transit Improvements To/From North Seattle Overlake Village Station Options LEGEND - Light Rail Transil Light Rail Station Arterial Bus Rapid Transit 0 Peak Period Commuter Bus Multi-Modal Corridor Transit Signal Priority and Queue Bypass Transit Signal Priority N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 96 3.6.3.3 Transit Mode Share The ONP Update study did not use the BKR model’s mode split model to forecast transit ridership for 2030, as discussed in the model validation section in Appendix E. Instead, the following mode share assumptions were applied to the model: • 5.4 percent of the total person trips generated by land use in Overlake would use a transit mode during the PM peak hour in 2030 under the No Action Alternative. • 15.3 percent of the total person trips generated by land use in Overlake would use a transit mode during the PM peak hour in 2030 under the Action Alternative. The mode share assumption for the 2030 Action Alternative is roughly the same as the mode share assumed for the BKR model’s mode share provided by Bellevue as their Bel-Red Corridor Study No Action Alternative. 3.6.3.4 Transportation Demand Management Actions The Redmond TMP set all day travel mode share objectives for Redmond residents. The TMP specifies that by 2022 the single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode share should be reduced to 35 percent from the 2003 share of 44 percent. Conversely, the share of all other modes (carpool, vanpool, transit, bicycle, and walking) should be increased to 65 percent in 2022 from the 56 percent in 2003. To achieve this goal, the Action Alternative includes a set of actions to reduce SOV travel in Overlake. The transportation demand management (TDM) actions for Overlake are listed in Table 3-17. ---PAGE BREAK--- 97 Table 3-17: Action Alternative Proposed Transportation Demand Management Actions Project ID Proposed TDM Actions RED-OV-051 Establish a non-SOV mode share goal of 40 percent for 2030 peak period work trips RED-OV-052 Expand existing TDM program RED-OV-053 Enhance existing TDM plan with a new regional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) plan RED-OV-054 Designate the Overlake Urban Center as a Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center (GTEC) RED-OV-067 Adopt a new CTR ordinance to implement TDM actions by aggressively seeking funding for programs 3.6.3.5 Parking Management Actions The City adopted several parking management policies in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet the City’s TMP mode share objectives and to use land more efficiently. The following Redmond policies aim at influencing the travel behaviors of those who choose to drive alone: • Develop and implement comprehensive parking management programs that address shared parking, transit access parking, and localized parking imbalances. • Evaluate parking pricing strategies as a mechanism to support TDM objectives. • Consider reducing the minimum and maximum parking ratio requirements. • Encourage a reduction in required parking ratios, less than the required minimum for office, industrial, institutional and mixed uses. To support these policies, the Action Alternative includes specific actions that would reduce SOV mode share and are listed in Table 3-18. ---PAGE BREAK--- 98 Table 3-18: Action Alternative Proposed Parking Management Actions Project ID Target Area Parking Management Action RED-OV-055 Residential Area Establish residential parking permit program as needed RED-OV-056 Overlake Neighborhood Add further definition to existing system of defining parking standards by use RED-OV-057 Overlake Neighborhood Eliminate minimum parking standards RED-OV-058 Overlake Neighborhood Maintain 3 spaces per 1,000 SF office space maximum RED-OV-059 Vicinity of major transit facilities in Overlake Reduce parking standards for developments near transit facilities RED-OV-060 Overlake Neighborhood Develop parking credits for mixed use developments RED-OV-061 Employment Area Eliminate parking subsidies for office employees RED-OV-062 Overlake Village Provide on-street parking with time limits RED-OV-063 Employment Area Require commercial leases to separate out parking costs from office rental space costs RED-OV-070 Overlake Village Implement paid parking for on-street parking spaces RED-OV-091 Overlake Neighborhood Create and implement a parking development and management program that minimizes on-site parking, encourages shared parking 3.6.3.6 Non-Motorized Transportation 3.6.3.6.1 TMP Bicycle System Plan The TMP specifies that the City’s various planned non-motorized transportation facilities function as a system that would allow bicycling and walking to become more viable transportation options. It defines a system of primary and secondary bicycling corridors based on facility length. Primary corridors are at least 2.5 miles long and secondary corridors at least 1 mile in length. The function and facility type for the bicycling corridors are summarized below. Primary Bicycling Corridors • Function: Allows bicyclists barrier-free travel for distance of 2.5 miles or more • Trail components: Backbone trails (multi-use facilities with paved trail surface) • Bikeway components: Bicycle path or on-street bicycle lanes Secondary Bicycling Corridors • Function: connects into primary system to provide greater access into all parts of the community; typically for a distance of at least one mile in length • Trail components: Backbone trails (multi-use facilities with soft surfaces) ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 • Bikeway components: Bicycle paths (trails with soft surfaces and/or steep terrain); on- street bike lanes; paved shoulders; wide curb lanes and signed bike routes on non- arterials Local Connections • Function: Connects residential neighborhoods and individual destinations into the citywide system with special emphasis on schools • Trail components: Wide sidewalk trails; short trail segments linking with collector and backbone trails; paved surface if desired to support bicycling • Bikeway components: All local streets as undesignated shared roadways 3.6.3.6.2 Street Crossing In the state of Washington, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all intersections, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked or unmarked (Revised Code of Washington 46.64.235). Under the City’s TMP, the pedestrian program plan establishes a hierarchy for crossing treatments: • Unmarked crossing: locations where less than 20 pedestrians per hour cross streets • Marked crossing: locations where more than 20 pedestrians or more than 15 elderly or children per hour cross streets • In-pavement lighted crosswalk: locations where 40 or more pedestrians per hour cross streets during 2 hours in a 24-hour period • Pedestrian signal: locations where more than 80 pedestrians cross streets for each of 4 hours during a 24-hour period or 152 pedestrians cross streets for any one hour period Mid-block crossings are most appropriate in urban areas but should be avoided under the following circumstances: • Immediately (less than 300 feet) from a traffic signal or bus stop • Within 600 feet of another crossing point except in a central business district or other locations with well-defined need; recommended minimum separation distance is 300 feet • Streets with speed limits above 45 miles per hour. Redmond defines the maximum block length between legal crossings as not more than 1320 feet (one-quarter mile). However, in pedestrian supportive environments, the maximum distance between crossing opportunities is 528 feet (one-tenth mile) Along 148th Avenue NE, existing mid-block crossings are located between: ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 • NE 31st/32nd Street and NE 24th Street; • NE 36th Street and NE 37th Place; • NE 42nd Place and NE 43rd Place; and, • NE 57th Street and NE 61st Way. Based on these guidelines, the Action Alternative includes several mid-block pedestrian street crossings on 152nd Avenue NE between NE 20th and NE 31st Streets and 156th Avenue NE between NE 31st and NE 51st Streets. 3.6.3.6.3 Multi-Modal Corridors To enhance the pedestrian environment, the TMP designates several corridors in Overlake as Multi-Modal Corridors, corridors which should place an emphasis on walking, bicycling, and transit use in addition to vehicles. In Overlake, the following streets are designated as Multi- Modal Corridors: • 148th Avenue NE from NE 20th Street to Redmond Way • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • 152nd Avenue NE/NE 31st Street from NE 24th Street to 156th Avenue NE • 156th Avenue NE from NE 31st Street to NE 51st Street • NE 40th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • West Lake Sammamish Parkway from NE 24th Street to SR 520 • NE 51st Street from 148th Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE The Action Alternative includes specific actions that will support the City-wide pedestrian and bicycling goals and objectives of the TMP. These actions and programs are listed in Table 3-19 and illustrated in Figure 3-16. ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 Table 3-19: Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project ID Corridor Action RED-OV-016 NE 40th Street from 156th Ave NE to West Lake Sammamish Pkwy Provide bicycle lanes/urban pathway RED-OV-017 NE 40th Street from 148th Ave NE to 156th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes/urban pathway RED-OV-018 NE 51st Street from 148th Ave NE to 154th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes in both directions RED-OV-019 150th Ave NE from NE 51st Street to NE 36th Street Provide bicycle lanes in both directions RED-OV-020 NE 31st Street from the new SR 520 overpass to 156th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes RED-OV-021 Bel-Red Road Complete bicycle lanes RED-OV-022 156th Ave NE from NE 31st Street to NE 40th Street Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-023 East side of 156th Ave NE from Bel-Red Road to NE 31st Street and from NE 40th Street to NE 51st Street. Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-024 East side of 148th Ave NE from NE 36th Street to Redmond Way Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-025 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy between NE 51st Street and Bel-Red Road Provide interim non-motorized facilities by striping the west side to include a bicycle lane and pedestrian path* RED-OV-026 SR 520/NE 40th Street Grade separate SR 520 Trail RED-OV-027 SR 520 at NE 51st Street and NE 148th Ave NE Grade separate SR 520 Trail RED-OV-028 150th Ave NE between NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Provide sidewalks where missing RED-OV-029 148th Ave NE in the vicinity of NE 22nd Street Provide a grade-separated pedestrian overpass RED-OV-030 148th Ave NE (east side) from NE 27th Street to NE 29th Street Provide a 12' sidewalk RED-OV-032 SR 520 between the Overlake Transit Center and the Microsoft west campus Provide a new direct pedestrian connection over SR 520 RED-OV-034a 156th Ave NE between NE 36th Street and NE 31st Street Provide a signalized mid-block crossing* RED-OV-034b 156th Ave NE between NE 45th Street and NE 51st Street Provide a signalized mid-block crossing* RED-OV-035a 152nd Ave NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* RED-OV-035b 152nd Ave NE between NE 24th Street and NE 31st Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* ---PAGE BREAK--- 102 Project ID Corridor Action RED-OV-035c 150th Ave NE between NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* RED-OV-066 NE 51st Street from 156th Ave NE to W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Construct standard bike lanes in both directions RED-OV-068 NE 26th Street from 148th Ave NE to 156th Ave NE Construct urban pathway RED-OV-081 NE 51st Street from 154th Avenue NE to W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Install additional bike signage and pavement markings in existing bike lanes* RED-OV-083 SR 520 Trail Crossing at NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Additional signage, pavement markings and other treatments* RED-OV-084 NE 40th Street/SR 520 Overpass Improve pedestrian crossings over SR 520 * Near-term interim pedestrian and bicycle improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 103 Figure 3-16: Action Alternative Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Bike l ane • • Bike lane and Bike Slgnage • Pedestrian - Multi-use Trail Crossing with 0 Grade Signal Separated Bi Perm ttec Land Uses 10 Busmess. ManufactuPng and Industry Zonas !tsts t'le l;1nd uses pt''~"'lrteo w tn111 e,1Ch of the bus;ness. :nanufac:unng pari<. anc tndustry zo•;es Uc;es requ nng Generill and SpPCI:!I Dt:·:e!opnwni ap;)rovals are Footnotes at tne end of the Chart provtde furth~r claro!tcat;on (Ord 202/1 20C.60.20-020 Allowed Uses. · ·;Ttl() symbols used tn the- chart represent the followmg: P Perm1tteo Use G Allowed condt!ionai use General Development (GOP) approval S Allowed condHtOna! LtSe requinng speetal development (SDP) appruva. Procedural reqUirements related to the general and spectal development permit processes are described in RCDG Tttle 2!2£. Uses suntlar to :t1ose listed may be established as perm:tted or condt!torally allowed through the tnterpretat.on O)roceoure 1n RCDG Title 20£. and Procedures In v-,nether a usc shou d be pf'r n•tled t•~e AcJrn1n:s:rator shal refe' to 1t1e purpose statcrr><:!nts found tn RCDG 1L Purpose. RCDG 2:.lC..iliL15.. Bus1ness. Manufac'urmg and lndustnal Zones, and the latest •ssued vo~rsron ol tl1e Standar . !An,•;.-mceo Tt~chnology Computer Hardware and Softwr~re 1 P P 1 p;-1 - [EiN'!'t:.;al and E!cctroniC!_qul;)_rnent :.we Components___ ! , P P l.'\••t:rnrt Parts, Aerospace and So~~t: Ve!11clos and P[~rts ! ~L P ~ r'g, nncJ Con:rollmg Instruments Pt1ctographiC . r.1ed cal. Opuu:Jl I p j P i P P ; atc..i"ts an:! Clocks I I ! r.l.sc.:•I•Jn-,·.-o-u-s ~.lanufac:unng lndustnes _ j P : P j 1.e RCDG 2ClC !JJ 30-070. Conven1ence Commercta l Clusters. and ?L\C 60 30 Conven:ence Uses A as an Accesswv Use to a Trans1t Ccr1ter SubJeCt :o aqu,ter protect1on and senstt1ve areas regulal;or.s 1n Chapter 200 · J Q RCDG Not allowed 1n vWiows Corndor Busmess Park zone See RCDG ~IQ..:iQ..:DZQ Prov1ded 'eta11 sales are manufactureo goods produced on the prem1ses and accessory or secondary to the . rPg asphalt, and concrete batch plants. silos and other related equipment may exte:'cl a m::1x1rnum ne1qht ot 90 fe~t SutJ,ect to Spec.liil Use Cntm.a RCOG ?00 170 3fJ., Ba:ct1 Plants Ml ma r;te1an•'t> 'J,:.>ttf~S 'or putJI,c lre OV motor V+"~"ICie ma1ntenance lac: lit for company -owned veh1cles shad be accussor'r al owr::1 usn In the 0'J ~one . a spec•al c!evelopment permd stlall t)e reou rofJ. Oro 2152, Oro. 212f1, Oro 2102i ) 7 ( /008) Code Publishing Company ---PAGE BREAK--- ~-~CityofRedmond WASH i NGTON August 20, 2007 Coby Holley PS Business Parks, L.P. 70 1 Western Avenue Glendale. CA 9120 I Dear Mr. Holley, Thank you for your letter dated April 23, 2007 commenting on the Overtake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate your comments and believe that we can address some of your questions and concerns. We appreciate your general support of the overall long-term vision for the Overtake Village area, where the Overtake Business Center (south) is located. We also recognize that the vision will take many years to fully achieve and will be met through coordinated actions by both public and private entities. Your letter discusses three items you identify as critical steps in achieving the vision: - Bel-Red Overtake Transportation Study (BROTS) Agreement update: Your Jetter states that most development under the Action Alternative would potentially be delayed in implementation because it is subject to BROTS. That is not accurate. Residential development is not limited by the BROTS agreement. In addition, any redevelopment that does not increase the amount of non-residential floor area is not limited. With regard to timing of the BROTS update, the planning and transportation analysis that Redmond and Bellevue have undertaken for Overlake and the Bel-Red Corridor provides a significant portion of the technical work needed for an update to the BROTS Agreement. Completing this update is a high priority for both cities and we anticipate that the work will be completed in 2008. East Link light rail: The City has been coordinating with Sound Transit on this portion of the ST2 package from the very beginning and will continue to coordinate as the process continues. In addition to light rail, another form of high capacity transit will be serving Overtake in the nearer future: King County Metro ·s arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) route connecting Downtown Redmond and Downtown Bellevue via Overtake and Crossroads. Funding for this route was approved in the November 2006 election; the route will be operational by 2011. One of the key reasons Redmond undertook the ONP update and SEIS is to begin the process, in coordination with the City of Bellevue, of extending the planning horizon year for Overtake to 2030. This analysis has included evaluating a potential increase in the allowed floor area ratio (FAR) that applies to the Employment Area in Over lake, where Microsoft and other City Hall · 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 · Redmond, WA • 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- companies are located. The SEIS fully acknowledges that the City proposes to act on proposed ONP updates in phases including any increases in potential zoning capacity in the Employment Area. Analysis of appropriate growth phases and associated facility and service improvements will be part of updating the BROTS Agreement, and will be accompanied by Redmond's update to the existing Overlake SEPA Planned Action. It will also include updates to functional plans, including transportation, parks and utilities. Our first phase of proposed updates will not change the allowed FAR in the Employment Area, maintains the City's commitment to the BROTS cap on commercial development, does not contemplate more residential dwellings through 2030 under the Action Alternative than are allowed under current zoning, and is not dependent on extension of light rail. - Additional transportation improvements: The Action Alternative identifies a number of transportation improvements to mitigate the impacts associated with additional growth in Overlake. Nearly half of the proposed projects are included in existing plans, are funded, or would be funded by private development. Approximately an additional 20 percent are regional in nature. The remaining one-third of the proposed projects would be added to existing plans as part of Phase II of the Overlake project. Increases in employment and housing over the 24-year planning horizon will create related demands for transportation and other public facilities and services and utilities. However, development will occur over time and demand will increase incrementally through 2030. Although the City identifies future infrastructure needs associated with future growth, we are not required to build infrastructure in advance of potential development; in other words, development of public infrastructure is required to be concurrent with development. As part of your due diligence period prior to purchase of the Overlake Business Center (OBC), representatives of PS Business Parks and City staff met in person and by conference call several times to review a number of features relevant to the property. This included but was not limited to the adopted neighborhood plan, permitted uses, other aspects of existing zoning, Redmond's building code, concepts under consideration for the proposed neighborhood plan update, and light rail transit alignments under consideration by Sound Transit. Your letter comments that the SEIS should analyze the current permitted uses and any impacts. The structure of permitted uses in the existing Retail Commercial (RC) was last updated in 1999. The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning reflect the City's responsibility to plan for our 20-year employment and housing targets. The permitted uses that exist for Overlake are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and growth targets. For this reason, a significant change to permitted uses was not proposed in the Action Alternative nor analyzed in the DSEIS. Your letter also requests an expansion of the permitted uses in the RC zone to include a variety of uses typical of Redmond's Business Park and Manufacturing Park zones. Many of the permitted uses in the RC zone support the vision of Overlake Village as evolving into a true, urban residential/mixed-use place. The uses are largely pedestrian-generating or -oriented in nature to help increase the vibrancy and economic vitality of the area and include a variety of retail, service and entertainment uses, as well as multi-family residential. These uses also include a wide variety of businesses or other organizations that serve the general public, such as personal, financial, legal, medical and minor repair services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Advanced technology and business park uses are currently permitted in three zones in the City- Business Park (BP), Manufacturing Park (MP), and Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBA as well as within the Downtown Districts, which together account for 86 percent of the commercial or mixed-use zones in the City. Allowing these uses in Overlake Village would add pressure to one of the few areas that does not allow advanced technology, research and development, and similar business consulting services. Maintaining locations in which businesses that serve the general public can locate is consistent with adopted policy and the community's vision. During the past few months, several businesses consistent with the existing zoning have leased space in Overlake Business Center. Expanding the allowed uses in Overlake Village to permit the types of businesses you requested could further delay redevelopment of the area and achievement of the vision. Allowing such uses to locate in this area as of right would create "going concerns" in the long-term and further delay the addition of residential uses, a key concept in the long-term vision for Over lake. These uses were intentionally included in the OBA T zone to focus them in this location and not permitted in the RC zone. We recognize that over the years, a number of businesses have located in the OBC without seeking business licenses from the City of Redmond. During the past several months, our joint efforts have resulted in licensing of nearly all of businesses at OBC. As of this date, we understand that less than 5 businesses have not responded. We also recognize that a number of these businesses are business park uses that do not comply with the zoning. In response to your letter and other public comment on this subject, staff is recommending a revision to the nonconforming use provisions to allow all existing, licensed businesses in Over lake, regardless of the type of use, to continue as long as they wish. Once these current uses vacate the space, the space would need to be occupied by a use that conforms to the zoning. Staff is not proposing that businesses that do not comply with the zoning have the ability to expand in terms of floor area. You also propose that Redmond add "Flexible Use Zoning" to its zoning code. You describe this as establishing performance criteria for allowed uses and allowing case by case decision making through an administrative process. We believe that the community and applicants are better served by providing predictability and clarity in our zoning code rather than business by business decisions. Further. we are very concerned about the impact of this approach in terms of staff time and diminished staff availability for key tasks such as development review. The Comprehensive Plan that guides Redmond's neighborhood planning efforts contains a variety of goals and objectives which must be carefully balanced in planning for the future. Your letter cites a number of Economic Vitality goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. However, those goals must be balanced with other goals, including those related to providing housing opportunities. Over the past 15 years, job opportunities in Redmond have grown significantly but housing opportunities have not kept pace. In addition, as Redmond's supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the single- family zones decreases, Overlake and Downtown will become increasingly important in helping to meet the City's future housing needs. We believe that the economic vitality of the Overlake Village area will ultimately be strengthened through the addition of a greater intensity and variety of uses than exists today. Redevelopments that are consistent with the mixed-use vision will create economic activity during all hours of the day, rather than just in the afternoon or early evening hours during which many Overlake Village area businesses are successful now. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- If you have any further questions regarding the ONP project or the Final SEIS, please contact Lori Peckol at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Rob Odic Planning Director 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- T SOUNDTRANSIT April 23, 2007 Rob Odle Responsible Official City of Redmond Planning Department P.O. Box 97010, MS: 4SPL Redmond, W A 98073-9710 Dear Rob: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Redmond Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (DSEIS). We applaud the City's effort to review its Comprehensive Plan policies and implementation strategies that plan and provide support for high capacity transit. We are particularly encouraged by the proposed changes ana sfrateg1es thal mayincrease East tink riciersmp, and that over time creates a more livable and sustainable community for the Overlake Village area of Redmond. Attached are our comments which mostly seeks clarification on how the East Link Project is represented and which jurisdictions have certain authority of implementing actions identified in the DSEIS. In particular we would like to call your attention to several instances where the DSEIS intimates that the East Link Project is predicated on the "Action Alternative." That may not be the intent. However, we have pointed that out on your figures and text that the East Link Project should be assumed as serving the Overlake Neighborhood: Employment Area and Village in both the No Action and Action Alternatives. Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIS. Let me know if you have questions. Leonard cGhee Segment Manager East Link Project LM:ab East l ink Jurisdicuon Co1nmentsiRedmond Ovel'lake Attachments: DSEIS Comments c: Lori Peckol, Planning Manager, City of Redmond Terry Marpert, Principal Planner, City of Redmond Don Bill en, East Corridor Project Manager, Sound Transit Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority • Union Station 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104·2826 • Reception: (206) 398·5000 • FAX: (206) 398·5499 • www.soundtransit.org BOARD CHAIR John W. laden burg Pierce County Executive BOARD VICE CHAIRS Connie Marshall Bellevue Councilmember Mark Olson Everett Councilmember BOARD MEMBERS Julie Anderson Tacoma Councilmember Mary-Alyce Burleigh Kirkland Councilmember Fred Butler Issaquah Deputy Council President Dow Constantine King County Councilmember Dave Enslow Sumner Mayor Doug Ml'lcDottanr Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Richard Marin Edmonds Councilmember Richard Mciver Seattle Councilmember Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor Julia Patterson King County Councilmember larry Phillips Chair, King County Council Aaron Reardon Snohomish County Executive Ron Sims King County Executive Claudia Thomas Lakewood Mayor Pete von Reich bauer Vice Chair, King County Council CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Joni Earl ---PAGE BREAK--- General City of Redmond Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Statement Sound Transit Review Comments April 23, 2007 1. As presented in the Draft SEIS, the East Link Project is presented as if it is predicated on the Action Alternative. Subject to the approval of a financing plan by the voters in November 2007 the East Link Project will happen with or without changes to the current Overlake Neighborhood Plan. The East Link Project should be included in all actions (build and no-build) contemplated in this update. 2. In several instances descriptions of actions to be taken to implement specific elements of the plan, a reader may assume the City of Redmond is responsible for certain actions where in fact they are the actions of other agencies such as Sound Transit and Metro King County. While the correct jurisdiction may be implied it may be confusing for the uninformed reader. - - Specific 3. P.i- Fact Sheet - Description of Proposal, 3rd paragraph - The Statement "This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Bellevue through the study area to Downtown Redmond." For the purposes of this Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update (March 2007) we feel it would be more appropriate to rephrase that statement as follows: "This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Downtown Seattle through the study area to the Overlake Transit Center in the study area ffi Downtown Redmond. 4. P.5 Project Background, 3rd bullet: In the statement " plan effectively for extension of light rail transit and other facility improvements " what other facilities are contemplated here? 5. P.8 Section 1.6.2 - May be more appropriate to refer to the second station in the planning area as "in the vicinity of' or "near" NE 40111• 6. P .23 Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative- Overlake Village. This figure should show, in a generic fashion, that the East Link Light Rail Project is assumed to serve the Overlake Neighborhood in the No Action Alternative map. 7. P.26 Figure 2-4: No Action Alternative Transportation Projects. This figure should show in a generic fashion that the East Link Light Rail Project is assumed to serve the Overlake Neighborhood in the No Action Alternative Transportation Projects map. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. P .29 Transit projects, 1st bullet: This bullet should indicate that the development oflight rail transit service and stations is a Sound Transit project and include a statement that the light rail project is in the early stages of design and environmental review by Sound Transit. 9. p.29 Transit Projects: Is the BRT and peak period commuter bus mentioned in the second bullet and on Figure 2-9 part of King County Metro's "Transit Now" or Sound Transit service? The service provider and status of the planning should be made clear. 10. P .31 Figure 2-5: Action Alternative - Overlake Village- shows one of the potential stations (behind Safeway) on a curve. Stations would be on a straight section only. It also shows Bel-Red Road as a potential light rail alignment. Please delete as that alignment is no longer being considered. 11: P .50 Table 3-8, 1 51 row/2nd column: states that no light rail is assumed as part of the East Link project for the No Action Alternative. This is not accurate as the .P'!SJ Link project is not dendent on the Overtake Neighborhood Plan Update. Further, the representative alignment for ST2 financial planning purposes assumed a station in the Overlake Village Area. 12. p.50 Table 3-8, 2nd row/2nd column Under "Achieve a target housing density and mixed of use" the No Action alternative states "moderate support for extension of light rail transit" which seems inconsistent with the statement in Row 1 of the table and/or is contradicted by the statement on p.52, in the 1 51 paragraph which suggests light rail would occur without the plan change. 13. p.90 2nd sentence: The Sound Transit Board will identify a package of projects to present to voters in 2007. Add "November 2007." 14. p.90 1 51 paragraph/last sentence: "A project-level EIS is currently underway for the East Link Project and is expected to be released in early 2008. Change to " and a draft report is expected to be released in eafl.y Fall2008." 15. p.91 Table 3-16: Under the transit facility actions there are facilities, services and improvements that can be provided within the jurisdiction of the City of Redmond and those that are provide by other jurisdictions including Metro and Sound Transit. Suggest changing "Provide" to "Provide for" or "Work with" those agencies that provide those services and facilities as appropriate. 16. P.lOl 3.6.4.2.1: How did Redmond arrive at an assumption of 15.3% transit mode share for the Action Alternative? 17. P.l 01 3.6.4.2.1: The city made assumptions regarding transit mode share for the No-Action and Action Alternatives. For East Link analysis, Sound Transit will ---PAGE BREAK--- forecast ridership using its own transit forecasting model and the results will likely be different. Appendix A 18. p.A9 Appendix A: Draft Policies: N-OV-28 on page A9 refers to a mode-split goal and includes as a way of reaching it as providing expanded transit options including light rail and BRT . This makes it sound like the City would be providing these services. It may be more appropriate for the City to provide a transit supportive environment as mentioned previously in the policy and to include language regarding working with transit providers to provide these serv1ces. 19. P.AlO N-OV-35 specifically identifies 3 options for a preferred light rail alignment through Overlake Village. These are consistent with what is to be studied in the EIS at this time, but it may be more appropriate to include flexibility in this policy to allow for modifications to the station location that still address the community vision. 20. P.A13 N-OV-54, 4th bullet, see comment on p.91 above 21. P.A15 N-OV-66 "Prepare a station area plan for a light rail station area once a light rail alignment is identified . " Change to" . once a light rail alignment is identified selected by the Sound Transit Board of Directors " Appendix B 22. P.B5 Overlake Village Map - Delete light rail alternative alignment on Bel-Red Road. Also revise per comment 19 23. P.B37 RCDG 20C.45.40-130: Revised Draft Overlake Arterial Streets Cross Sections - In order to provide for a light rail corridor on 152"d Ave NE removal of the median and on-street parking would provide only 28 feet for the light rail guideway. Sound Transit light rail design assumes 30 feet. Appendix C 24. P.4 While part of the Link Light Rail system, the Tacoma Link vehicle will not be used on the East Link Project. Suggest replacing with an image of Central Link vehicle. 25. C - P .11 - Overlake Village Actions Revise per comment 9 and 19 26. P.27 T-4 (sidebar) In the statement" In planning for transit services, Redmond will strive to achieve • Timely identification of preferred light rail route to ---PAGE BREAK--- support redevelopment decisions in the next three years." Please explain what is meant by or what actions Redmond contemplates to "to achieve timely identification of a preferred light rail route." 27. P.37 Implementation: 3 - The statement "Identify what can be done before a preferred light rail alignment is selected." What is meant by "what can be done?" Appendix E 28. P.El: Transit: Please change the following statements "As part of its recently adopted ST2 Plan, Sound Transit is proposing to build an LRT line from through the Bel-Red Corridor in the Bellevue and Overlake Area to Downtown Redmond- known as the East Link Project" to "As part of its recently adopted ST2 J2.lem Dra(t Package'' Sound Transit is proposing to build an LRI' line from through the Bel Red Corridor in the Bellevue and Overlake Area to Downtovro Redmond extend the Central Link Light Rail Transit project from Seattle to Bellevue and Redmond via 1-90 and Mercer Island - known as the East Link Project. Tn t1ie same-paragrapiilfStates "Tiierefore,-the LRTTine 1s not assumed in the No Action Alternative, but is included in the Action Alternative." This should be stricken. See comment 1. 29. P.4 of 10 Transportation Action Alternative RED-OV-035a and RED-OV-035b: Mid-Block Crossings - These two projects would provide mid-block crossings on 152nd Ave NE between NE 201h Street and NE 24th Street, and NE 24th Street and NE 31st Street respectively. The East Link Project D3 Alternative does not assume these crossings and may not be possible due to system design or have operational impacts. 30. P .9 of 10 Transportation Action Alternative RED-OV -071 and RED-OV -085 - Change "NE 40th Street Transit Center" to "Overlake Transit Center". ---PAGE BREAK--- ~SI'CityofRedmond WAS H INGTON August 21, 2007 Leonard McGhee, Segment Manager East Link Light Rail Sound Transit Union Station 401 S Jackson Street Seattle, W A 98104-2826 Dear Leonard, Thank you for your comments on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate your comments, both general and specific, and believe that we can address some of your questions and concerns. It was not our intention for any portions of the Draft SEIS to imply that the East Link Project is predicated on the Action Alternative; these instances will be revised for the Final SEIS. We will also clarify in the Final SEIS when an agency other than the City of Redmond will be responsible for implementing specific elements of the plan, such as light rail or other transit service. While we recognize that the East Link Project is subject to the approval of a financing plan by the voters in November 2007 and could serve the Overlake Village and Employment Areas under either the No Action or Action Alternative, we felt it important to analyze the transportation system both with and without the presence of light rail. The absence of the East Link Project in the No Action Alternative was intentional as a means of responding to citizen comment and providing a baseline analysis of the transportation system and traffic conditions in the future. In addition, we believe that not including light rail in the No Action Alternative expands the range of alternatives considered and is therefore more consistent with SEPA requirements. For these reasons, we believe it is important to analyze one alternative without light rail. The Final SEIS will better clarify this r~tionale. Attached you will find responses to your more specific comments on the Draft SEIS. If you have any further questions regarding the ONP project or the Final SEIS, please contact Lori Peckol at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Rob Odie Planning Director City Hall · 15670 NE 85th Street · PO Box 97010 · Redmond, wl· 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- Specific City of Redmond Overtake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Response to Sound Transit Review Comments August 21, 2007 3. P.i.- Fact Sheet- Description of Proposal, 3rd paragraph was revised per Sound Transit's suggestion but retains a reference to Downtown Redmond, as our modeling included that location as the system's ultimate terminus. 4. P.5- Project Background, 3rd bullet: Other facility improvements could include those associated with Metro's Rapid Ride bus rapid transit system, stormwater management facilities, and roadway improvements within the neighborhood boundaries. 5. P.8 - Section 1.6.2: The second station location is now referred to as "in the vicinity of' or "near" NE 401h Street. 6. P.23- Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative - Overlake Village: The East Link Light Rail Project has not been added to the No Action Alternative per comments in letter above. 7. P.26- Figure 2-4: No Action Alternative Transportation Projects: The East Link Light Rail Project has not been added to the No Action Alternative per comments in letter above. 8. P .29- Transit projects, 1 51 bullet now indicates that the development of light rail transit service and stations is a Sound Transit project and includes a statement that the light rail project is in the early stages of design and environmental review by Sound Transit. 9. P.29 - Transit projects: The BRT service mentioned in the second bullet and on Figure 2-9 is part of King County Metro's "Transit Now" service (RapidRide). The peak period commuter bus mentioned in the second bullet and on Figure 2-9 is likely to be part of Sound Transit's future service. The service provider and status of planning has been clarified. I 0. P.31 -Figure 2-5: Action Alternative- Overlake Village: The Bel-Red Road alignment was removed from this graphic as the alignment is no longer being considered. The potential station behind Safeway was shifted so that it is not depicted as being on a curve. 11. P.50 - Table 3-8, l 51 row/2nd column: The statement that no light rail is assumed as part of the East Link project has been clarified, but the East Link Light Rail Project has not been added to the No Action Alternative per comments in letter above. 12. P.50 - Table 3-8, 2nd row/2nd column: The statement was revised to suggest that the target housing density and mix of uses would provide moderate support for transit. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- I3. P.90- 2nd sentence was revised to reflect more specific timing of vote in November 2007. I4. P.90- Is1 paragraph, last sentence was revised to reflect Sound Transit's anticipated timing for release of a draft EIS. IS. P.9I- Table 3- I6: Revisions were made to suggest that Redmond will work with Metro or Sound Transit to provide transit services and facilities as appropriate. 16. P.IOI - 3.6.4.2.I: The transit mode share assumption used in transportation modeling is based on a review of existing conditions and mode splits from regional models. The BKR model projected that IS.I percent of the PM peak hour trips in Over lake would use transit. 17. P. I 0 I - 3.6.4.2. I: A note has been made to clarify that Sound Transit will forecast ridership using its own transit forecasting model and that the results will likely be different. Appendix A I8. P.A9- Policy N-OV-28 was revised to suggest that the City will provide a transit supportive environment and work with transit providers to provide services such as light rail and bus rapid transit. I9. P.A I 0- Policy N-OV -35 was revised to allow for more flexibility for the possible light rail alignments through Overlake Village and to allow for modifications to the station location that still address the community vision. 20. P.A I3- Policy N-OV -54, 41h bullet was revised to suggest that Redmond will work with Metro or Sound Transit to provide effective transit facilities and routes. 21. P .A I 5 - Policy N-OV -66 was revised to clarify that the light rail alignment will be selected by the Sound Transit Board of Directors. Appendix B 22. P.BS - Overlake Village Map: The Bel-Red Road alignment was removed. 23. P.B37 - RCDG 20C.45.40-I30, Revised Draft Overlake Arterial Streets Cross Sections: The cross-section for 152 11d A venue NE has been revised to accommodate light rail in 30 feet of right-of-way. We have added an additional 2 feet to the median, which, along with on-street parking, could be removed to accommodate light rail. Appendix C 24. P.4 - Redmond will contact Sound Transit for a photo of a Central Link vehicle to replace the image of a Tacoma Link vehicle. 25. P.II - Overlake Village Actions: The Bel-Red Road alignment was removed from the map. Service providers will be added to the legend for both bus rapid transit and light rail. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 26. P.27 - T-4 sidebar: We have revised the second bullet in this sidebar to read: "Timely identification of a preferred light rail route through continued collaboration with Sound Transit. " This is intended to reflect our commitment to coordination with Sound Transit on planning for the East Link line. 27. P.37 - Implementation, bullet 3 refers to supportive planning actions Redmond can take to help Sound Transit in the selection of a preferred light rail alignment, such as aiding with public outreach and evaluation of potential ridership, among other issues. Appendix E 28. P.E I -Transit: The identified statements regarding the background on the East Link Project have been revised per Sound Transit's suggestions. 29. P.4 of I 0- Transportation Action Alternative, RED-OY-035a and RED-OY-035b, Mid-Block Crossings: The mid-block crossings on 152nd A venue NE identified on the proposed project list are meant as interim projects until new street connections at NE 28th and NE 2Yd Streets are improved. 30. P.9 of 10- Transportation Action Alternative, RED-OY-071 and RED-OV-085: NE 40th Street Transit Center will be changed to Overlake Transit Center. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Bellevue o«~Bel.< ~ Post Office Box 90012 • Bellevue, Washington • 98009 9012 ~ RECEIVED May4, 2007 Rob Odie, Planning Director and Responsible Official City of Redmond P.O. Box 97010 Redmond, W A 98073-9710 MA'< 1 1 2007 DEPT. cn..Y OF REDMOND RE: Comments on Overlake Neighborhood Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Odie: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) which has been prepared for the update of the Overlake Neighborhood Plan. We appreciate the on-going efforts regarding collaboration on both cities' respective planning efforts in Overlake and Bel-Red. Staff from each city have met on a regular basis with each other, and participated at public events being held by the other city. We look forward to continued collaboration as both cities continue our respective planning efforts, and coordinate on implementation work. The planning that is underway in the Overlake area of Redmond and the Bel-Red area of Bellevue provide exciting opportunities for each respective city and the greater Eastside. However, each city must also be diligent about ensuring that the impacts of this growth does not adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods and the overall transportation system. We have the following comments on the SEIS for your consideration: 1. Alternatives: We understand that the preferred alternative being analyzed in the SEIS assumes both a greater amount of growth than the "No Action" alternative, and also assumes a greater amount of public investment necessary to support it. We appreciate the acknowledgement of the connection between growth and infrastructure to support it, and agree that this will be a critical element in ensuring that the assumed land use can be accommodated. As both Redmond and Bellevue work to implement our respective plans in the coming years, we believe that phasing growth in over time according to the infrastructure will be a critical element in being able to allow growth without impacting surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, this critical phasing of land use and infrastructure should include transportation capacity, within both the host city and the neighboring jurisdiction. Both cities should look at the phasing of growth both independently and collectively in the update to the current BROTS agreement. 2. Land Use: The action altemative contemplates a greater amount of future commercial and housing development than does the No Action alternative. The action alternative also appears to contemplate allowing greater residential heights (up to 10 stories) than the "base" height of 5 stories in the Overlake Village area, to be reached through incentives. Allowing greater building heights in exchange for incentives is something that Bellevue is analyzing in the Bel Red corridor as well. However, our steering committee has directed city staff to provide a view analysis, looking at potential impacts of greater building heights on surrounding neighborhoods, and we plan to incorporate that into our Final EIS for the Bel Red project. Given the proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods to Overlake, we believe that any additional height contemplated in Over lake (even if achieved through incentives) should be evaluated through a similar view analysis to ensure that there are no adverse impacts from light, glare, etc. This view analysis should include Depanment of Planning & Community Development • (425) 452-6864 • Fax (425) 452-5225 • TDD (425) 452-4636 Lobby floor of City Hall. Main Street and 116'" Avenue SE ---PAGE BREAK--- - - May4, 2007 Page2 . -fi." _ . perspectives from surrounding Bellevue neighborhoods, and should be conducted prior to any decision on additional building heights. 3. Transportation: As you are aware, Bellevue is contemplating changing the vision for the Bel-Red Corridor to allow new land uses and additional growth in the area, particularly office and residential growth. We have attempted to identify multi-modal transportation solutions to mitigate these impacts, including improving the regional system consistent with adopted plans, improving connections to the regional system, increasing general purpose road capacity, creating more arterial connections, and improving transit. Additional growth in Redmond Overlake (particularly as contemplated in the current "ambitious" alternative) will clearly require additional improvements to the transportation system serving the Overtake area, including in parts of Bellevue. We are encouraged that the SEIS seems to indicate some improvements in Overlake in the action alternative, in part through the use of aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) measures, especially parking management, and greater transit use. We hope that Redmond is strongly conunitted to implementing those measures (particularly TDM measures), as they will be critical to mitigating traffic impacts from the employment area of Over lake. Along that line, given that most available transit will have to operate in mixed flow on arterial streets, it will be important to minimize congestion related delays wherever possible. We are concerned that some of the specific transportation assumptions understate the impacts of the land use change on our shared local transportation system. More specifically, the inclusion of added capacity on SR 520 only in the Action Alternative directly reduces forecast volumes on arterial streets like 148 1h Avenue (masking the result of the land use growth). The mode choice assumptions for all trips generated in the Overlake area (20% 1-IOV and 15% transit) may be overly aggressive. Even with these assumptions, the SDEIS identifies (on page 111) at least two intersections of particular concern for LOS at 140 111/Bel Red and 140t 11/NE 20'h·to which we would add 1561h/Bel-Red and Bel- Red/NE 24th, which show a decline from LOS D toE with the Action Alternative. It is also important to formally reiterate our concern about a project that we expected to be included in your future network, the eastbound SR 520 slip ramp, crossing under 148 111 Avenue toNE 24th Street. Our previous joint analysis as part of the BROTS N-S study recommended this linkage, and subsequent analysis for the Bel-Red Corridor indicates it would attract significant volume, primarily destined for the Microsoft campus, and provide substantial relief to the very congested intersection of 148 111/NE 24th. The impacts of the land use intensification on north-south streets in East Bellevue is a continuing concern of course, and the SETS acknowledges on page 109 that 60% of the southbound vehicle trips on !48th Avenue (south of Bel-Red Road) in 2030 will have origins in the Overlake area, and another 14% will come from the rest of Redmond. This points out the need for continuing cooperation between our two jurisdictions to jointly identify mitigation for travel impacts. As we stated in our scoping letter, we are disappointed that Redmond has embarked on a course of transportation modeling that will not allow direct comparison of the transportation impacts of Redmond Overlake land use changes and Bellevue's Bel-Red Corridor work. Bellevue has been continuously improving the BKR model since it was used for the technical analysis a decade ago that supported the current BROTS agreement. As we work in the coming months to reconcile the transportation impacts and mitigation measures for the Bel Red and Overlake plans, a shared technical approach will again be critical to establishing I) what the necessary changes to transportation facilities and services are, 2) when they will be needed, 3) how the travel demand and improvement costs ought to be allocated given the planned growth by community, and 4) who will be responsible for leading project implementation. As you know, Bellevue staff has already begun embarking on a sensitivity analysis modeling the transportation impacts of the two plans, using the ---PAGE BREAK--- · - - . May 4, 2007 Page 3 BKR model as a base. We hope that this work can lead to agreement on the technical basis for upcoming work on the overall update of the BROTS agreement.. 4. Timing of Plan Approval: We appreciate you including appendices in the SEIS outlining proposed Comprehensive Plan updates and proposed updates to Redmond's Community Development Guide to begin implementing the neighborhood plan recommendations. We understand that Redmond plans to adopt the Overtake neighborhood plan update in phases. Given the strong interconnection between future planning for Overtake and Bel-Red, and given that the two cities must work together to jointly identify transportation mitigation strategies, we believe that both cities should adopt our respective plans in the same general timeframe, and make sure that we are well on the way to having an updated BROTS agreement before adoption of either plan. While we appreciate the work that has taken place so far between staff from both cities on working on framing this work, we still have much more to do before we can be assured that the transportation impacts of the two plans combined can be mitigated. We strongly urge that Redmond not adopt any plan or regulatory updates that enable greater amounts of land use development than are already allowed in the BROTS interlocal, in advance of both cities' agreement on the update ofBROTS. We look forward to continuing to work with Redmond as we work towards jointly analyzing transportation projects and other implementation measures that will support these two important planning efforts. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS. cc: Steve Sarkozy, City Manager Dan Stroh, Planning Director K.ris Liljeblad, Assistant Director, Transportation Transportation Department ---PAGE BREAK--- CityofRedmond WA.SHINGTON August 20, 2007 Matthew Terry, Planning and Community Development Department Director Goran Sparrman, Transportation Department Director City of Bellevue PO Box 90012 Bellevue, W A 98009-9012 Dear Matthew and Goran, Thank you for your comments on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate and support the on-going collaboration between the cities' respective planning efforts in the Overtake and Bel-Red planning areas. We believe this letter will address some of your questions and concerns. I. Alternatives: The Action Alternative analyzed in the SEIS assumes both a greater amount of growth through 2030 than the ·'No Action" alternative, and a greater amount of public investment to support it. We agree that phasing growth over time will be a critical element in allowing additional development capacity while minimizing impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed policies under review by the Planning Commission include support for considering phased increases in the zoning capacity in the Employment Area. The proposed policies also support linking those increases to additional housing development in the neighborhood, improvements in transportation and/or transit facilities or services, achievement of goals related to mode splits, and the adequacy of parks or emergency services. We will examine this issue in more depth as part of our collective work with Bellevue on updating the BROTS agreement 2. Land Use: The Action Alternative allows for greater heights beyond the "base" height of 5 stories in the Overlake Village portion of the neighborhood through a proposed bonus incentive program. For the majority of sites, a maximum height of 8 stories could be achieved through this program; on the two sites identified for regional stormwater management facilities, a maximum height of 9 stories could be achieved. Group Health has included a similar bonus incentive program as part of their proposed amendment which would allow residential and hotel buildings to achieve a maximum height of 12 stories. Your letter requests that the Final EIS include a view analysis to ensure there are no adverse impacts from light or glare on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Redmond's Community Development Guide includes regulations for exterior lighting to protect residential neighborhoods from light trespass. Proposed design standards for Overtake would strengthen existing design standards by calling for use of building materials that minimize light and glare. City Hall · 15670 NE 85th Street· PO Box 97010 · Redmond, wt· 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- A small portion of the Overlake Village District borders a residential zone that is located on the west side of I 48th A venue NE, north of SR 520. The height in this location is proposed to be limited to 6 stories. Single family neighborhoods to the south and east are separated from the Overlake Village by commercial zones in Bellevue. Finally, neither Redmond nor Bellevue has identified public view corridors in this area. In the absence of established public views to be protected, we are unclear on the purpose and need for view analysis through the Final EIS for the Overlake project. Redmond staff has worked with Bellevue staff to provide information on potential building heights and locations within Overlake Village for the view analysis conducted for the Bel-Red Corridor. Further, we will continue to work with Bellevue staff to identify those locations of specific interest within Bellevue regarding this topic. 3. Transportation: The proposed transportation actions associated with the Action Alternative include a number of multi-modal projects and programs. These improvements include new pedestrian and bicycle networks, greater efficiency of the existing roadway network, new local street connections, and transit facilities. Redmond is also committed to the transportation demand and parking management program actions that are contained in the proposal, as these will play an important role in helping Overlake achieve the proposed 40 percent non-single- occupancy-vehicle mode share target for 2030. In response to your comments, we are including an eastbound SR 520 slip ramp in the Final SEIS. We recognize the concerns regarding north-south streets in East Bellevue, and are committed to jointly identify transportation needs and solutions in this area. Further, we agree that a shared technical approach will be critical to identification of that mitigation. Regarding SR 520, both alternatives include the assumption of a six-lane, tolled facility across Lake Washington between I-5 and Bellevue Way (four general purpose lanes and two HOY lanes). The Action Alternative also includes an assumption for transportation improvements east of 1 ogth A venue NE to add freeway capacity by adding general purpose lanes and making interchange improvements at key locations. The mode share assumption for the 2030 Action Alternative is roughly the same as the mode share assumed for the BKR model that was provided by Bellevue as the No Action Alternative. 4. Timing of Plan Approval: Consistent with the timeline we established and have communicated since the beginning of this project, we are seeking approval of the proposed updates to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan policies and Redmond Community Development Guide regulations contained in Phase 1 of the Overlake project by the end of 2007. The proposal began review with Planning Commission on May 23, 2007 and will likely finish review with that body by the end of August. The proposed Phase I updates set the framework for our continued coordination with Bellevue through joint work on an updated BROTS Agreement and consideration of Phase 2 amendments next year. However, this first phase of proposed updates maintains the City's commitment to the BROTS cap on commercial development and does not contemplate more residential dwellings through 2030 under the Action Alternative than are allowed under current zoning. N·\Bei-Red Planning\Correspondence\Bellevue\Lctter to Bellevue - RE DSEJS Comments rja 07-081 7.doc 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- If you have any further questions regarding the ONP project or the Final SEIS, please contact Lori Peckel at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Rob Odie Planning Director N \Bel-Red Planning\Correspondence\Bellevue\Letter to Bellevue - RE DSEIS Comments rja 07-0817 doc 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Microsoft CorPOration One Microsoft Way Redmond. WA 98052-6399 May 17, 2007 Tel [PHONE REDACTED] Fax [PHONE REDACTED] http://www.microsoft.com/ Jayme Jonas, Assistant Planner City of Redmond Planning Department 15670 NE 851h Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 SUBJECT: Overlake Neighborhood Plan Comments Dear Jayme; Microsoft Thanks for taking the time with us to review pending revisions to policy and site requirements on the Overlake neighborhood. As we discussed, Microsoft believes that there are opportunities to further improve the proposed regulations in the following areas: 1. 20C.45.40-050 Building Height- We recommend that the regulations be modified to allow an addition floor v. specifying 15 feet in the code. This would allow greater flexibility in floor-to-floor design in the future while maintaining the intent of the policy. 2. 20C.45.30.40. Permitted Land Uses- Convenience service and retail uses should be allowed to have sufficient signage and seating capacity to make them viable while maintaining the intent of not drawing numbers of customers from outside the district. 3. Policy N-OV-36, Transit- Microsoft believes that we should leave open the possibility of an additional light rail station at NE 51 51/SR520 given the amount of commercial and residential (current and future) within walking distance of this location. With Microsoft's purchase and expansion of the former Safeco campus, and the potential that a developer could expand on the currently vacant Nintendo property, there is sufficient critical mass to support a station at this location. 4. Policy N-OV-41. Parking - Microsoft believes that reducing parking around transit stations may be the wrong solution. In many other light/heavy rail systems around the US transit agencies are adding parking given ---PAGE BREAK--- additional user demand. In addition, if East Link terminates in Overlake, even for a short term period, traffic and parking will be drawn to this location, requiring additional parking in an area already under parked. 5. Policy N-OV-43, Parking - Microsoft does not believe a residential parking permit system is necessary given that even with current parking pressures on our campus we have never had a complaint from the Grass Lawn, Bridle Trails or Sherwood Forest neighborhoods on this issue 6. Policy N-OV-33 , Pedestrian & Bicycle Environment- Microsoft believes that in some cases this requirement may be redundant. For example, on 1561h Avenue NE and NE 401h Street adjacent to our main campus sidewalks are sufficiently wide to allow multiple modes. Adding a foot or two to the sidewalks in these locations would not be as effective as using this funding for other locations where sidewalks are currently not available. 7. Policy N-OV-67, Employment Area- What is "moderate intensity"? 8. Policy N-OV-68. Employment Area -What is "higher intensity"? 9. Policy N-OV-75, Employment Area- Where exactly are the two parks proposed to be located in the Employment Area? Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the planning process for Overlake. Please contact me at [PHONE REDACTED] if you need further clarification. Sincerely, Jim Stanton, Sr. Community Affairs Manager Microsoft Real Estate & Facilities Cc: - Don Marcy - Cairncross & Hemplemann 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page I of2 Jayme Jonas From: Jayme Jonas · Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:28PM To: 'Jim Stanton' Cc: Lori Peckel Subject: Overlake Neighborhood Plan comments Jim, Thank you for your letter dated May 17, 2007 with comments on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan proposed policies and regulations. We wanted to get back to you regarding how we've responded to your comments in the proposals that are under review by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission began review of both the Overlake Neighborhood Plan amendment and the Group Health requested amendment on May 23. The public hearing began on May 30 and will remain open through at least June 20. 1. Building height The regulations were modified to allow an additional floor, rather than specifying 15 feet. This is consistent with other places in the code that allow for a similar provision. 2. Convenience uses: The regulations related to signage for convenience service and retail uses were revised to allow for limited signage so that employees are aware of such businesses. The seating capacity for restaurants fitting this type of land use category was maintained so as to be consistent with similar seating capacity limitations for restaurants that serve primarily employees in other city zones. Restaurants that are solely for employee use do not have seating capacity limits. 3. Light rail stations: No revisions were made to Policy N-OV-36 discussing light rail stations. I believe that a follow up meeting was scheduled with you on this issue. 4. Parking near transit stations: No revisions were made to Policy N-OV-41 which suggests considering reducing or eliminating parking minimums for developments near transit stations. In this case, a maximum parking standard would still apply, but developers would be enabled to provide as much (up to the maximum) or as little parking as the market demands. Lessons may be learned related to this issue from the parking study currently underway for Downtown Redmond that could apply to Overlake. 5. Parking: No revisions were made to Policy N-OV-43 which, in part, calls for monitoring the need for a residential parking permit system in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the Employment Area. We appreciate that Microsoft has never received a complaint from residents in these areas regarding parking, but recognize that some parking impacts could occur in these neighborhoods over time. This policy does not require such a parking permit program be established, but simply provides guidance to the City that this situation be monitored periodically in the future. 6. Multi-use trails In response to this comment, staff revised the Administrative Design Flexibility (ADF) provision in the proposed regulations to apply to the Employment Area also. This allows for flexibility on sidewalks provided the request meets ADF criteria. 7. Intensity: "Moderate intensity" is generally described by regulations contained in the site requirements chart, such as allowed FAR, allowed height, building set-backs, etc. 8. Intensity: While "higher intensity" uses are not generally described in the site requirements chart or in other places in the Overlake regulations, this policy provides guidance for supporting and encouraging development that can support the existing transit station at NE 40th Street. 9. Employment Area parks: The 2 parks identified in the existing Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan are generally described as: one on the West side of SR 520, and one on the east side of SR 520 south of NE 40th Street. Please let me Know if you have any additional questions or comments. 08/21 /2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- Thanks, Jay me Jayme Jonas. Assistant Planner Redmond Planning Department 15670 NE 85th Street, MS 4SPL Redmond, WA 98073-9710 Phone: (425) 556-2496 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] 08/21 /2007 Page 2 of2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of I Lori Peckol From: Hank Myers [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, April19, 2007 8:46PM To: Lori Peckol Subject: Overlake Neighborhood web feedback Hi Lori: I just took the Overlake neighborhood survey as you suggested. Problems: single line comments boxes had limits on response length so that cogent and reflective comments could not be made; there was no general comment box, only the questions that the survey wanted addressed were available; when I submitted the survey I got a broken link. I am happy to respond to the question, but after filling everything out carefully I don't know if my comments were even transmitted. Whoever did the survey for you, exclude them in the future and tell them why. Getting back to the issue I raised directly about transportation. While improvements (not reductions in capacity) along 1481h would be nice, improvement in flow speed and capacity along NE 241h is vital before any increases in density are allowed. Second, going from four traffic lanes on 152°d to two is bad planning. The rationalizations you made for having fewer than three lanes were actually contradictory. The plan that was presented to the panel was for a three lane traffic pattern with bike lanes on each side of the street. The new rationale doesn't address bike lanes but provides parking (I'm assuming parallel parking) next to the single traffic lane in each direction. Parked cars really slow down traffic, just look at Main Street in Bellevue between Bellevue Way and 100th NE. Having drivers exit their cars into the single (and assumedly congested) lane of traffic is a safety problem, and a traffic distraction. You said that the parking would provide a buffer for pedestrians, but the original plan had bike lanes serving that purpose and helping traffic flow. Redmond has used trees, raised planters and other much more attractive and non-invasive. Providing safe and attractive sidewalks is not inconsistent with accommodating vehicle traffic flow on the street. Get the cars off the street and use the space to encourage all forms of transportation. I guess that is direct as I can be, and look forward to a direct response. Best wishes and thanks for your ear. Hank Myers MTC 05/16/2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- CityofRedmond WA<)HI'JGTON August 28, 2007 Hank Myers 17409 NE 22"d Street Redmond, W A 98052 Dear Mr. Myers, Earlier this year you participated in the on-line survey for the Overlake Neighborhood Plan update. You also provided comments about transportation planning for the area and while I'm not sure whether you intended those comments in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) we had released, I wanted to respond within that context as part of completion of the Final SEIS. Regarding NE 24th Street, the Final SEIS includes a proposed eastbound SR 520 slip ramp at 148th Avenue NE and NE 241h Street. The intent of this ~reject is to reduce the potential for increased traffic impacts at the 148th Avenue NE/NE 24t Street intersection by providing an alternative route through the area. The proposed transportation improvements also include the construction of additional local streets in the Overlake Village District to alleviate pressure on the arterials. Under the Action Alternative, the proposed cross-section for 152"d A venue NE does include bike lanes as well as two general purpose lanes and on-street parking. Since each of the proposed light rail transit (LRT) alignments under consideration by Sound Transit include a portion of 152"d A venue NE, we anticipate that this cross-section would need to be transitioned in the future to accommodate light rail transit (LRT), which will require 30 feet ofthe right-of-way. This could be accomplished in at least two ways. One option is to remove the median and on- street parking in locations where additional space is needed for LRT. Another option is to remove the median, bike lanes, and one side of the on-street parking where space is needed. Consideration of these and other alternatives would occur as part of final design of the alignment. The 152"d Avenue NE/NE 24th Street intersection is currently operating at a level of service C during the PM peak hour. Transportation analysis conducted as part of the proposed neighborhood plan update indicates that under the No Action Alternative, the PM peak hour level of service at this intersection is anticipated to worsen to LOS E. However, under the Action Alternative, the level of service at the intersection is expected to remain at C. We anticipate that these results are due to the proposed transportation improvements together with other strategies in the Action Alternative. City Hall• 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA • 98073-97'0 ---PAGE BREAK--- We appreciate your comments and your participation in the planning efforts for Overlake. I hope this response addresses some of your concerns. If there is anything else we can provide at this point, please contact me at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. ~t~NL Lori Peckol Policy Planning Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 1 Lori Peckol From: Ken Schiring [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, April23, 2007 8:29AM To: Rob Odie Cc: Lori Peckol Subject: Overlake Neighborhood SEIS Good morning Understandably I haven't been able to do justice to this statement. But in the review I have done in both this SEIS and Supplemental hand-outs one statement caught my eye. On a fly sheet headed Existing Patterns, in the "City Actions" at the bottom was a statement proposing allowing BROTS to expire in 2012. If I'm not reading this out of context this is certainly a "red flag". The combined growth of the adjacent Overlake areas will demand, more than ever, the cooperative guidance that BROTS provided. The "caps" will have to be revised to allow both cities to develop these vital areas. Rather than "allowed to expire", as soon as both Cities approve their future growth plans, BROTZ should be reconvened and up-dated. New "cap" will have to be agreed upon and then address the transportation challenges this expansion will bring to both cities. I have been disturbed through the entire process of planning for Bel-Red and Overlake that we have not had a more direct inter-face to compare plans and impacts. This really should not be looked as a Bellevue project and a Redmond project. Streets, traffic and the light rail tie these vital areas together as one. We need the cooperative agreements that have been representative of our relationship through the '80's and 90's. Having been a Bellevue representative, along with Bob Steed, on the Redmond Overlake CAC in 1996-97 I've experienced the joint concern and cooperation of development through the years of this area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment Ken Schiring - Purchasing Western Integrated Technologies Bellevue WA (425) 747-0927 05/ 16/2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- CityofRedmond WAr>HII\IC~ON August 28, 2007 Ken Schiring 16223 NE 28th Street Bellevue, W A 98008 Dear Mr. Schiring, Thank you for your comments on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate your comments and your long standing participation in planning for the future of the Bel-Red and Overlake areas. We agree that the cities of Redmond and Bellevue have a long and valuable history of collaborative planning in the area that has served both communities well. Updating the Bellevue Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) Agreement, including phasing for commercial development and transportation projects and strategies, is a high priority for both cities and we anticipate that the update will be completed in 2008. The "Existing Patterns" alternative is Redmond's "No Action" alternative for purposes of environmental analysis. This alternative does not assume a new BROTS agreement because it is intended to reflect a true no action scenario. In contrast, the Action Alternative does assume an updated BROTS agreement and the proposed Overlake Master Plan includes this step as one of the implementation actions. While the Overlake and Bel-Red Corridor projects have not been undertaken as one joint effort, the cities of Redmond and Bellevue have updated each other on the planning work and coordinated throughout the process. This has included meetings on topics such as modeling and transportation assumptions, staff participation at neighborhood meetings, joint City Council meetings, and other coordination efforts. We agree that Overlake and the Bel-Red Corridor are two vital areas within the greater Bellevue- Redmond corridor, and we look forward to continued collaboration in the planning and implementation of plans for these areas. If there is anything else we can provide at this point, please contact me at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, ciMl' ~k/vG Lori Peckol Policy Planning Manager City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 9701 0 • Redmond, WA • 98073 9/1 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 209 5. Distribution List 5.1 Federal Agencies US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region X US Army Corps of Engineers Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington State Regional Office Federal Highway Administration 5.2 State Agencies Commission to Washington State Utilities and Transportation Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development Washington State Department of Ecology and GMA Coordinator, Environmental Review Section Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Washington State Ecological Commission Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Natural Resources, SEPA Center Washington State Department of Community Development, Growth Management Program Washington State Department of Financial Management Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Transportation Office of Urban Mobility Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Washington State Department of Corrections Washington State Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation Washington State Department of Health Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 5.3 Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Seattle-King County Economic Development Council Puget Sound Regional council Bellevue School District Lake Washington School District Sound Transit 5.4 King County Agencies and Office King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks King County Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division King County Department of Development and Environmental Services King County Department of Transportation King County Metro Transit Environmental Planning King County Historic Preservation Program ---PAGE BREAK--- 210 Office of the King County Executive 5.5 Neighboring Cities Bellevue Kirkland Issaquah Woodinville Sammamish 5.6 Utilities and Services Puget Sound Energy 5.7 General Interest Groups Eastlake Washington Audubon Society Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce Bellevue Chamber of Commerce Bellevue Downtown Association League of Women Voters Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Snoqualmie Tribal Council Tulalip Tribes of Washington East Bellevue Community Council Bridal Trails Community Club 5.8 Libraries Municipal Research Center Library King County Library System Redmond Regional Library University of Washington Library Bellevue Public Library Kirkland Library 5.9 Newspapers Seattle Times Seattle Post-Intelligence Kirkland Courier Review Redmond Reporter Daily Journal of Commerce ---PAGE BREAK--- 211 6. List of Acronyms AWDT Average Weekday Daily Traffic BKR Model Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond Model BLOS Bicycle Level of Service BMP Best Management Practice BROTS Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAO Critical Areas Ordinance CIP Capital Improvement Plan CO Carbon Monoxide COE US Army Corps of Engineers CPP Countywide Planning Policies dB Decibel dBA A-weighted Decibel EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAR Floor Area Ratio FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FHWA Federal Highway Administration GMA Growth Management Act kV Kilovolt LID Low Impact Development LRT Light Rail Transit LOS Level of Service MG Million Gallons mgd Million Gallons per Day MPH Miles per Hour MSAT Mobile Toxic Pollutants MVA Megavolt-Ampers NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards ONP Overlake Neighborhood Plan PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter ppm Parts per Million PRO Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency PSE Puget Sound Energy PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council RCDG Redmond Community Development Guide RCTV Redmond Community Television SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SLM Sound Level Measurement ST2 Sound Transit 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 212 TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TDM Transportation Demand Management TESSL Tolt Eastside Supply Pipeline TMD Transportation Management District TMP Transportation Master Plan V/C Volume to Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Redmond Comprehensive Plan Draft Revised Proposed Updates for Overlake ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A1 G. Overlake Neighborhood Policies The Overlake Neighborhood, with its mixed-use and commercial areas, corporate campuses, and residential neighborhoods, is located in the southwest corner of Redmond. The neighborhood is bounded on the west by 148th Avenue NE, on the north by NE 60th Street and State Route (SR) 520 and on the east by West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, which also forms the southern boundary with NE 20th Street. While the area commonly referred to as Overlake extends west into Bellevue, those areas are not part of the plan for Redmond’s Over- lake Neighborhood, although they were considered in preparing policies for Overlake. A. Public Participation in the Neighborhood Plan Update The Overlake Neighborhood Plan was developed in partnership and close coordination with the area’s business and property owners, people who live or work in the area, interested community members, Redmond elected officials and members of several boards and commissions. The work of the 1999 Citizens Advisory Committee was supplemented with input and comments from three neighborhood events, several focus group and stakeholder meetings, and through the Redmond website. B. Neighborhood Vision The vision statement below is a word picture of the Overlake Neighborhood in the year 2030. It is intended to describe what the neighborhood will look and feel like when the plan is imple- mented. The Overlake Neighborhood provides excellent opportunities to live, raise a family, work, de- velop a business, shop, and recreate. Overall, it is a place that: ™ Provides attractive and safe places to live close to amenities, such as restaurants and cafes, a wide selection of stores and services, and plazas and parks; ™ Meets community needs for employment, shopping, recreation, and other uses in the morn- ing, afternoon, and evening; ™ Is oriented toward pedestrians and bicyclists, well served by local and regional transit, and offers strong multimodal connections within its boundaries, and to nearby areas; ™ Is an urban environment enhanced by abundant landscaping, parks, plazas and open spaces, and preservation of natural features; and ™ Is a place that people want to be, with a unique character that is still Redmond. Within the neighborhood are three subareas, shown in Map N-OV-1: Overlake Village, the Em- ployment Area, and the Residential Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A2 Map N-OV-1 ~ Overlake Village D Employment Area ~ Residential Area Other Jurisdiction I • • I ~ 1 Neighborhood Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A3 Overlake Village This area has become a true urban, mixed-use neighborhood with a sense of place and activity that makes it attractive for living. It is part of a larger, vibrant commercial area that extends west into Bellevue with a mix of activities and uses, and is a destination for many in Redmond and in the region. ™ Residences have been added near stores and services and many more people live in the area. Housing choices include residences attractive and affordable to a wide range of household sizes and income levels. ™ Redevelopment has brought retail storefronts closer to the street, making the area more hos- pitable to transit, pedestrians, and bicycling. The neighborhood’s core, 152nd Avenue NE, is a pleasant place to walk or sit, and people stroll on the street during the day and evening. ™ Small and international businesses have been retained while others have arrived. It offers a mix of retail commercial opportunities that meet a range of needs, from daily goods and ser- vices, to niche and boutique retailers, to restaurants and entertainment. ™ A system of plazas, parks and open spaces has developed providing residents, employees, and visitors with opportunities to gather, recreate, or enjoy the natural environment and abundant landscaping. A network of walkways and trails provide connections among these spaces and to others within the Overlake neighborhood and in nearby areas. Employment Area The Employment Area is home to major corporations, advanced technology, and research and development businesses. Over time, it has maintained a campus-like environment with attractive landscaping and the protection of important natural features while developing intensively yet ef- ficiently. ™ Improved connections between this area and Overlake Village allow employees greater pe- destrian, bicycle and transit access to the shops, entertainment, recreation, and residences. ™ Smaller scale mixed-use developments offer employees convenient shopping and services and the opportunity to live close to work. ™ Together with Overlake Village, the area helps meet City and regional economic develop- ment goals by providing for economic diversity and high-wage employment. These core ac- tivity areas function and are recognized as a regional Urban Center, demonstrating that high technology uses can thrive in a balanced urban setting that offers opportunities to live, work, shop and recreate to an increasingly diverse workforce. Residential Areas The residential areas, generally located in the northeastern portion of the neighborhood, are at- tractive and well maintained. Neighborhood parks and other amenities serve these areas. ™ The single-family neighborhoods in the northeast command an east-facing slope with spec- tacular views of the Cascades, Marymoor Park and Lake Sammamish. An easy walk from Overlake’s employment area and adjacent to Downtown, they are in high demand. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A4 ™ The multi-family areas provide housing close to employment. This convenient housing is well maintained and much in demand. ™ Residential streets have little cut-through traffic, and cars travel at safe speeds. The policies in this plan are designed to help the community achieve the above vision. Fulfilling the future vision requires both private and public actions. Private actions are needed to provide desired developments and high quality design, while public investments and programs are neces- sary to draw people to this area and encourage private investment. C. General Policies The neighborhood planning process provided several opportunities to involve the public and im- prove communication between city government and the people who live, work or own property in the Overlake Neighborhood. Based on input received during the planning process, the City’s neighborhood team will continue to work to develop strong connections with the neighborhood and to enhance delivery of City services through a coordinated effort. N-OV-1: Convene neighborhood residents, property owners, area employees and the broader community periodically to reevaluate the vision for the neighborhood, progress made towards achieving the vision, urban design, and proposed public improvements in Overlake to ensure community objectives are being met. N-OV-2: Initiate and encourage community involvement to foster a positive civic and neighborhood image by establishing programs to physically enhance neighborhoods. Land Use Overlake is one of Redmond’s primary centers of activity, and through 2030 will attract greater growth in housing and continue to attract employment growth. The neighborhood allows for a wide range of uses and activities now and the intent is to maintain and enhance this variety and intensity. The land use policies guide development in a manner that will serve the needs and de- sires of existing and future residents, businesses, and visitors while ensuring that changes en- hance its character. N-OV-3: Designate the following subareas within the Overlake Neighborhood: o Overlake Village: A vibrant mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented area with opportuni- ties to live, work, shop and recreate. o Employment Area: A regional employment center with a campus-like environ- ment that also offers employees opportunities to live near work. o Residential Area: Established single- and multi-family neighborhoods. N-OV-4: Support Overlake as one of Redmond’s primary locations for residential development to help create an economically healthy and vibrant neighborhood in the morning, day- time, and evening. Promote the Overlake Village area as the primary location for mixed-use residential development within the neighborhood. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A5 N-OV-5: Recognize and maintain Overlake’s important regional employment role. Encourage businesses that provide family wage jobs, export services or goods, or help diversify the regional economy, to remain or locate in the area and grow consistent with adopted City policies. N-OV-6: Support creation of an economic development and marketing strategy to carry out the Overlake vision and policies. N-OV-7: Promote mixes of residential and commercial uses located either in a mixed-use building or among single-use buildings on a mixed-use site where appropriate. N-OV-8: Protect neighborhoods in Redmond and Bellevue from potentially adverse impacts of uses and activities in Overlake Village and the Employment Area through such meth- ods as: o Locating uses with impacts such as noise and glare on a site in a manner to mini- mize such conflicts; and o Scheduling and conducting construction, operations, maintenance, service activi- ties, and other disruptive actions to minimize resulting impacts. Overlake is located in a unique portion of Redmond that is bordered by the City of Bellevue on three sides. Redmond and Bellevue both emphasize the need for growth in the neighborhood to be well-balanced with available and planned public facilities, including transportation facilities and services. The policies below provide direction for achieving that balance. N-OV-9: Consider allowing a total development capacity of up to 19.9 million square feet of retail, office, research and development, and manufacturing uses within the Overlake Neighborhood through the year 2030. Phase increases in non-residential develop- ment capacity in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zone over time by linking increases to improvements to transportation facilities or services, increased residential development in Overlake, and the adequacy of parks, emergency services and other services needed for a daytime population. N-OV-10: Continue to collaboratively plan with Bellevue to address common challenges and capitalize on common opportunities. Work together to implement jointly agreed to plans and strategies. Consult on significant development approvals, plan amendments and development regulations and address mitigation of potential adverse impacts through consultation. Systematically coordinate on transportation and other public fa- cilities, such as regional stormwater treatment facilities that impact both cities. Residential As Redmond seeks to increase its supply and diversity of housing available to residents of vari- ous income levels and family types and sizes, a number of opportunities exist to provide for the housing needs of the community. In Overlake, providing more affordable home options could allow more employees in the area to live near work. N-OV-11: Require a minimum of 10 percent of the units in all new housing developments of 10 units or greater in the Overlake Neighborhood to be affordable. Minimize develop- ment costs associated with this requirement by providing incentives and bonuses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A6 While the mixed-use areas of Overlake provide significant opportunities for future housing de- velopment, it is equally important to maintain and protect the existing residential areas and their character. The policy below provides direction on how to maintain and protect these areas. N-OV-12: Provide for transitional uses and transitional building and site design to protect nearby residential neighborhoods. Include such techniques as: o Maintaining the existing multi-family residential designations that act as transi- tional zones; o Maintaining the current boundaries of the Employment Area by not extending into areas designated primarily for residential uses; o Providing for transitional regulations, including a greenbelt and buffer along the west side of Bel-Red Road between NE 28th and 40th Streets; and o Maintaining regulations on building bulk, building placement, site and building lighting, landscaping, noise control, and other appropriate measures. Character and Design Developing a distinct neighborhood character and sense of place depends on and in turn will en- sure that Overlake remains a place where people want to live, conduct business, visit, and spend time. This character reflects Overlake’s diverse economy, unique natural features, and high quality environment. N-OV-13: Enhance the character and environment of the Overlake Neighborhood to achieve the vision. Encourage developments that create a character for Overlake that is distinct from the Downtown. N-OV-14: Apply flexible regulations that encourage creative proposals for sites within Overlake Village and the Employment Area that are consistent with Overlake policies. Ensure that: o Building height respects views of treelines; o Developments contribute to the creation of an urban place that feels comfortable for pedestrians; o Facades in the public view are varied and articulated; and o Buildings do not appear bulky or massive. N-OV-15: Enhance the appearance of Overlake’s built environment through superior design and use of high quality and durable building materials. Soften the appearance of build- ings, service areas, and parking facilities through landscaping, use of architectural screens, and retention of healthy trees. Gateways that define the entry points of the City, Overlake Neighborhood or its subareas help people orient themselves and identify their location. Gateways also provide opportunities to dis- play an image unique to the area through symbolic markers, landscaping, or monuments. N-OV-16: Create gateways to the Overlake Neighborhood that convey the neighborhood’s iden- tity and that are integrated with the transportation system, including bicycle and pe- destrian connections, using features such as artwork, signage, landscape features and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A7 structures. Work with property owners to help create gateway design features. Gateway locations include: o 148th Avenue NE at NE 20th Street; o NE 24th Street at Bel-Red Road; o NE 40th Street at Bel-Red Road; and, o NE 40th Street at 148th Avenue NE. N-OV-17: Create gateways at the City border that welcome residents, employees and visitors to Redmond. Consider the NE 31st/36th Street Bridge across SR 520 as a gateway. Con- sider the creation of a regional stormwater facility at the corner of 148th Avenue NE and NE 20th Street as a “green gateway.” Protecting and enhancing the green and natural environment has long been a cornerstone of Redmond’s identity. Green building techniques can be used to reduce the impact of develop- ments on energy use, air quality and stormwater runoff. Low Impact Development techniques such as tree retention and compost amended soils reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. N-OV-18: Encourage the use of green building techniques and Low Impact Development meth- ods, such as green roofs, bioswales, and rain gardens. N-OV-19: Develop regional stormwater treatment facilities within Overlake to treat and detain stormwater. Integrate facilities with parks and open spaces where feasible. Offer in- centives to encourage public and private partnerships to develop these facilities. N-OV-20: Reduce the negative impact of Overlake stormwater runoff on the water quality of Lake Sammamish, Kelsey Creek, the Sammamish River, and other creeks in the neighborhood. Protect properties, streambeds, and receiving waters from erosion and other adverse impacts from the quantity of runoff. Tree retention and the planting of additional trees contribute to the image of Redmond as a green community and provide visual relief for residents, employees and visitors of the urban Overlake neighborhood. N-OV-21: Strive to retain significant concentrations of trees in such areas as wooded ravines, steep slopes along wooded slopes and terraces, and trees located along highways and streets that have the potential to buffer or screen transportation facilities, and com- mercial and employment areas from residential uses. Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and the Arts Portions of Overlake developed with minimal parks, open space or recreation opportunities. Creating a cohesive system of parks, plazas, gathering places, recreational spaces and connecting paths and trails will help meet the recreational and open space needs of current and future Over- lake residents, employees, and visitors. N-OV-22: Promote the vision of the plazas, open spaces, parks, trails and pathways and art in Overlake as being part of a cohesive system of public spaces that is integral to distin- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A8 guishing Overlake as an urban “people place.” Develop and maintain a variety of linkages, such as paths and way-finding elements, among plazas, parks and open spaces in Overlake and in nearby neighborhoods that are within walking distance of each other. N-OV-23: Recognize the urban park and open space system in Overlake Village as the neighbor- hood’s highest priority park and recreation need. Achieve the park and open space system through a strategy of City investment together with encouraging future devel- opment to include plazas, artwork, and other recreation opportunities that augment and enhance public park infrastructure. N-OV-24: Identify and create public places in Overlake that: o Offer activities and uses that attract people; o Include details such as good seating and bike racks; o Are easy to see and to access, and are safe and welcoming; o Foster interactions among visitors; and o Have a sense of permanence. N-OV-25: Encourage the creation and placement of public art, including sculptures, water fea- tures, and other elements throughout the Overlake Neighborhood. Several parks and open spaces have been developed in the Residential Area and northern Em- ployment Area of Overlake, including Cascade View Neighborhood Park, Westside Neighbor- hood Park, the Redmond West Wetlands Park and the Bridle Trails Open Space. The Bridle Crest Trail, an equestrian trail, runs through the northern portion of Overlake connecting Bridle Trails State Park with Marymoor Park. N-OV-26: Retain and enhance existing parks in Overlake and add new parks, open spaces and recreational areas in Overlake Village to make it more inviting. N-OV-27: Maintain and protect existing equestrian and multi-use trails within the neighborhood. Consider the outer portion of stream buffers as places for potential soft surface inter- pretive trails. Transportation A variety of mobility choices that significantly increase access to, from, and within Overlake are needed in the neighborhood. While there will be continued need for vehicle travel, future in- vestments will also enable more safe and attractive opportunities for walking, using transit, or bicycling between residences, stores, work, and amenities. N-OV-28: Increase mobility within Overlake and provide for convenient transit, pedestrian, and bicycle routes to and from Overlake by: o Encouraging commuter traffic to use regional facilities such as SR 520; o Encouraging use of transit, car pools, bicycles, and other forms of transportation, that decrease congestion and parking demand; o Enhancing multimodal connections within the Overlake Neighborhood and be- tween the neighborhood and nearby areas including Downtown Redmond; and ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A9 o Providing bicycle facilities, such as bicycle racks in new developments, bike lanes on key streets, and signage at key points. N-OV-29: Strive to achieve, by 2030, a non-single-occupancy vehicle (transit, bicycling, walk- ing) mode split of 40% for peak-period trips in Overlake through such means as pro- viding a pedestrian and transit supportive environment, developing supportive land uses, working with regional transit agencies to provide expanded transit options in- cluding light rail and bus rapid transit, and implementing a parking management plan. Overlake’s designation as an Urban Center qualifies it as a candidate for a Growth and Transpor- tation Efficiency Center (GTEC) designation. The GTEC concept is part of Washington’s Com- mute Trip Reduction program and enables areas to receive additional funding and assistance in creating programs to encourage use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use and reduce sin- gle-occupancy vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Such programs benefit the community by supporting improved transportation efficiency, economic development, energy conservation, air quality, and livability. N-OV-30: Establish Overlake as a Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center by 2010 to promote the use of alternative transportation modes in Overlake. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment In addition to providing pedestrian and bicycle connections within Overlake and between the neighborhood and nearby areas, these facilities must also appear attractive and safe to encourage residents, employees, and visitors to walk or bike. N-OV-31: Ensure that improvements, including streets, sidewalks, transit facilities, lighting, landscaping, and parking lots/structures, provide a pedestrian supportive environment as outlined in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and contribute to Overlake’s aesthetic appeal. N-OV-32: Encourage pedestrian activity within Overlake, including informal gatherings, through public and private investment in improvements along the streetscape such as: o Street furniture, such as benches and kiosks, that provide a unifying element; o Parks, plazas, and other “people places;” o Visual features, such as fountains, squares, and sculptures; and o Signage and markers to assist with way-finding. N-OV-33: Consider grade separation where persistent conflicts between non-motorized modes and vehicles create safety concerns. Within Overlake, a number of multimodal corridors require innovative investments to improve the pedestrian and bicycle environments. Along these corridors, multi-use pathways provide an efficient means of meeting pedestrian and bike standards. N-OV-34: Develop multi-use pathways that accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to multimodal corridors as an efficient and cost effective means of meeting pedestrian and bike standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A10 Transit A full range of transit service includes local, regional and regional express bus routes, a bus rapid transit line, and future light rail transit. Transit stations and shelters can help to facilitate the use of these services. N-OV-35: Work with regional transit agencies to provide a full range of transit service to and within Overlake. Provide transit stations, shelters and other amenities that support these services in locations that conveniently serve the neighborhood and support the vision for Overlake. Overlake, together with the Downtown and SE Redmond, are the portions of Redmond long identified in the Comprehensive Plan as preferred locations for high capacity transit stations. The character and function of these future stations will vary to reflect land use and transportation goals specific to these areas. It is important for Comprehensive Plan policies for these neighbor- hoods to articulate community preferences concerning the general character of the station and surrounding area. N-OV-36: Work closely with Sound Transit and other agencies to identify a preferred light rail alignment through Overlake Village, along such routes as 152nd Avenue NE, NE 24th Street or others as identified through Sound Transit’s East Link Light Rail planning process. Promote SR 520 as the preferred corridor leading from Overlake Village to the Employment Area and Downtown Redmond. N-OV-37: Locate two light rail stations within the Overlake Neighborhood. Locate a light rail station in Overlake Village in the vicinity of 152nd Avenue NE and NE 24th Street. Create a dynamic and high quality urban place through consideration of design, land use density and mix, community facilities, and public and private investments, and which emphasizes pedestrian activity and minimizes parking facilities. Locate a sec- ond light rail station in the Employment Area adjoining the existing Overlake Transit Center at NE 40th Street. Create a high quality place that fits seamlessly with the character of the Employment Area, facilitates transfers between transportation modes, and encourages additional uses to be developed on the Overlake Transit Center site that are supportive of transit stations, such as housing and convenience retail or ser- vice uses. Roadways Due to its role in the regional economy, Overlake attracts both regional and local activity. Di- recting regional through traffic to regional facilities protects residential neighborhoods. Identify- ing standards for streets that serve regional, local or a combination of these types of traffic di- rects improvements to better meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, residents, employees, and visitors. N-OV-38: Recognize the importance of SR 520 as a regional facility and work closely with WSDOT and other jurisdictions to ensure it functions efficiently. N-OV-39: Direct regional and through motor vehicle traffic away from residential neighbor- hoods through street improvements such as traffic calming measures that provide ac- cess to homes while discouraging travel through the neighborhood. Locate driveways ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A11 and streets in such a way as to minimize through traffic on primarily residential streets and reduce other adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods. N-OV-40: Develop and maintain street cross sections for arterial and key local streets in Over- lake to guide public investments and private development. Define standards related to sidewalks, on-street parking, vehicle lanes, and planting strips, setback zones and other important elements. Parking Providing parking options that do not conflict or adversely affect the pedestrian environment al- lows for Overlake to remain an active, vibrant area. The policies below describe how parking management can be used to enhance the neighborhood. N-OV-41: Create and implement a parking development and management program for Overlake that: o Minimizes on-site surface parking; o Encourages shared, clustered parking to reduce the total number of stalls needed for residents and visitors, and to increase the economic and aesthetic potential of the area; o Creates incentives that encourage structured parking; and o Maximizes on-street parking, particularly for use by those shopping or visiting Overlake. N-OV-42: Consider reducing parking requirements for developments near transit stations. Con- sider eliminating minimum parking standards as regional and local transit service in the neighborhood improves, as light rail is provided to the neighborhood, or as park- ing demand data indicates it is appropriate. N-OV-43: Support and encourage methods of recognizing the true cost of parking, including: o Separating commercial space and parking costs in tenant leases; o Encouraging employers to identify the cost of employee on-site parking through fees or incentives related to the price; and o Providing on-street parking with time limits and fees that is supported with ade- quate monitoring. N-OV-44: Monitor the need for a residential parking permit program should parking needs asso- ciated with retail commercial and office uses adversely impact residential neighbor- hoods. Public Facilities and Services Adequate public facilities and services, including human services and civic outlets, are necessary to support continued growth in Overlake. Developing a center containing a combination of civic uses, such as a police substation or teen center, could add to the vibrancy of the area, support lo- cal residents and employees, and attract additional visitors. N-OV-45: Create and implement facility plans for Overlake to provide adequate utilities, trans- portation, and other infrastructure to accommodate anticipated growth. Carry out a capital improvement strategy to implement these improvements, as well as pedestrian ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A12 improvements, bikeways, beautification projects, parks, trails, and civic facilities in Overlake. N-OV-46: Maintain and periodically update a priority list of public facilities and services needs, including transportation improvements. N-OV-47: Encourage public and private partnerships to meet public facilities and service needs, such as transportation, stormwater, parks, open space, pedestrian corridors and other improvements. Encourage public and private partnerships to meet human services needs as well. N-OV-48: Monitor the need for the development of civic facilities such as a community center. Work with future residents and employees of the area to identify needed services. Consider moving the Overlake Transit Center police substation to Overlake Village as part of a larger civic facility. D. Overlake Subarea Policies The Comprehensive Plan recognizes Overlake as a single neighborhood that contains a number of subareas. These subareas will continue to develop as different places within the neighborhood, characterized by different land uses, building heights and designs, and amenities. Map N-OV-1 shows these subareas. Overlake Village As described above, Overlake Village is envisioned to become an urban, mixed-use neighbor- hood that functions as the core of the Overlake neighborhood. As a mixed-use area, it is in- tended to provide for significant residential growth, while remaining part of a larger, vibrant commercial area that is a destination for many. N-OV-49: Encourage redevelopment of Overlake Village in order to enhance the attractiveness and functionality of this area as a place to live, work, shop and recreate. Establish re- quirements for new developments to incorporate housing to support land use, envi- ronmental and transportation goals for Overlake. N-OV-50: Encourage new transit-oriented development in order to take advantage of local and regional transit opportunities. N-OV-51: Develop incentives to encourage the construction of housing and variety in housing style, size and cost. N-OV-52: Promote Overlake Village as a location for a variety of businesses, including retail, office, services, and entertainment uses that are compatible with a mixed-use urban environment. Encourage a variety of economic activities, ranging from daily goods and services to boutiques and other specialty stores, as well as restaurants, residences, and offices that promote Overlake as an appealing place to live, work and shop and provide for active uses during the day and evening hours. N-OV-53: Actively support economic development measures that retain and promote existing businesses and attract new businesses compatible with the scale and vision of Over- ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A13 lake Village. Recognize the unique nature of small and independently-owned busi- nesses and the importance of diverse ethnic businesses by placing a special emphasis on encouraging these businesses through flexible standards, incentives, or other inno- vative measures. N-OV-54: Maintain Overlake Village’s economic health, vitality, and diversity of businesses. Periodically monitor the economic condition and economic trends affecting this area. The Overlake community identified 152nd Avenue NE as a desired future linear neighborhood core for Overlake Village. The policy below builds on community preferences for character and provides direction for future improvements to the right-of-way, as well as further development of adjoining properties. N-OV-55: Encourage development and invest, when possible, in conjunction with other public agencies, in improvements on 152nd Avenue NE that: o Create a linear neighborhood core with a main street character that attracts sig- nificant numbers of people to multiple activities; o Include within the mix of uses at street level restaurants, retail, cultural or enter- tainment uses, personal service uses and similar businesses that are pedestrian ori- ented; o Include residential or office uses in upper floors; o Promote the use of transit through the effective placement of transit facilities and routes; and, o Achieve the goals of the multimodal corridor designation. A portion of Overlake Village, the existing Group Health site, is zoned as the Overlake Design District due to various unique features, such as its central location between the Employment Area and Overlake Village, history as a location for a large institutional use, large size, slope and large quantity of trees. N-OV-56.1: Encourage master planning of the Group Health site to foster opportunities to live, shop, work and recreate in a vibrant, mixed-use setting. Integrate the goals of creat- ing compact transit supportive development, employing environmentally sustainable development practices, and preserving stands of healthy trees where feasible N-OV-56.2: Recognize the public benefit that can be derived from the site’s proximity to the Overlake Village Transit Center, the planned bus rapid transit line and the proposed Sound Transit light rail station by encouraging walkable, transit supportive develop- ment through incentives tied to building height and allowable floor area. N-OV-56.3: Encourage inclusion of a full service hotel/conference center in plans for redevel- opment within the Design District to help serve the needs of visitors to the area and provide entertainment and gathering opportunities for people who work or live nearby. Overlake Village has its own unique character within the Overlake Neighborhood. This charac- ter reflects not only nearby high-tech businesses, but also the many international businesses that have located here. The policies below are designed to ensure that new developments in Overlake ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A14 Village reflect the vision of the area as an urban, mixed-use neighborhood that provides a com- fortable pedestrian and residential environment and yet is unique to the area. N-OV-57: Establish an image unique to Overlake Village related to its concentration of diverse ethnic and nearby high-tech businesses or other themes and display this identity through building design and streetscape improvements. N-OV-58: Allow building heights up to five stories for mixed-use developments throughout Overlake Village. Consider allowing additional height and/or floor area as an incen- tive for provision of features that implement neighborhood goals for public amenities, housing and environmental sustainability. N-OV-59: Orient buildings to the streets and include design features that encourage walking and biking to the area, and between stores and shopping centers. Locate parking beside, behind or underneath buildings. Include street trees and landscaping to provide green space between buildings and the street. Encourage this type of building and site de- sign in development regulations, including parking requirements. Plazas, parks and open spaces provide relaxing, recreational, and community gathering opportu- nities to residents, employees, and visitors. The policies below are intended to guide the devel- opment of a functional urban park system within Overlake Village that is connected to parks, open spaces and trails in nearby areas. N-OV-60: Establish a park plan specific to Overlake Village in recognition of the neighbor- hood’s urban character. Include criteria related to size, function and desired location of plazas, open spaces, parks, and other public places. N-OV-61: Size and design plazas and open spaces to meet needs of those who live, work and shop in the area. Include among the facilities a place to gather, rest, eat and engage in active recreational activities that do not require large amounts of space. Provide trees and places for shade and relief. N-OV-62: Integrate parks and open spaces with regional stormwater facilities where feasible. Connect any regional stormwater facilities with the park system in Overlake Village. N-OV-63: Encourage new development to incorporate recreational areas and open space for use by residents, employees, and visitors. N-OV-64: Recognize sidewalks with landscaped planting strips and street trees as part of Over- lake Village’s park-like amenities. As the urban core of the Overlake Neighborhood, Overlake Village has unique transportation needs related to pedestrian corridors, the local street grid, regional transit, and parking. The policies below address these issues. N-OV-65: Design and construct pedestrian corridors to enhance pedestrian safety and pedestrian use of the area. Connect businesses within the retail area with each other and with ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A15 transit. Include street furniture, such as benches, on pedestrian corridors on public rights-of-way or public property to make them functional and inviting. N-OV-66: Improve local street access and circulation by expanding the street grid in Overlake Village as redevelopment occurs. N-OV-67: Prepare a station area plan for a light rail station area once a light rail alignment is selected by the Sound Transit Board of Directors to guide updates to policies and im- plementation measures and to preserve opportunities for transit-oriented develop- ment. Create a dynamic and high quality urban place through consideration of de- sign, land use density and mix, community facilities, and public and private invest- ments, and which emphasizes pedestrian activity and minimizes parking facilities. Employment Area The Employment Area is intended to remain a home to major corporations and high technology research and development businesses while maintaining a campus-like environment. Smaller developments within this area are intended to provide for employees’ basic shopping needs and services and to provide opportunities for employees to live near work. N-OV-68: Encourage development that maintains the Employment Area as a moderate intensity district for research and development, advanced technology, compatible manufactur- ing and corporate headquarters. Encourage residential development that provides employees with opportunities to live close to work. N-OV-69: Encourage higher intensity employment development within walking distance of 156th Avenue NE north of NE 31st Street and south of NE 40th Street and encourage lower intensity development near Bel-Red Road. N-OV-70: Permit small scale convenience commercial and convenience service uses that pri- marily serve employees and nearby residents in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology district, such as convenience grocery stores, restaurants and delis, dry cleaners, banks, post offices, recreational facilities, health clubs, day care facilities and similar commercial and service uses that meet employees’ daily needs. N-OV-71: Provide sidewalks and bicycle access linking employment uses and nearby residential neighborhoods to convenience commercial and service uses. The campus-like environment of the Employment Area can best be achieved by continuing the development of mid-rise buildings with attractive landscaping and the protection of natural fea- tures. The policies below direct development to continue with this character. N-OV-72: Allow buildings up to five to six stories in height. Integrate building and site design with other buildings in the same complex and with nearby developments. N-OV-73: Encourage street trees, trees on site, landscaping, open space, and recreational areas to provide a sense of openness for the site and the neighborhood. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Appendix A: Draft Revised Policies August 29, 2007 A16 N-OV-74: Encourage linkages between employment campuses and other parts of the neighbor- hood for walking, biking, transit use, and other non-single-occupancy transportation modes through building and site design. Private open spaces within the Employment Area provide outlets for employees during working hours and also have been publicly programmed during summer months. The need for public programming and provision of public parks and open space will grow as more people work and live in the area. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan of 2004 identified the oppor- tunity for two special use parks within the Employment Area. The policies below direct how to continue and strengthen the recreation, outdoor, and cultural opportunities provided here. N-OV-75: Develop the parks identified in the Redmond’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan within the Employment Area. N-OV-76: Encourage continued public programming of large private open spaces as part of the Art in the Parks summer series. Residential Area The northeastern portion of the neighborhood includes a collection of single-family and multi- family neighborhoods. Each of these neighborhoods are within a convenient walk of the Em- ployment Area and are in high demand. These policies promote variety in the type and price of new infill residential developments to enable families of different ages, sizes, and incomes to live in the area. N-OV-77: Allow duplexes on individual lots in the Overlake Neighborhood. Allow threeplexes and fourplexes on lots in new short and long subdivisions specifically approved for these housing types. Allow density of 150 percent of the allowed density of a single- family home. N-OV-78: Provide a density bonus for duplexes, threeplexes, and fourplexes that are affordable to households earning 80 percent or less than the King County median income. Maintaining the traditional residential character of these areas is an important community objec- tive. The policies below provide direction on how new developments can help to preserve this established character. N-OV-79: Maintain the character of Overlake’s residential areas. N-OV-80: Design buildings and sites in areas designated Multi-Family Urban to have a residen- tial character. Encourage balconies overlooking streets and courtyards. N-OV-81: Design duplexes, threeplexes, and fourplexes to portray the appearance of single- family houses and to be compatible with the character of nearby single-family homes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 Appendix B Redmond Community Development Guide Draft Revised Proposed Updates to Development Regulations for Overlake ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 Introduction Existing regulations pertaining to Overlake are proposed to be consolidated into one section of the Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG) to allow for more convenient use. The proposed updates are intended to more clearly communicate the vision and tailor incentives to the area. Proposed updates include allowed uses, site requirements, and available incentives, including: ƒ Update the allowed uses chart, including not allowing new drive-thru facilities or vehicle sales in Overlake Village and enabling the City Council to consider allowing utility facilities that are 40 feet in height or greater. ƒ Clarify the approach for convenience retail and service uses in the Employment Area ƒ Require 10 percent of new residential development in Overlake be affordable to households earning 80 percent or less than the King County median income and provide a bonus of residential floor area to minimize or eliminate cost ƒ Establish requirements for minimum amount of usable open space for residential development in Overlake ƒ Require a minimum residential floor area for new development in Overlake Village and the Overlake Design District ƒ Measure building height in floors, not feet in Overlake ƒ Allow for Administrative Design Flexibility in Overlake ƒ Supplement Citywide design standards with standards for Overlake Village and Overlake Design District, such as standards related to surface parking and parking garages, building form and scale, building materials, ground floor retail and other commercial facades, and pedestrian plazas and open spaces ƒ Update the street typology and cross-sections for Overlake ƒ Tailor the incentives available in Overlake Village to goals for the area and desired amenities by allowing additional ways (besides the purchase of transfer of development rights) to develop an additional floor, up to 8 floors total, and for some features, a small increase in residential or commercial floor area above the base. Proposed bonus features include: o LEED or similar built green certification o Higher proportion of residential development than required o Below grade parking o Below market rate space to encourage retention of existing retail businesses o Public outdoor plaza or other open space o Completion of master plan (also a proposed requirement for sites 5 acres in size and larger in the Overlake Village and Overlake Design District) ƒ Consider more significant incentives (building height up to 10 stories, residential floor area ratio (FAR) up to 4, nonresidential FAR up to .55) for dedication of land for a major park or regional stormwater management facility (2 to 4 acres in size). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B1 Redmond Community Development Guide Proposed Updates to Development Regulations for Overlake RCDG 20C.45 Overlake 20C.45.10 Purpose Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan contains the vision and policies for Overlake. These policies are intended to focus multi-family, office and retail development within the Overlake Urban Center; maintain and enhance Overlake’s regional employment role; protect and enhance residential neighborhoods; improve mobility options; balance growth with the provision of needed facilities and services; and protect and enhance the environmental quality of the area. The regulations set out in this division and related sections of the RCDG are intended to: 1. Implement the Overlake goals and policies as described in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Guide the location, intensity, design and phasing of development. 3. Allow for creativity and flexibility in carrying out the vision and policies for Overlake. 4. Encourage private and public investment, appeal to new and existing residents, and attract visitors. 5. Promote attractive streetscapes and urban green spaces. 6. Guide development and investments to support an increasing share of travel by walking, bicycling and use of transit. 20C.45.20 Overlake Districts The Overlake neighborhood includes four districts, the intents of which are set forth below. See map entitled Overlake Districts. Overlake Village (OV): This district provides for a vibrant pedestrian-oriented area with opportunities to live, work, shop and recreate. It is intended to evolve to a true urban residential/mixed use neighborhood in which significant multi-family living opportunities are integrated with a variety of businesses, including retail, professional office, services, and entertainment uses, that primarily serve the general public. The map entitled Overlake Village indicates the preferred land uses by area within this district: Mixed Use (residential and commercial) Emphasizing Residential; Mixed Use Maintaining Commercial; and Mixed Use Maintaining Regional Retail. The arterial streets are intended for pedestrian friendly and activating commercial uses along the ground floor while local streets will allow residential uses at street level. Overlake Design District (ODD): This district provides for redevelopment of a unique 28-acre, sloped site located at the core of the Overlake Urban Center. This site is intended to provide a compact, mixed-use development with substantial residential development, as well as employment, retail and services, which are integrated with a major urban neighborhood public park that provides a central gathering place through plazas and green spaces. With its central location and proximity to major employers, the site is well suited for pedestrian- and transit- supportive development. The design and development of this district will be controlled by a ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B2 master plan established to ensure development here carries out the vision for Overlake and integrates with and positively influences future redevelopment within the area. See also RCDG 20C.45.70, Overlake Design District. Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT): This district is intended to provide a high wage employment area that accommodates advanced technology, research and development, corporate offices, high technology manufacturing and similar uses to serve City and regional economic goals. It is intended to maintain a campus-like environment with significant areas of trees and open spaces. The development standards provide for a low to moderate intensity of development to match the available public facilities. Development regulations to enhance compatibility between the uses in this zone and neighboring residential areas are also included. New development and redevelopment should encourage walking, bicycling, carpools, vanpools, and transit use. This district also provides opportunities for multi- family residential development and limited convenience commercial and service uses to help reduce motor vehicle trips in the area by serving employees from nearby businesses. Overlake Residential Area: This district is intended to provide for a range of single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods located close to parks, trails, schools and employment opportunities. This area is zoned for residential densities ranging from 4 to 6 dwellings per acre for single-family zones to 12 to 30 dwellings per acre for multi-family zones. See RCDG 20C.30 for specific zoning, permitted uses, site requirements and other provisions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B3 Overlake Districts Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B4 Overlake Village Sub-Area Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B5 20C.45.30 Permitted Land Uses 20C.45.30-10 Permitted Land Uses Chart The chart identified as RCDG 20C.45.30.40 lists the land uses permitted within the districts shown on the Overlake Districts Map. 20C.45.30-20 Allowed Uses The symbols used in the chart represent the following: P Permitted Use. S Allowed special use, requiring a Special Development Permit C Allowed conditional use requiring a Conditional Use Permit Procedural requirements related to the special and conditional use permit processes are described in RCDG 20F Administration and Procedures and RCDG 20D.270 Special Uses. Uses similar to those listed may be established as permitted or conditionally allowed through the interpretation procedure in the RCDG 20F, Administration and Procedures. In determining whether a use should be permitted, the Administrator shall refer to the purpose statements found in RCDG 20C.45.20, Overlake Districts, and the latest version of the North American Industrial Classification System. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B6 20C.45.30-40 Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Design District (ODD) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District (OBAT) Residential Multi-family and Townhouses P P P Senior Housing P P Retail General Retail: Includes establishments engaged in selling merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption; processing of products does not occur or is compatible in terms of impacts and hazards with adjoining multi- story mixed use buildings (for example; restaurants, butcher shops, breweries with taverns, art studios, crafts, etc.). This category also includes food stores; apparel; furniture and home furnishings; home improvement goods including carpeting, lighting, cabinets, plumbing fixtures; large and small durable goods for family and office use such as appliances, office furniture and supplies; eating and drinking places; and general merchandise. This category does not include uses with outdoor storage and display. Customer and tenant parking structures or surface lots are considered accessory to the primary use. P P Convenience retail use P P P1, 2 1 Convenience retail and service uses such as cafeterias or small convenience stores that are accessory to a primary business park use, limited to employee use, and not open to the general public are a permitted use in the OBAT District. Access shall be internal to the primary use and external signage shall be limited and for the purpose of directing employees. 2 Convenience retail or service uses that primarily provide sell goods or provide services for use on a daily or weekly basis by nearby employees and residents but are open to the general public are a permitted use in the OBAT District subject to RCDG 20C.45.30.60, Convenience Retail and Service Uses in the Overlake Business and Technology District. Examples include small eating and drinking establishments, limited service banks, and small convenience grocery stores. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B7 Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Design District (ODD) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District (OBAT) Vehicle Fuel Sales3 C Carts and Street Vendors S S Regional Retail (with gross floor area of 75,000 square feet or more in a single use) • Regional retail between 75,000 and 150,000 square feet • Regional retail greater than 150,000 square feet P4 C4 Wholesale Trade and Assembly P Services General Services: Professional, commercial and public activities conducted in offices and storefronts, without outdoor storage needs, including but not limited to lodging; personal services; financial services; insurance and real estate; entertainment and recreation services; theaters; health services; social services; legal services; cultural services; minor repair services; contractors offices with show rooms open to the general public; and rental of goods such as furniture or videos. Customer and tenant parking structures or surface lots are considered accessory to the primary use. This category does not include rental storage and mini-warehouses or uses with outdoor storage and display. Services excluded are research and development facilities, computer hardware and software, advanced technology uses, industrial laundries and P P 3 Subject to RCDG 20D.140 Critical Areas Regulations. 4 Permitted or allowed with a Conditional Use Permit only within the following two portions of the Overlake Village Sub-Area: Mixed Use Maintaining Regional Retail and Mixed Use Maintaining Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B8 Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Design District (ODD) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District (OBAT) dry cleaning, industrial testing laboratories, warehousing/storage, and similar uses which do not primarily serve the general public and are considered business park or industrial uses. Athletic Clubs and Fitness Centers P P P Printing, Publishing and Allied Products P P P Business Services: Mailing Centers, Copy, Fax P P P Business Park Uses: Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology Products and Medical Equipment and Software provided large quantities of toxic materials are not used; Computer and Office Equipment; Advanced Technology: Computer Hardware and Software; Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Components; Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instruments; Aircraft Parts; Research and Development Facilities; Corporate Headquarters and Regional Offices; Technology Service and Support; Telework Centers; Consultants who directly support other businesses; Corporate Conference and Educational Facilities; Food and Kindred Products Manufacturing and Assembly provided products produced primarily for off-site consumption; Wholesale Trade and Assembly 5 P P Warehousing (indoor only) and Distribution P Construction/Contractors (offices and indoor storage only) ƒ Contractors with showrooms open to the general public P P 5 Business Park uses that are compatible in terms of noise and other potential operational impacts with nearby multi- story mixed use/residential developments are permitted in the Overlake Village District as part of the incentive program described in RCDG 20C.45.50. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B9 Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Design District (ODD) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District (OBAT) ƒ Contractors without showrooms open to the general public P Convenience service use P P P 1,.2 Day-Care Centers S S S Educational Facilities P P P Other Uses Public Facilities: Governmental administrative offices, libraries, parks, police and fire stations, educational institutions, cultural facilities, community or recreational centers, and parking structures. P P P Local and Regional Utilities • Facilities up to 40 feet in height • Facilities 40 feet in height or greater P6 C6 P6 C6 P C Transit Facilities: Tracks, Transit Centers, Park and Ride Facilities P P P Motor Vehicle Maintenance Garage, Motor Freight Services and Terminals C7 Drive-Thru Facilities established prior to (effective date of proposed 2007 Overlake RCDG update) P Large Satellite Dishes/Amateur Radio Antenna(s) S S S Broadcast and Relay Towers C C C Wireless Communication Facilities S S S Religious Facilities: Churches, Temples, Synagogues Up to 750 seats 750 seats and greater S8 C8 S C 6 Regional utilities are a permitted use only in Overlake Village – Mixed Use Maintaining Regional Retail and Mixed Use Maintaining Commercial, and are a conditional use elsewhere in the Overlake Village Sub-Area. 7 Only motor vehicle maintenance facilities for public transit agencies or company-owned vehicles are allowed. Motor vehicle maintenance facilities for company owned vehicles shall be accessory to another allowed use. Motor vehicle maintenance facilities shall not be allowed within a Transition Overlay. 8 Allowed with a Special Use or Conditional Use Permit only within the following two portions of the Overlake Village Sub-Area: Mixed Use Maintaining Regional Retail and Mixed Use Maintaining Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B10 20C.45.30-50 Transition of Uses 1) Purpose. It is the intent of this section to establish regulations to provide for the transition of uses that do not conform with the adopted permitted land uses chart of the Redmond Community Development Guide. This division is intended to ensure fairness to existing uses and property owners while also recognizing that the eventual replacement of these uses with conforming uses is consistent with and carries out the City’s adopted goals, policies, plans and programs of development. This division is also intended to facilitate phased redevelopment of property. 2) Applicability. This section applies to the Overlake Village District. 3) Requirement. a) Businesses that physically located in the Overlake Village District and obtained a City of Redmond business license between June 11, 1999 and 2007, may continue to occupy the space and conduct the specific use for which the business license was issued as long as the business continues to maintain a current Redmond business license, notwithstanding the fact that the licensed use did not conform with the permitted uses in effect at the time that the business located in the Overlake Village District. b) The amount of floor area on any property devoted to the uses described in this section shall not be expanded but such uses may be relocated to another area of equal or lesser size within the property provided the relocated use complies with all other standards in the Redmond Community Development Guide. c) Uses described in this section may be continued if the structure housing the use is restored per RCDG 20F.10.50-080, Restoration, or altered, per RCDG 20F.10.50-090(2), Alteration of a Nonconforming Use. d) If a licensed business meeting the requirements of subsection 3(a) above vacates its space, allows its lease to expire for more than thirty days without renewal, or fails to maintain a current business license, all rights granted by this section shall terminate and only a business or use that conforms with the requirements of 20C.45.30, Permitted Land Uses, for the Overlake Village District shall thereafter be permitted. 20C.45.30-60 Convenience Retail and Service Uses in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District 1) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for development of convenience retail and services within the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) District. Convenience retail and services in the OBAT District are intended to: a) Primarily serve nearby Overlake employees and residents with small- to medium-scale, convenient retail and service uses within walking or bicycling access. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B11 b) Not attract uses that primarily serve the general public and are more appropriately located in the Overlake Village Sub-Area. c) Maintain the high visual and environmental quality within Overlake. Allowed Convenience Retail and Service Uses in the OBAT District. a) Allowed uses in the OBAT District include convenience retail or service establishments that sell goods or merchandise or provide services for use on a daily or weekly basis by nearby employees and residents in Overlake. Uses are not intended to draw customers from outside the neighborhood or to include the type of retail or service uses intended for Overlake Village Sub-Area. Examples of allowed uses include: eating and drinking establishments (limited to a maximum seating capacity of 50 people), limited service banks, hair cutters, small convenience grocery stores, and dry cleaners. b) Allowed recreation and service uses in the OBAT District that are consistent with the intent of this section, such as, athletic clubs and fitness centers and day care centers, are allowed per the requirements in RCDG 20C.45.30-40, Permitted Land Uses - Overlake Districts. c) Convenience retail and service uses not permitted in the OBAT District include supermarkets, retail vehicle fuel sales, hotels and motels, or convenience retail or service businesses that primarily serve the general public. Convenience Retail and Service Business Size: On a single site, convenience retail and service businesses shall not exceed 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. Maximum gross floor area may be increased up to 30,000 square feet when an athletic club or fitness center is included. Convenience Retail and Service Business Locations. The following locational criteria apply to convenience retail and service businesses in the OBAT District. a) Shall be located as secondary uses in multi-tenant buildings or as part of mixed use/residential developments. b) Shall be located to encourage access by walking or bicycling. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided. c) Shall be located and designed to maintain high visual and environmental quality within Overlake. Parking. a) Parking shall be provided according to Table 20D.130.10-020(2), Required Off-Street Parking, as indicated for the OBAT District. b) The Technical Committee may allow flexibility in parking requirements for convenience retail and service businesses based on site-specific factors, such as the availability of ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B12 nearby shared parking, opportunities for pedestrian access, characteristics of specific uses, and expected peak hour parking demands. c) Design of convenience retail and service businesses to provide shared parking and service areas is encouraged. Other Requirements. Approvals shall be conditioned on projects attracting primarily nearby employees and associated trips during business hours. 20C.45.40 Site Requirements. 20C.45.40-010 Explanation of Chart. This division establishes the basic site requirements for Overlake Districts. The chart contains the minimum and maximum dimensional requirements for each district. The footnotes identify particular requirements applicable to a specific use or district. See RCDG 20C.45.70 for site requirements for the Overlake Design District. 20C.45.40-020 Site Requirements Chart - Overlake Districts Site Requirements Chart – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Maximum Lot Coverage of Structures and Impervious Surface1, 2 85% 80% Minimum Landscaped Area 15% See RCDG 20C.45.40-040 20% See RCDG 20C.45.40-040 1 See RCDG 20C.45.40-030, Maximum Lot Coverage – Structures and Total Impervious Surface. 2 For properties under a common ownership that are contiguous or separated only by rights-of-way, FARs may be calculated based on the average FAR across those properties, and density and impervious surface coverage may be transferred among contiguous properties provided the averages or transfers are consistent with all other applicable regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B13 Site Requirements Chart – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Maximum Building Height (Stories), without use of Bonuses or Transfer of Development Rights3 Non-Residential Uses Residential Uses in Single- Use or Mixed-Use Buildings 4 5 4 5 Maximum Floor Area Ratios without use of Bonuses2, 4, 5, 6 Non-Residential Uses Non-Residential Uses with use of TDRs7 Non-Residential Uses as part of Mixed-Use Developments with 50% Residential Uses8, 9 Residential Uses8 in Single- Use or Mixed-Use Buildings .3610 .41 .41 2.5 .40 .4711 1 3 See RCDG 20C.45.40-050, Building Height; RCDG 20D.200 Transfer of Development Rights Program; and RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program. 4 All legal lots are allowed the greater of either the maximum allowed FAR or 10,000 square feet of buildings provided all other applicable site requirements are met. 5 The FAR for non-residential and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated and may be added together for a cumulative total, provided that the respective maximum FAR for each use is not exceeded, unless otherwise provided in the RCDG. 6 See RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program. 7 See RCDG 20D.200, Transfer of Development Rights Program. 8Residential uses include living areas, common areas used to access living areas, offices for the renting, leasing, or selling the housing units in the development, and recreational areas used exclusively by residents and their guests. 9 Proposed developments in the Overlake Village District that include residential uses as a minimum of 50 percent of the total amount of proposed gross floor area are allowed the greater of: 1) a nonresidential FAR of .41, or 2) to retain an allowance for the total amount of non-residential floor area existing as of the effective date of the 2007 Overlake RCDG update. 10 Hotel uses in the Overlake Village District may be developed to 1.2 FAR. On sites that contain both hotel and non-hotel non-residential uses, the combined FAR of the hotel and non-hotel non-residential uses shall not surpass ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B14 Site Requirements Chart – Overlake Districts Overlake Village District (OV) Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Building Setbacks Front and all Side Streets (in feet) Buildings shall be developed to the back of the setback zone12 along front and side streets, except north of the SR 520 Eastbound Off-Ramp the minimum front and all side street setbacks shall be 10’ See 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross Sections Minimum of 10 feet13, 14 See 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross Sections Minimum Side Setback (in feet) 0 20 feet15 Minimum Rear Setback (in feet) 0 20 feet15 Pedestrian Standards See 20C.45.40-080 See 20C.45.40-080 Ground Floor Uses See 20C.45.40-090 Minimum Residential Floor Area See 20C.45.40-100 Residential Open Space See 20C.45.40-110 See 20C.45.40-110 Parking See 20D.130 See 20D.130 the applicable maximum hotel FAR and the FAR of the non-hotel non-residential uses shall not surpass the applicable maximum non-residential FAR. 11 Building space to be used exclusively for day care centers may be constructed at a .47 FAR without the requirement to purchase TDRs provided the building space is permanently used exclusively for a day care center and deed restrictions limit the building space to this purpose. 12 The setback zone is shown in RCDG 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross-Sections. It is located outside of the right-of-way, and ensures that objects do not encroach on useable sidewalk space and helps to maintain sight lines at driveways. In the Overlake Village Sub-Area, it provides space for hardscape improvements or container plants. In the OBAT District, it provides space for plantings. It is also described in Redmond’s Transportation Plan – Pedestrian Program. 13 Measured from property line. 14 Along both sides of 156th Avenue NE (NE 40th to NE 28th Street), west side of 156th Avenue NE (NE 51st Street to NE 40th Street), both sides of NE 40th Street (148th Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE), both sides of NE 51st Street (148th Avenue NE to SR 520), and south side of NE 51st Street (SR 520 to 156th Ave NE), the maximum building setback is 45 feet measured from the property line. Parking and driveways parallel to the street shall be prohibited in the setback. 15 Subject to landscaping and buffering requirements of RCDG 20D.80, Landscaping and Tree Protection ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B15 20C.45.40-030 Maximum Lot Coverage – Structures and Total Impervious Surface. General Requirement. Maximum lot coverage indicates the maximum percentage of the land that can be developed and covered with structures (including outdoor storage) and other impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, sidewalks, and plazas. Modifications. As part of an approved binding site plan, subdivision or planned commercial development the Technical Committee may allow increased maximum impervious surface limits on individual lots within a multi-lot development; provided, that the total amount of impervious surface for the entire development does not exceed that set forth by the Site Requirements Chart. If a modification is approved, the development shall be conditioned and recorded with the property’s title to ensure compliance with the total impervious surface limits set by the Chart. 20C.45.40-040 Landscaping. General Requirement. All setbacks, buffers, open spaces, plazas, parks, site and building entrances, pedestrian walkways, service areas and parking lots shall be landscaped. Existing vegetation may be maintained and apply toward this standard if the existing vegetation is desirable. The requirements specified in RCDG 20D.40.35 – Landscape Design Standards and RCDG 20D.80.10 Landscaping and Natural Screening, shall apply as applicable. In addition, supplemental landscaping requirements for the Overlake Districts are defined below. Plantings along streets. At a minimum, planting strips along streets shall include street trees per the City’s standards for type and species. Where space allows, planting areas should include other vegetation suitable for an urban setting. Tree planting pits on streets that include furniture zones per RCDG 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross Sections shall be covered with cast iron tree grates of a type that meets ADA requirements. Overlake Village District and Overlake Design District– Open Space and Plazas. a. Plazas and common usable open spaces shall be landscaped to create visual interest, soften building edges, and reduce the impact of adverse elements such as noise or wind. b. The quantity of trees, shrubs and other plant materials shall be designed to meet the size and function of the plaza or open space, and is subject to approval by the Technical Committee. Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District Requirements – Buffers. a. Landscape buffers at least 20 feet in width shall be provided in the following locations: i. Along property lines which border a single-family or multi-family residential zone within Redmond or a neighboring jurisdiction. ii. Along street frontages where any portion of the street bordering the development site borders a single-family residential zone within Redmond or ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B16 a neighboring jurisdiction. Single-family zone is defined as a zone with an allowed density of eight or fewer dwellings per acre. b. The buffers shall be planted with the following materials: i. Minimum of 1 tree per 200 square feet of buffer area. No more than 40 percent of trees may be deciduous. ii. Evergreen shrubs, a minimum of 5 gallon in size. The area covered by the shrubs shall equal at least one-third of the buffer frontage. iii. Groundcover plantings to cover the ground within three years iv. Plant materials shall be native to the area. The Code Administrator may allow substitutions of non-native plant materials that are drought tolerant provided the buffer remains primarily in native materials. v. The trees and other plant materials required by this section shall be located so that they effectively buffer the development from bordering residential properties. The buffer need not completely obscure the development; rather it should screen it. c. Up to 20 percent of the buffer area may be used for streets, driveways, utility crossings, trails or ground level features such as patios. Other structures may not be placed in required buffers. d. All required buffers shall be maintained in compliance with this division for the life of the use. Dead and dying plants shall be replaced during the next growing season. e. Buffers may be counted towards required open space, required pervious surfaces, setbacks and other requirements that they meet. Overlake Village District – Buffers. a. Properties in the Overlake Village District located north of the eastbound SR 520 off- ramp at 148th Avenue NE shall provide a landscape buffer at least 20 feet in width along street frontages where any portion of the street bordering the development site borders a residential zone within a neighboring jurisdiction. b. The provisions above RCDG 20C.45.40-040, 4b to 4e, apply. 20C.45.40-050 Building Height. General Requirement. Maximum height requirements set the limit measured from the finished grade above which structures shall not extend without use of Bonuses or Transfer of Development Rights. In the Overlake Village District, Overlake Design District and Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District, heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, elevator penthouses, rooftop exits and flagpoles may exceed the height limit by ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B17 not more than 15 feet. In the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District, antennas and chimneys may exceed the height limit by not more than 15 feet. Refer to Chapter 20A.20 RCDG, Definitions, Height of Building or Structure, for measuring building height. Height Tradeoffs. The maximum building height on a site may be exceeded, as a trade-off, when building height reductions are required at building edges, along a street or park, to achieve better design and stepped building height through the Design Review Process. The amount of floor area that is allowed to exceed the prescribed maximum building height (without use of Bonuses or Transfer of Development Rights) shall not exceed the floor area that was removed or omitted to create the stepped building façade and shall not exceed 1 additional floor above the prescribed maximum building height. Height Bonuses. a) Maximum building height may be increased by one floor through the use of Transfer of Development Rights per RCDG 20D.200 unless otherwise provided in the Redmond Community Development Guide. b) See also RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program for applicable height and floor area bonuses. Height and FAR Limit Overlay – Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District. a) Purpose. This section establishes special limits for structures located in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) District as shown on the Height and FAR Limit Overlay Map. The intent of this requirement is to promote compatibility on the edges of zones that allow more intense uses than abutting zones and to minimize adverse impacts such as glare and noise. b) Requirements. i) The Height and FAR Limit Overlay Map shows limits on maximum height and maximum FAR for structures located within 300 feet of the OBAT District boundary with lower intensity zones. ii) 45’ Height Limit and FAR Overlay. Within this overlay, maximum structure height shall be 45 feet or three stories, whichever is lower. The maximum FAR shall be 0.30 for any building located within or partially within this overlay. The amount of floor area allowed by the OBAT District that exceeds a FAR of 0.30 may be used on any property zoned OBAT that is contiguous to and in the same ownership as the properties within this overlay. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B18 iii) 35’ Height Limit Overlay. Within this overlay, maximum structure height shall be 35 feet. The maximum structure height may be increased up to 45 feet if one or more of the following features are provided: At least one quarter of the on-site parking is provided in underground parking structures. No mechanical equipment is located on the roof. The existing grade under the proposed structure pad is at least 10 feet below the grade at the property lines of all properties that border or are across the street from the development site. Transfer of Development Rights are used to increase structure height. The Design Review Board may further increase the allowed structure height within this overlay if the following conditions are met: The modified building height does not exceed the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone as shown in RCDG 20C.45.40-020, Site Requirements Chart. The proposal with the height allowance will provide an equivalent or better transition to lower height residential zones as the limit imposed through the height overlay. The Design Review Board may consider: Landscape features such as retention or enhancement of vegetation, (ii) Building design features such as massing or roofline, (iii) Site design features such as use of landscaped berms, or (iv) Other features that meet the intent of this section. The Design Review Board shall make its determination of whether to allow a further increase to the allowed structure height during pre-application review if in the Board’s determination the applicant has provided sufficient information on the alternative proposal with the height allowance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B19 Height and FAR Limit Overlay Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B20 20C.45.40-060 Building Setbacks. Lot Orientation. For the purpose of applying setback regulations, the following shall be applied: the front shall be toward the public street, private street or access corridor from which the lot is addressed or which provides the primary access; the rear is opposite to the front or as nearly so as the lot shape permits; and the sides are 90 degrees to the front or as nearly so as the lot shape permits. Measurement. Setbacks shall be measured at right angles, or as near to right angles as possible, in a plane horizontal to the ground from the point of measurement as defined in RCDG 20C.45.40-020, Site Requirements Chart – Overlake Districts, Building Setbacks. In the case of access corridors and private streets, setbacks are measured from the inside edge of the access corridor or street to the foundation line of the structure. Setback Exceptions. Upon the presentation of a binding site plan, an approved site plan, or planned commercial development application, setbacks may be modified as follows: side setback distances may be modified to permit a zero side setback to accommodate joint wall construction and clustering of buildings; front setbacks may be modified from private streets and access corridors, provided front setbacks are maintained from all public streets. Improvements. Improvements less than 30 inches above grade including decks, patios, walks and driveways are permitted in setbacks. Fences, landscaping, flagpoles, street furniture, transit shelters and slope stability structures are permitted in setback areas; provided, that all other applicable requirements are met. No other structures including accessory structures are permitted in setback areas. Neighborhood Protection Setbacks. Additional setbacks applicable to properties within the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District are as follows: Property Location Building Height Setback from the Property Line 148th Avenue NE, between SR 520 East Bound Off-Ramp and NE 60th Street Up to 20 feet 21 feet or more 20 feet 30 feet Along the portion of Bel-Red Road between Redmond City Limits (at NE 28th Street) and east boundary for Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District All buildings 120 feet 20C.45.40-070 Overlake Street Cross Sections ---PAGE BREAK--- RCDG 20C.45.40-130 REVISED DRAFT OVERLAKE ARTERIAL STREETS CROSS SECTIONS** March 22, 2007 Street From To Functional Class Multimodal Corridor Street Character Primary Adjacent Land Use (Building) Sidewalk 5' Planting Strip or 4' Furniture Zone with Tree Grates On-Street Parking Bike Lane GP Lanes Median / Two Way Left Turn Lane GP Lanes Bike Lanes On Street Parking 5' Planting Strip or 4' Furniture Zone with Tree Grates Sidewalk Mid-Block Right-of- Way Width Width to Back of Sidewalk Curb-to-Curb Width Setback Zone Cross Section 148th Ave NE SR 520 Eastbound Off-Ramp NE 60th St Principal Yes Overlake Village 8 5 0 0 24* 12 24* 0 0 5 12 90 90 60 1 A 148th Ave NE NE 20th St SR 520 Eastbound Off-Ramp Principal Yes Employment Area 8 5 0 0 24* 12 24* 0 0 5 8 90 86 60 1 B 150th Ave NE NE 36th St NE 51st St Collector No Employment Area 6 5 0 5.5 11 12 11 5.5 0 5 6 70 67 45 1 C 151st Ave NE NE 20th St NE 28th St Local - Activity Center No Overlake Village 8 4 8 0 11 12 11 0 8 4 8 74 74 50 2-8 D 152nd Ave NE NE 20th St NE 31st St Collector Yes Overlake Village 12 4 8 5 12 12 12 5 8 4 12 94 94 62 4-8 E 156th Ave NE NE 51st St NE 60th St Collector No Residential Area 6 5 8 5 11 0 11 5 8 5 6 70 70 48 1 NA 156th Ave NE Bel-Red Rd NE 51st St Minor Yes Employment Area 8 5 0 0 24* 12 24* 0 0 5 12 90 90 60 1 A Bel-Red Rd NE 40th St W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Principal No Residential Area 6 5 0 5.5 22 12 22 5.5 0 5 6 90 89 67 1 F Bel-Red Rd NE 30th St NE 40th St Principal No Residential Area 6 5 0 5.5 22 0 22 5.5 0 5 6 90 77 55 1 G Bel-Red Rd NE 20th St NE 30th St Principal No Residential Area 6 5 0 5.5 22 12 22 5.5 0 5 6 90 89 67 1 G NE 22nd St 148th Ave NE Bel-Red Rd Local - Activity Center No Overlake Village 8 4 8 0 11 12 11 0 8 4 8 74 74 50 2-8 D NE 24th St 148th Ave NE Bel-Red Rd Minor Yes Overlake Village 8 5 0 0 22 12 22 0 0 5 8 82 82 56 2-8 H NE 28th St 151st Ave NE 156th Ave NE Local - Activity Center No Overlake Village 8 4 8 0 11 12 11 0 8 4 8 74 74 50 2-8 D NE 31st St 152nd Ave NE 156th Ave NE Collector Yes Employment Area 6 5 0 5.5 11 12 11 5.5 0 5 6 70 67 45 1 C NE 36th St 148th Ave NE 152nd Ave NE Collector No Employment Area 6 5 0 5.5 11 12 11 5.5 0 5 6 70 67 45 1 C NE 40th St 159th Ave NE Bel-Red Rd Minor Yes Residential Area 8 5 0 0 11 12 11 0 0 5 12 70 64 34 1 I NE 40th St 148th Ave NE 159th Ave NE Minor Yes Employment Area 8 5 0 0 24* 12 24* 0 0 5 12 90 90 60 1 A NE 51st St 156th Ave NE W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Minor No Residential Area 6 5 0 5.5 11 12 11 5.5 0 5 6 70 67 45 1 C NE 51st St 148th Ave NE 156th Ave NE Minor Yes Employment Area 6 5 0 5.5 22 12 22 5.5 0 5 6 90 89 67 1 F NE 60th St 154th Ave NE 156th Ave NE Collector No Residential Area 6 5 0 5.5 11 12 11 5.5 0 5 6 70 67 45 1 C W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Bel-Red Rd NE 51st St Principal Yes Residential Area 8 5 0 5.5 22 12 22 5.5 0 5 12 100 97 67 1 J Separate shared-use path parallel to corridor. New Connection. Light rail in the corridor would result in the removal of the median and on-street parking. Setback applies to both sides and is provided outside of the right of way. The setback in the Overlake Village would be for hardscape improvements and courtyards. In other areas the one foot setback are planitings. This is consistent with Redmond's Transportation Master Plan Provisions of medians and left turn lane access will need to be determined on a project by project basis, based on traffic speeds, volumes and collision history. Section of Street in Bellevue * Outside lane 13 and inside lane 11. Guidelines: - Include minimum project length where standard would be applied. In cases shorter than the minimum then necessary right of way would be dedicated for future project to implement standard. - When designing intersections refer to pedestrain section of TMP. Establish other guidelines for intersection design as necessary. - Establish mimimum receiving lane width (13') in Overlake Village area and other areas where streets have one lane in each direction and the use of curb bulbouts are planned. - In Overlake Village utilities such as power, telephone and cable would be placed under the sidewalk, while in the Employment and Residetial Areas they would be placed in an easement behind the sidewalk. Street Cross Section Ped. Zone Street Ped. Zone Southbound/Westbound Northbound/Eastbound ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B24 20C.45.40-080 Pedestrian Standards. General Requirement. Developments in Overlake Districts shall provide an on-site pedestrian circulation system that at a minimum meets the standards of this section. In addition, the standards in RCDG 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross-Sections and the Overlake Master Plan shall apply as applicable. Connections. a) Connection to the Street. The system shall connect all major building entrances with the nearest public sidewalk by a walkway. b) Internal connections. The system shall connect all buildings on the site, and provide connections to other areas of the site, such as parking areas, bicycle parking, recreational areas, plazas or common outdoor areas, and any pedestrian amenities. c) Connection to Neighboring Uses. The system shall connect to all adjacent properties. The connections shall run to the property line and connect to paths or sidewalks on neighboring properties or to the likely location of connections on those properties. Where no connections exist on a neighboring property and extending a connection would create a safety hazard or it is not possible to determine the likely location of future connections on that property, the Administrator may enter into a legally binding agreement with the owner of the property being developed to construct the connection to the neighboring use when the property on which the use is located develops or redevelops. This agreement shall run with the land and be recorded in King County’s real property records. Design. a) The circulation system shall be concrete, and be at least six feet wide. The Technical Committee may approve alternatives to concrete if site or design conditions warrant. b) Where the system crosses driveways, parking areas, and loading areas, the system shall be clearly identifiable, through the use of a different paving material or other equally effective method. Striping does not meet this requirement. c) Where the system is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, the system shall be a raised path or be separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb, bollards, landscaping or another physical barrier. If a raised path is used, the ends of the raised portions shall be equipped with curb ramps. d) Lighting. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be lighted to intensity where the system can be used at night by the employees, residents, and customers. Lighting should be at a height appropriate to a pedestrian pathway system. Urban Pathway. a) As properties in the Overlake Village and Overlake Design Districts are developed, corresponding portions of the urban pathway shown on the Overlake Village Sub-Area Map shall be installed or otherwise provided for by the property owner/developer. In ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B25 order to provide flexibility, the actual alignment shall be determined through the Site Plan Entitlement process. b) The improvements shall include a 12' wide concrete path with 8 feet of landscaping on both sides as part of a 28 foot corridor, with pedestrian lighting and connections to existing or planned plazas or open spaces. The Technical Committee may approve alternatives to concrete if site or design conditions warrant. Where the pathway follows existing or planned streets or extends along retail storefronts, the corridor width may be reduced through the Site Plan Entitlement process. c) The landscaping shall include a combination of trees, shrubs and other plant materials to enhance visual interest and create a park like quality along the pathway. The quantity and type of plant materials shall be approved by the Technical Committee and may vary along the pathway to provide compatibility with the adjoining land use. For example, the landscaping could include more shrubs and groundcover and fewer trees where visibility of retail storefronts is needed. 20C.45.40-090 Ground Floor Uses. General Requirement. This division establishes requirements regarding ground floor uses located on streets within the Overlake Village and Overlake Design Districts. Standards for 152nd Avenue NE. a) Proposed new buildings located along 152nd Avenue NE shall include pedestrian oriented uses on the ground floor. Pedestrian oriented uses include retail, restaurants, cultural or entertainment uses, hotel lobbies, travel agencies, personal service uses, parcel and mail services, copy centers, the customer service portion of financial institutions, or other businesses that are intended to be pedestrian attracting or pedestrian generating in nature as determined by the Code Administrator. b) Compliance Methods. i) A minimum of 50 percent of the linear sidewalk level façade shall be occupied by pedestrian oriented uses as defined above in 2a), and should be continuous. ii) Up to 50 percent of the linear sidewalk level frontage may be designed to accommodate future conversion to the uses listed in 2a). Any uses other than residential may be permitted in the interim until conversion of the space. The areas designed and constructed to accommodate future conversion shall meet the following standards in addition to other applicable design standards: Minimum of 14 foot distance from the finished floor to the finished ceiling. Minimum average depth of 25 feet measured from the wall abutting the street frontage to the rear wall of the retail use and a minimum width of 20 feet measured from the interior walls of the retail use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B26 Inclusion of an entrance or entrances at the sidewalk level façade to accommodate either a single or multiple tenants or structural design so that entrances can be added when converted to the uses listed in 2a. Other Streets in the Overlake Village Sub-Area: New buildings fronting on the streets listed below shall include commercial or other non-residential uses on the ground floor. Offices and recreational areas associated with residential uses are permitted on the ground floor. a) 148th Avenue NE b) Bel-Red Road c) NE 24th Street d) 156th Avenue NE In locations where ground floor residential units are permitted, they shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the required setback zone or all living areas with windows shall be elevated above the street grade at least 3 feet to provide for increased privacy. The Code Administrator will consider alternative design solutions that retain resident privacy while enhancing the pedestrian environment on the sidewalk. 20C.45.40-100 Minimum Residential Floor Area. General Requirement. This division establishes requirements regarding minimum livable residential floor area as part of development in the Overlake Village and Overlake Design Districts. Standard. a) Proposed new developments within the Overlake Village Mixed Use, Emphasizing Residential Area and Overlake Design District shall include and construct residential uses as a minimum of 50 percent of the gross floor area of proposed uses. b) Proposed new developments within the Overlake Village Mixed Use, Maintaining Regional Retail and Mixed Use, Maintaining Commercial areas shall include and construct residential uses as a minimum of 25 percent of the gross floor area of proposed uses. 20C.45.40-110 Residential Usable Open Space 1) General Requirement. The minimum residential usable open space requirement establishes the minimum percentage of a development that must be set aside to provide usable open space for residents of new developments in Overlake Districts. Every new development that includes residences shall provide usable open space in an amount equal to at least 6.25 percent of the gross residential floor area, defined as total living area and common spaces that provide access. Alternatives for configuration of the total amount of open space required for the development are provided below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B27 a) Common open space. May be used to meet 100 percent of the required open space in the form of landscaped courtyards or decks, gardens with pathways, children’s play areas, or other multi-purpose recreational and/or green spaces, provided the following conditions are met. i) The space is accessible to all residents. ii) Required setback areas shall not count towards the open space requirement unless it is part of a space that meets the dimensional requirements. iii) The dimensions of the space shall be large enough to provide functional leisure or recreational activity as determined by the Technical Committee. For example, long narrow spaces (less then 20 feet wide) are not functional as usable common space. iv) The open space (particularly children’s play areas) shall be visible from dwelling units and positioned near pedestrian activity. v) The open space shall include landscaping, seating, lighting and other pedestrian amenities to make the area functional and enjoyable. vi) Individual entries shall be provided onto common open space from adjacent ground floor residential units. Small, semi-private open spaces for adjacent ground floor units that maintain visual access to the common area are strongly encouraged to enliven the space. vii) The open space shall be separated from ground floor windows, streets, service areas and parking lots with landscaping, low-level fencing, and/or other treatments as approved by the Technical Committee that enhance safety and privacy (both for common open space and dwelling units). viii) The space should be oriented to receive sunlight, facing east, west, or (preferably) south, when possible. ix) Native and/or drought resistant plants should be used to reduce irrigation requirements and conserve water. x) Permeable surfaces, rain gardens, and other stormwater management features are encouraged. xi) Water features are encouraged. 2) Individual balconies or patios and indoor recreational space. May be used to meet up to 50 percent of the required open space. To qualify as open space, balconies or patios shall be at least 50 square feet, with no dimension less than 5 feet, to provide a space usable for human activity. 3) Rooftop decks. May be used to meet up to 50 percent of the required open space, provided the following conditions are met. i) The space is accessible (ADA) for all residents. ii) The open space includes landscaping, seating, and other features as approved by the Technical Committee to encourage use and make the area functional and enjoyable. iii) The space features hard surfacing appropriate to encourage resident use. iv) The space incorporates features that provide for the safety of residents, such as enclosures and appropriate lighting levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B28 4) Combining Usable Open Space and Pedestrian Access. Parking areas, driveways and pedestrian access other than pedestrian access required by Washington State Rules and Regulations for Barrier-Free Design shall not be counted as usable open space, except; if the total width of the common usable open space is 20 feet or wider, any pedestrian path or walkway traversing through the open space may be considered usable open space. 20C.45.40-120 Administrative Design Flexibility. The purpose of this section is to promote creativity in site layout and design, and to allow flexibility in the application of standards for retail, commercial, office, mixed use, and residential development within Overlake, and to achieve the creation of sites and uses that may benefit the public by the application of special design policies and standards not otherwise possible under conventional development regulations and standards. Departures from standards included in this section may be permitted as part of the Site Plan Entitlement process. Deviations from these standards may be allowed if an applicant demonstrates that the deviations from the standards would result in a development that: a) Better meets the intent of the goals and policies for the district in which the site is located; b) Is superior in design in terms of architecture, building materials, site design, landscaping and open space; and c) Provides benefit to the Overlake Neighborhood in terms of desired use, activity, and design. ADF – Flexibility of Design Standards in Overlake. Requirements of RCDG Title 20C, Land Use Regulations that may be modified by application of this subsection are defined specifically as follows: Parking Lot Location. Requirements for the location of on-site parking lots may be modified within the development to provide for greater joint-use and quasi-public parking opportunities and uses which are highly desirable in the subject district. Street standards for townhouse subdivision developments. Other Site Requirements and Standards. All other site requirements and standards for Overlake Districts except number of stories and FAR may be modified within the development to provide superiority in site design: i.e., greater amounts of privacy, maintenance of views, preservation of vegetation, greater environmental benefit, distinctive and high quality design, improved pedestrian access, provision of usable open space, adequate light, air, and security. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B29 20C.45.50 Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program. 20C.45.50-010 Purpose. The purpose of this division is to enhance the character and overall livability of the Overlake Village Sub-Area by encouraging provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals and needs for public amenities, housing opportunities, and environmental sustainability, and reducing the cost of these bonus features by allowing increased building height and floor area above the base site requirements. This division also indicates the City’s priorities for provision of bonus features. 20C.45.50-020 Applicability. Within the Overlake Village Sub-Area, the Technical Committee may allow increases to the base site requirements and standards shown in 20C.45.40-020, Site Requirements Chart- Overlake Districts and 20C.45.70-040, Site Requirements - Overlake Design District for developments that the Technical Committee determines comply with the requirements of this division. The available incentives may be aggregated as follows: a) Within the Overlake Village District the maximum building height which may be achieved is as follows: i) Cornerstone sites as shown on the Overlake Village Sub-Area Map may achieve up to a maximum building height of 9 stories. ii) Other sites in the Overlake Village District may achieve up to a maximum building height of 8 stories. iii) Properties in the portion of the Overlake Village District located north of the eastbound SR 520 off-ramp at 148th Avenue NE may achieve up to a maximum building height of 5 stories. b) Within the Overlake Design District the maximum building height which may be achieved is as follows: i) Residential buildings (including ground floor non-residential uses): 12 stories, not to exceed 125 feet; ii) Full service hotel/conference center: 12 stories, not to exceed 135 feet; iii) Office and other uses: 10 stories, not to exceed 126 feet. c) Transfer of Development Rights may not be used to exceed the maximum building height allowed through this program. d) Floor area calculations shall be based on the gross site area prior to any provision of space for public amenities. e) The total commercial floor area permitted within Overlake shall not exceed the Bellevue Redmond Overlake Transportation Study Agreement (BROTS) or its successor agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B30 20C.45.50-030 Bonus Features and Incentives. Table 1 of this section indicates the priority bonus features and maximum incentives available for properties shown on the Overlake Village Sub-Area Map. Table 2 of this section indicates additional bonus features and incentives. In order for sites to qualify for building height greater than the 4 or 5 story maximum specified in RCDG 20C.45.40-020, the applicant must provide the applicable bonus feature(s) described in Table 1: Priority Bonus Features and Incentives. Additional bonus features from Table 1 or 2 may be provided to qualify for additional development incentives up to the building height limits identified above in RCDG 20C.45.50-020, Applicability. The same land area may not be used to qualify for two bonus features. For example, an applicant whose site is shown for a major park and who satisfies that requirement can seek additional development incentives by also providing space for an outdoor plaza. Bonus features provided through this program for parks, stormwater facilities or plazas may not be counted towards satisfaction of the minimum area requirements in RCDG 20C.45.40- 110 for residential usable open space. Open spaces provided through the Incentive Program may be combined with residential open space provided all standards are met. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B31 Table 1 Priority Bonus Features and Incentives Priority Bonus Feature Maximum Incentive Per Feature 1. Sites Shown For a Regional Stormwater Management Facility: Dedicate a minimum of 2 to 4 acres of land to the City of Redmond for use as a regional stormwater management facility. Site Shown for a Major Park: Provide a minimum of 2.5 acres of land that is accessible to the public as an urban park and open space. May be in one or two open space areas, with one of the spaces a minimum of 1.5 acres in size to provide sufficient size for informal recreation. If provided in two areas, these spaces shall be contiguous or connected by a pathway which promotes a clear visual connection and relationship between the spaces. The pathway shall be designed at a minimum to meet the requirements of 20C.45.40-080(4) Urban Pathway. Visual connection may be achieved through proximity of the spaces or through enhanced design treatments along the pathway which enable pedestrians to readily perceive the connection between the spaces. The intended character of the open space(s) is to: ƒ Include a balance of open lawn and trees, ƒ Include hard surfaces such as plazas as well as soft surfaces (lawns), ƒ Provide a central gathering place and a place that can be programmed, such as for concerts, ƒ Include space for refuge as well as space for active recreation such as small play areas, ƒ Help serve needs for a variety of ages, from children through seniors, and ƒ Be located either near 152nd Avenue NE or provide a clear connection to 152nd Avenue NE through at least one pathway. The City and applicant shall establish an agreement regarding the design, funding and timing for completion of improvements for this Building height of up to 8 stories, Residential floor area of up to 4.0, and Commercial floor area ratio of up to .55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B32 Table 1 Priority Bonus Features and Incentives Priority Bonus Feature Maximum Incentive Per Feature park. The completion of improvements for this park shall be commensurate with the progress on the construction of the development. The space shall be dedicated after improvement to the City of Redmond or be subjected to covenants or other legally binding provisions mutually agreed upon by the property owner and City to assure the property is open and accessible to the public. 2. Other Sites in Overlake Village Provide a minimum of 5% of the gross site area, an equivalent fee in lieu based on fair market value, or a combination of land and fee for the purpose of providing space for an outdoor plaza. The space shall be dedicated after improvement to the City of Redmond or be subject to covenants or other legally binding provisions mutually agreed upon by the property owner and City to assure the property is open and accessible to the public. The Technical Committee shall review and determine whether proposed sites qualify for plaza locations based on considerations including: a) Consistency of the propose location with the preferred vicinities shown in the Overlake Master Plan, b) The suitability of the proposed location for an outdoor plaza, and c) Opportunities to create an open space of greater value by locating this space in conjunction with other open spaces, such as those required for residential open space (RCDG 20C.45.40-100) Improvements Applicants may seek additional incentives for completion of plaza improvements. These applicants shall submit a plan which shows landscaping, lighting, seating, color and materials, For land dedication: One additional story for 50% of the buildings in the development For completion of plaza improvements, the applicant may select one of the following incentives (in addition to above height incentive): ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B33 Table 1 Priority Bonus Features and Incentives Priority Bonus Feature Maximum Incentive Per Feature relationship to building frontage, and relationship to and coordination with the pedestrian system, addressing at a minimum the design requirements specified in RCDG 20D.40.200-090. Proposed improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Technical Committee. Residential floor area of up to 4.0, Commercial floor area ratio of up to .55, hotel floor area ratio of up to 1.35 (in Overlake Village district only), or Expanded list of nonresidential land uses to include business park uses from RCDG 20C.45.30-040 that are compatible in terms of noise and other potential operational impacts with nearby multi-story mixed use/residential developments. Only available if required residential development per RCDG 20C.45.40- 100 has been constructed. 3. Complete a master plan approved by the City Council, with review by Technical Committee and Design Review Board that at a minimum contains the elements listed below. This is a requirement for sites 5 acres in size and larger in the Overlake Village and Overlake Design District, or properties under one ownership totaling 5 acres in size or larger (as of the effective date of proposed 2007 Overlake RCDG update) and is encouraged for other sites. A master plan shall be approved prior to approval of any subdivision, binding site plan or site plan entitlement for any development located on a site within the Overlake Design District, excluding modification of an existing structure. The term “master plan” as used in this section means a conceptual plan providing for the development and use of land that contains the following elements: a) A design concept that is in conformance with the Overlake policies, development regulations, and Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy; b) Conceptual site plan indicating all proposed One additional story for 50% of the buildings in the development ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B34 Table 1 Priority Bonus Features and Incentives Priority Bonus Feature Maximum Incentive Per Feature land uses; c) Height and bulk study that demonstrates how building mass, height and scale relate to open spaces, pedestrian pathways, streets and other buildings; d) Analysis of shading effects of taller buildings; e) Transportation and circulation plan indicating the layout and conceptual design of all streets, pedestrian pathways, parking, and location of transit facilities (as available), in plan view and cross section for streets; f) Location of proposed space for parks, open space and any cultural facilities; g) Phasing plan for bonus features and affordable housing component showing that the completion of improvements of bonus features and affordable housing shall be commensurate with the progress on the construction of the development; h) Location of any environmentally sensitive areas; i) Landscape and tree retention concepts, including consideration of the effect of wind pattern on retained trees; j) Preliminary plan indicating connections to adjacent properties for transportation and open space systems; k) Approach to sustainable design, including consideration of the use of environmentally sustainable materials such as permeable pavement, where possible; and, l) Preliminary plan for other major infrastructure improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B35 Table 2 Additional Bonus Features and Incentives Additional Bonus Features Maximum Incentive Per Feature 1. Minimum of LEED Silver Certification or comparable built green certification as determined by the Technical Committee One additional story for each building designed and constructed to meet this certification, and Expanded list of nonresidential land uses to include business park uses from RCDG 20C.45.30-040 that are compatible in terms of noise and other potential operational impacts with nearby multi-story mixed use/residential developments. Only available if required residential development per RCDG 20C.45.40- 100 has been constructed. 2. Provide and maintain at least 75% of the total gross floor area for the development in residential uses in the Overlake Village - Mixed Use, Emphasizing Residential Area, and at least 50% in the rest of Overlake Village One additional story for all buildings in the development. 3. At least 60 percent of parking for the development is located below grade. One additional story for all buildings in the development, Residential floor area of up to 4.0, Commercial floor area ratio of up to .55 (0.70 when combined with Major Park feature), and Expanded list of nonresidential land uses to include business park uses from RCDG 20C.45.30-040 that are compatible in terms of noise and other potential operational impacts with nearby multi-story mixed use/residential developments. Only available if required residential development per RCDG 20C.45.40- 100 has been constructed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B36 Table 2 Additional Bonus Features and Incentives Additional Bonus Features Maximum Incentive Per Feature Or, At least 60 percent of off-street parking for the development is located in parking structures, some or all of which may be above-grade, provided above-grade parking structures do not have frontage on 152nd Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, public park space or a public pedestrian pathway system, and have ground level retail or other pedestrian-oriented uses incorporated into the structure where it is adjacent to other public streets so that none of the parking structure fronts on the ground level in these areas. This bonus applies only in locations where this standard is not otherwise required by RCDG 20D.40.200- 030, Parking Garage Design. Applicant may select one of the incentives offered for a minimum 60 percent off-street parking located below-grade 4. Provide and maintain at least 10% of the retail floor area in the development 25% below market rates for new construction to retain existing retail businesses in the area. If the property owner is not able to lease the space to an existing retail business after offering it for at least 6 months, the property owner may request approval from the Code Administrator to offer below market rate space for one of the following substitute methods that meet identified neighborhood goals for the area: a) Non-chain retail business specializing in ethnic goods. or b) Desired community facility such as a library or teen center. Addition of commercial floor area on a square foot to square foot basis, up to a maximum FAR of .55. The additional commercial floor area may be used to increase building height by up to 1 story. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B37 20C.45.60 References to Other RCDG Divisions that Contain Requirements Applicable to Overlake 20D.30, Affordable Housing 20D.40, Design Standards 20D.90, Lighting Requirements 20D.95, Limitations on External Effects of Uses 20D.120, Outdoor Storage and Service Areas 20D.130, Parking 20D.230, Transitions Between Zones ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B38 20C.45.70 Overlake Design District 20C.45.70-10 Purpose. The Overlake Design District provides regulations and incentives for the planned and coordinated redevelopment of a large underutilized parcel of land located at the heart of the Overlake Urban Center. The Design District is intended to foster opportunities to live, shop, work and recreate in a vibrant, mixed-use setting. The objectives of the Overlake Design District include: 1. Provide strong and effective incentives to include housing in all future development. 2. Encourage a broad mix of uses and amenities to achieve a vibrant, engaging environment. 3. Promote compact, walkable development forms that are conducive to transit use. 4. Provide improved connections for non-motorized and local vehicular travel. 5. Encourage use of environmentally sustainable site design and building features. 6. Encourage inclusion of restaurants, professional offices and other commercial and service uses to meet needs of employees and residents, enliven the area after working hours, and contribute to a sense of place. 7. Grant development incentives for provision of a significant public gathering space that will function as a component of a connected system of parks and trails serving the Overlake Neighborhood; 8. Facilitate creative integration of land uses, architecture, parking facilities and public amenity areas by providing flexibility in zoning and site requirements; 9. Allow additional building height and density where appropriate to facilitate tree retention and provision of open space, while still achieving sustainable, transit-supportive densities. 20C.45.70-20 Master Plan. A master plan approved by the City Council, with review by the Technical Committee and Design Review Board shall be completed prior to approval of any subdivision, binding site plan or issuance of site plan approval for any development located on a site within the Overlake Design District, excluding modification of an existing structure. The term “master plan” as used in this section means a conceptual plan providing for the development and use of land that contains those elements outlined in RCDG 20C.45.50-030, Bonus Features and Incentives Table 1, Item 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B39 Architectural design, exact building shapes and locations, and other detailed information required in a site plan shall not be required for the master plan. See also RCDG 20C.45.70-040, Note 2. 20C.45.70-30 Permitted Land Uses See RCDG 20C.45.30-40 Permitted Land Uses – Overlake Districts 20C.45.70-40 Site Requirements – Overlake Design District. 1) Explanation of Chart. This section establishes the basic site requirements for the Overlake Design District. The chart contains the minimum and maximum dimensional requirements for this district. The notes identify particular requirements and provisions that are applicable. 2) Site Requirements Chart – Overlake Design District Overlake Design District (ODD) Maximum Lot Coverage of Structures and Impervious Surface1, 2 85% Minimum Landscaped Area 20% Base Maximum Building Height (Stories), without use of Bonuses or Transfer of Development Rights3, 4 Non-Residential Uses Residential Uses in Single-Use or Mixed- Use Buildings 4 5 Maximum Floor Area Ratios without use of Bonuses5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Non-Residential Uses Non-Residential Uses as part of Mixed- Use Developments that include Residential Uses in Single-Use or Mixed- Use Buildings or with use of TDRs10 Residential Uses11 in Single-Use or Mixed-Use Buildings .40 .47 2.5 Building Setbacks Front and all Street Setbacks (in feet) 0 Buildings shall be developed to the back of the setback zone12 along front and side streets ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B40 See 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross Sections Minimum Side Setback (in feet) 0 Minimum Rear Setback (in feet) 0 Pedestrian Standards See 20C.45.40-080 Ground Floor Uses See 20C.45.40-090 Minimum Residential Floor Area See 20C.45.40-100 Residential Open Space See 20C.45.40-110 Parking See 20D.13013, 14 Notes for Site Requirements Chart. 1. See RCDG 20C.45.40-030, Maximum Lot Coverage – Structures and Total Impervious Surface. 2. When a master plan has been approved by the City, site requirements and other development standards and regulations shall be administered on the basis of the area controlled by the approved master plan (“Plan Area”), rather than on a site-by-site basis, provided the approved master plan demonstrates compliance with the requirement in question. For example, in the case of a development application for a site that is part of an area controlled by an approved master plan, if the plan designates the maximum lot coverage of structures and such areas are sufficient to meet maximum lot coverage requirements applied to the entire Plan Area, then an individual site plan need not demonstrate compliance with maximum lot coverage requirements. 3. See RCDG 20C.45.40-050, Building Height; RCDG 20D.200 Transfer of Development Rights Program; and RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program. 4. In areas where a public or private street will be more than one story above the ground floor elevation of a building because of topography (such as the southwest corner of NE 90th Street and Woodinville-Redmond Road), building height may be increased by one story along the lower side of the site, provided: the height does not exceed the otherwise applicable maximum building height (including bonuses, if any) along the higher street elevation; and, the applicable limitation on FAR is complied with. 5. Base FAR shall be established using the total land area included within the Overlake Design District, excluding publicly owned right-of-way, as of [effective date of ordinance adopting proposed amendment]. The District-wide total base FAR shall, in the absence of other allocation, be allocated pro rata on the basis of land area among the separate legal lots within the Design District. By agreement of property owners, FAR allocation may be transferred among lots within the Design District. Allocations of FAR may be designated in an approved master plan, site plan which includes two or more lots, or an approval or modification of a division of property or boundary line adjustment. Where an increase in allowable FAR is earned subsequent to an approval which included an allocation of FAR, the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B41 increase in FAR shall be reflected through an administrative amendment to the approval, either upon application by the owner of the affected property or at the initiative of the City. 6. Facilities for the provision of public utility serve such as water storage tanks and electrical power substations, will not be counted against the limitation on floor area. Unused base and bonus FAR may be transferred from the site of these facilities to other sites within the Overlake Design District. FAR attributable to land area dedicated for public improvements such as streets, pathways, drainage facilities and park and open space facilities shall be transferred for use on developed sites within the Overlake Design District. 7. Each City approval of the division of land within the District shall include a further allocation of the initial base FAR (and bonus FAR earned as of the date of the approval, if any) among the resulting parcels as specified by the property owner at the time of the application for approval of the division of land. Each such allocation shall be stated in, and recorded with the official documents that describe the divided parcels. Such statement of FAR allocation shall include reference to the potential for bonus FAR, if applicable. Increases in FAR resulting from later qualifications for bonus FAR, and adjustments in the form of re-allocation of FAR through agreement of property owners may be made by administrative amendments upon application of the owners of the affected property or upon initiation by the City. 8. The FAR for non-residential and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated and may be added together for a cumulative total, provided that the respective maximum FAR for each use is not exceeded, unless otherwise provided in the RCDG. 9. See RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program. 10. See RCDG 20D.200, Transfer of Development Rights Program. 11. Residential uses include living areas, common areas used to access living areas, offices for the renting, leasing, or selling the housing units in the development, and recreational areas used exclusively by residents and their guests. 12. The setback zone is shown in RCDG 20C.45.40-070, Overlake Street Cross-Sections. It is located outside of the right-of-way, and ensures that objects do not encroach on useable sidewalk space and helps to maintain sight lines at driveways. In the Overlake Village Sub- Area, it provides space for hardscape improvements or container plants. 13. Unless revised as provided in this note, parking standards in the Overlake Design District for the minimum and maximum number of required parking spaces shall be the same as for the Overlake Village District. Alternative parking standards may be specified in a City-approved master plan or site plan when a change is supported by the results of either the Downtown Parking Study, a City review of parking in one or more Overlake Districts, or a property- owner initiated parking analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B42 The Technical Committee may revise parking standards based upon appropriate parking data and analysis as a part of its review of any development permit application as follows: a. Restaurants, sit down and carry out: The requirement may be reduced to not less than two spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area provided the Technical Committee finds there is sufficient data and analysis upon which the reduction is based to demonstrate that adequate parking will be provided, including shared parking. b. Small restaurant/café/deli (<750 square feet gross floor area): No minimum requirement. 14. Within the Overlake Design District, curbside parking on public streets within the site may be counted toward up to 25% of the required off-street parking, provided that, when all or part of the street right-of-way has been, or will be dedicated by the development site property owner (or a predecessor in title), curbside parking shall be fully counted toward satisfaction of the off-street parking requirement. Curbside parking on 152nd Avenue NE or 156th Avenue NE shall not be counted toward off-street parking. Curbside parking on private streets that are part of the development site shall be fully counted toward satisfaction of the required off-street parking requirement. 20C.45.70-050 Overlake Design District Incentive Program 1) The provisions of RCDG 20C.45.40-120, Overlake Village Incentive Program apply to the Overlake Design District. 2) Table 1 includes additional bonus features and incentives that apply only to sites within the Overlake Design District: Table 1: Overlake Design District Additional Bonus Features and Incentives Features Maximum Incentive Per Feature 1, 2, 3 1. Full service hotel/conference center: In addition to the master plan elements identified in RCDG 20C.45.40-120, Overlake Village Sub-Area Incentive Program Priority Bonus Feature 3 (master plan), the master plan includes land area dedicated to a “full service hotel/conference center” which shall mean a hotel with banquet and meeting facilities to accommodate groups of at least 300 people. Two additional stories for full service hotel/conference center buildings Additional .20 FAR for commercial development; 2. Provide transit-oriented development that: One additional story for commercial buildings and two ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B43 Table 1: Overlake Design District Additional Bonus Features and Incentives Features Maximum Incentive Per Feature 1, 2, 3 a) Is located within 2,500 feet of a transit station or stop served by light rail, bus rapid transit or other high-capacity transit service; b) Will be connected with the transit station or stop by sidewalks, crosswalks and/or pathways which afford convenient pedestrian access; and c) Will include a 1,000 or more residential units as a component of a mixed-use district. 4 additional stories for residential and full service hotel/conference center buildings. Additional .25 FAR for commercial development. Additional .75 FAR for Residential development. Notes for Bonus Features and Incentives Chart. 1. Maximum FAR Bonus. The bonus provisions of RCDG 20C.45.50, Overlake Village Sub- Area Incentive Program shall apply within the Overlake Design District. RCDG 20D.200, Transfer of Development Rights Program may also be used for development within the Design District. The bonus provisions and transferred development rights may be aggregated, provided the maximum FAR achievable shall be 1.0 for non-residential development and 4.0 for residential development. 2. Undeveloped bonus floor area may be transferred from one developed or undeveloped land area to another, provided both sites are located within the land area controlled by the master plan. 3. To achieve an appropriate transition between major public streets and development interior to the Overlake Design District, maximum building height within 50 feet of the rights-of-way of 152nd Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE shall be 6 stories measured from the closest edge of the property to the right-of-way. Bonuses or transferred development rights may not be used to exceed this limit. 4. The transit station or stop for the transit-oriented development bonus may be in existence, or may be planned for construction, provided it is fully funded and is schedule to be open for service within two years of the date of occupancy of the structure that utilizes the increase in FAR. Undeveloped transit-oriented development bonus FAR may be transferred from one developed or undeveloped land area to another land area which satisfies the criteria for the bonus. 20C.45.70-060 Administrative Design Flexibility. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B44 The provisions of RCDG 20C.45.40-120, Administrative Design Flexibility apply to the Overlake Design District. 20D.40 Design Standards 20D.40.10-020 Scope and Authority. Scope. RCDG 20D.40 contains three sets of design standards: City-wide design standards, Downtown design standards and Overlake design standards. City-wide design standards (RCDG 20D.40.15) apply to developments requiring design review that are located throughout the City and include the Downtown and Overlake districts. The Downtown is divided into several districts. The applicable design standards for Downtown (RCDG 20D.40.100) and the City-wide design standards (RCDG 20D.40.15) apply to developments requiring design review that are located within the Downtown neighborhood. Design standards specific to the Overlake Village and Overlake Design Districts are provided in 20D.40.200, Overlake Districts - Supplemental Design Standards. 20D.40.200 - Overlake Village and Overlake Design District - Supplemental Design Standards 20D.40.200-010 Applicability. All projects within the Overlake Village and Overlake Design District shall adhere to Redmond’s citywide standards in RCDG 20D.40, Design Standards, as well as the as well as the supplemental design standards identified below. If the Citywide and Overlake standards conflict, the Overlake standards shall prevail. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B45 20D.40.200-020 Surface Parking Lots. 1) Intent: To limit the visual impact of surface parking lots. 2) Design Criteria. a) Location. i) No new surface parking lots are permitted along 152nd Avenue NE or 156th Avenue NE. Any surface parking lots shall be separated from these streets by a building or at least 60 feet of open space. ii) On other streets in the Overlake Village Sub-Area, new surface parking lots located between the primary building and the public right-of-way are discouraged and may not occupy more than 50 percent of the lot frontage. b) Access. New access to parking lots should be from an alley, court, or street that is not proposed as an alternative light rail transit alignment by Sound Transit. Creation of alley access to parking is encouraged to minimize curb cuts. c) Landscaping and Screening. All parking lot landscaping shall meet the requirements specified in RCDG 20D.40.35-030, Parking Lot Landscaping and RCDG 20D.80.10 Landscaping and Natural Screening (20D.40.35-030). Interior parking lot landscaping may incorporate the use of rain gardens to retain and infiltrate runoff from the parking lot. 20D.40.200-030 Parking Garage Design. 1) Intent. To reduce the visual impact of structured parking located above grade. 2) Design Criteria. a) Ground level street frontage shall not be occupied by parking in the following locations: i) 152nd Avenue NE or 156th Avenue NE. ii) Streets proposed as alternative light rail transit alignments by Sound Transit. iii) Streets that are included as part of the pedestrian pathway system as defined in the Overlake Master Plan. b) In other locations, no more than 120 feet of ground level building frontage may be occupied by parking. Parking structures wider than 120 feet must incorporate other uses along the street front to meet this requirement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B46 c) Where the garage wall is built to the sidewalk edge, the façade shall use artwork, decorative grilles, special building material treatment/design, and/or other treatments as approved by the Design Review Board that enhance the pedestrian environment and obscure the view of parked cars. In order to meet transparency requirements, garages can incorporate openings with grillwork or other treatments to resemble windows. d) Small setbacks with terraced landscaping elements can be particularly effective in softening the appearance of a parking garage. e) Upper level parking garages shall use articulation, treatments that resemble windows, and/or other devices to break up the massing of the garage, add visual interest, and convey an appearance more like a typical building floor rather than a floor of visible cars. 20D.40.200-040 Building Form and Scale. 1) Intent: To maintain light and views, reduce the bulk of taller buildings, reinforce pedestrian scale on street frontages, and promote variety in building height. 2) Design Criteria. a) Light for Residential Buildings and Courtyards. i) Throughout the Overlake Village Sub-Area, residential or residential/mixed use buildings over 6 stories in height shall be designed to provide and maintain adequate natural light for residential dwellings of the building. ii) Enclosed courtyards shall not be permitted for structures over 6 stories in height except when: Floors 7 and higher do not exceed 50 percent of the structure’s floor plate, or ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B47 The courtyard due to its size and orientation is large enough to maintain light. iii) The interior courtyard for or shaped buildings may be separated from the sidewalk to create a private area provided that the enclosure is constructed of transparent building material. b) Building Step Back and Height Limit. i) Along 152nd Avenue NE, the upper stories of buildings over 6 stories in height shall be stepped back from the street to maintain a pedestrian scale along the street frontage. ii) The step back shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, measured from the building edge at the street frontage. The step back shall begin on at least floor 7 and may begin as low as floor 3. iii) Maximum building height when bonuses or transfer of development rights are used shall not exceed 6 stories within 50 feet of the west edge of the right-of-way of 156th Avenue NE or within 50 feet of the west edge of the right-of-way of Bel-Red Road, north of NE 24th Street. iv) RCDG 20C.45.70-050, note 3 provides height limits along 152nd Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE for the Overlake Design District. c) Design of Large Buildings: Large building mass shall be sited and designed to reduce the apparent mass and bulk, and avoid long, continuous flat facades through use of techniques such as: i) Breaking up the mass into multiple buildings or designing a building to appear as multiple buildings through multiple defined and storefronts, ii) Articulation of facades into increments through use of architectural techniques such as bay windows, offsets, recesses, and other techniques which break or minimize scale, and iii) Provision of new internal streets and pathways at a minimum as shown in the Overlake Master Plan to establish/enhance the urban grid. d) Modulation: All building facades visible from streets, parks or other public spaces shall be modulated to provide visual interest and to reduce the apparent bulk of larger structures. Building facades shall be stepped back or projected forward at one or more intervals to provide a minimum 25 percent modulation of the horizontal width of the structure. No building façade shall exceed 120 feet without modulation in the façade plane. The minimum depth of modulation is 10 feet. Projections may begin on the 3rd floor and may not extend any further into the right-of-way than one-half of the width of the sidewalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B48 e) Use of Alternative Techniques: The Design Review Board may approve use of other techniques that improve the overall quality of the development and meet the intent of this section. 20D.40.200-050 Building Roofline 1) Intent: To promote detailed roof expression to create a variable roofline throughout the Overlake Village Sub-Area and to create a skyline that is visually interesting. 2) Design Criteria. a) Building rooflines visible from a public street, open space, or public parking area shall incorporate features to create a varied and visually distinctive roof form through features such as prominent cornice or fascia, stepped roofs, emphasized dormers, chimneys, gables, or an articulated roofline. b) The width of any continuous flat roofline should extend no more than 100 feet without modulation. Modulation should consist of either one or a combination of the following treatments: i) For flat roofs or facades with a horizontal eave, fascia, or parapet with at least an eight foot return, the minimum vertical dimension of roofline modulation is the greater of 2 feet or 0.1 multiplied by the wall height (finish grade to top of wall) if the segment is 50 feet or less, or at least 4 feet if the segment is more than 50 feet in length. ii) A sloped or gabled roofline segment of at least 20 feet in width and no less than 3 feet vertical in 12 feet horizontal. c) Mechanical equipment and rooftop penthouses shall be architecturally incorporated into the design of rooflines or into the overall building design. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B49 20D.40.200-060 Building Materials. 1) Intent. To promote visual interest, distinct design qualities, and an appearance of quality and permanence through use of durable building materials and effective architectural detailing. 2) Design Criteria. a) Building materials: Building materials shall provide architectural interest and evoke and demonstrate a look of permanence through use of superior exterior cladding materials such as stone, masonry, copper, brick and similar materials, as accepted by the Design Review Board. At a minimum, superior exterior cladding materials shall be used for the facades for the 1st and 2nd floors when visible from streets, parks or other public spaces. Use of superior exterior cladding materials is encouraged on upper stories. Building materials should minimize light reflection and glare. Use of cementatious panel is prohibited with the exception of locations such as accent areas and soffits. b) Concrete block: When used for the façade of any building, concrete blocks shall be split, rock- or ground-faced. To add visual interest, the use of specialized textures and/or colors used effectively with other building materials and details are encouraged. c) Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) and similar troweled finishes (stucco): i) EIFS shall be trimmed in wood, masonry, or other approved materials and shall be sheltered from extreme weather by roof overhangs or other methods. ii) EIFS may only be used in conjunction with other approved building materials. Generally, the use of EIFS for more than 50 percent of the building facade is discouraged. iii) EIFS is prohibited on ground floor facades. Masonry or other similar durable/permanent materials shall be used. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B50 20D.40.200-070 Ground Floor Retail and Other Commercial Facades 1) Intent. To promote ground floor retail and other commercial facades that are engaging and include features that are scaled to and of interest to pedestrians. 2) Design Criteria: a) For non-residential ground floor uses, windows, rather than blank walls, shall be provided on the street level to encourage a visual and economic link between the business and passing pedestrians. A minimum of 60% of the length of the store front area facing the streets (between 2 feet and 7 feet above the sidewalk) shall be in non-reflective, transparent glazing. b) A permanent weather protection element such as a glass and/or steel canopy shall be provided along at least 80 percent of the building frontage and should be at least 6 feet in depth. c) In addition, ground floor retail and commercial facades shall include at least three of the elements listed below. Standard corporate logos or architectural elements will not qualify. i) Unique or handcrafted pedestrian-oriented signage. ii) Artwork incorporated on the façade. iii) Street furniture. iv) Distinctive treatment of windows and/or door(s). v) Distinctive exterior light fixtures. vi) Unique or handcrafted planter boxes or other architectural features that are intended to incorporate landscaping. vii) Distinctive façade kickplate treatment including the use of stone, marble, tile or other material that provides special visual interest. viii) Other details as approved by the Design Review Board that add visual interest to the storefronts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B51 20D.40.200-080 Blank Walls. 1) Intent. To ensure in locations in which glass windows are not used, there are still features that add visual interest and variety to the streetscape. 2) Design Criteria. Blank walls shall be treated by incorporating at least four of the following elements: i) Masonry (but not flat concrete block) ii) Belt courses of a different texture and color. iii) Projecting cornice iv) Projecting metal canopy v) Decorative tilework vi) Trellis containing planting vii) Medallions viii) Vertical articulation ix) Artwork x) Lighting fixtures xi) Recesses xii) Other architectural element not listed as approved by the Design Review Board that meets the intent of this section. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B52 20D.40.200-090 Pedestrian Plazas and Open Spaces 1) Intent. To ensure that pedestrian plazas and open spaces are accessible to the public, usable, safe and visually interesting. 2) Design Criteria. a) Buildings surrounding the pedestrian plaza or open space shall comply with 20D.40.200- 060, Ground Floor Retail and Other Commercial Facades and have windows and entrances that face the open space. Retail uses are encouraged fronting on plazas and open spaces. b) Pedestrian plazas and open spaces should be within 3 feet of the nearest sidewalk or pedestrian pathway equivalent to 5 percent of the site and include all of the following: i) Adequate amount and type of seating. ii) Planting, including specimen trees, shrubs and seasonal planting. iii) Significant solar exposure. iv) Pedestrian scaled lighting. v) Quality materials, such as textured concrete, bricks, pavers or similar or better materials, for portions of the open space that are not landscaped. vi) Visibility from the nearest sidewalk or pathway. vii) Connection to the urban pathway system shown in the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy viii) Wayfinding elements that provide visual continuity to other open spaces in the Overlake Village and the Overlake Design Districts. c) Pedestrian plazas and open spaces shall also incorporate a minimum of three of the following features to add visual interest: i) Artwork. ii Water feature such as a fountain or cascade that serves as a focal point. iii Information kiosks. iv Planters. v Permeable paving for pathways and hardscapes. vi Other similar treatments as approved by the Technical Committee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B53 20D.130 Parking Standards Table 20D.130.10-020(1) Spaces for Specific Land Use Multi-family in Overlake See requirements for residential uses in Overlake Restaurants: Sit-down Take-out Minimum 9/1,000 sq. ft. gfa 10/1,000 sq. ft. gfa The City will review parking standards for Overlake upon completion of Redmond’s study of downtown parking management. Excerpt from Table 20D.130.10-020(2) Required Off-Street Parking – Proposed Amendment to Overlake Portion of Table Number of Parking Spaces On-Site Minimum Required Maximum Allowed Overlake Districts Residential Uses (Overlake Village or Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District) 1.0/du1 2.25/du Overlake Village2, 3 2.0/1000 sq. ft. gfa 3.0/1000 sq. ft. gfa Overlake Business and Advanced Technology District2, 3 2.0/1000 sq. ft. gfa 3.0/1000 sq. ft. gfa*** The Technical Committee may consider parking at a ratio as low as 1.5 per 1,000 if a covenant is recorded with the property which limits the uses to warehouse uses and/or limits the number of employees permitted in a building or project. Parking at ratios greater than 3.0 per 1,0000 (not to exceed 3.5 per 1000) is generally not permitted unless the employer/building owner can document that single-occupancy vehicle trips can be reduced better through the employer/building owner’s parking/traffic mitigation program than would be reduced through limiting parking stalls to 3.0 per 1,000. 1. Plus one guest space per four units for projects with six units or more. 2. The maximum number of parking stalls allowed may be increased to 5.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. gfa for the retail components of mixed-use developments. 3. Developments may provide parking in excess of the Maximum Allowed parking standard provided the excess parking is also available at all times to the general public, and there is ample signage at the facility to inform users the excess parking stalls are available for public use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B54 20D.30.10 Affordable Housing. 20D.30.10-010 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to: Implement through regulations the responsibility of the City under State law to provide for housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Help address the shortage of housing in the City for persons of low and moderate income, helping to provide opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons who work in the City to live here, rather than in locations distant from employment that contribute to increased length and number of vehicle trips. Help assure an adequate affordable housing supply in the City by offsetting the pressure on housing costs resulting from high job growth and construction of high-end housing. Preserve land for affordable housing as the City continues to grow. Promote development of housing that would not otherwise be built in the City. (Ord. 2249; Ord. 2126; Ord. 1756. Formerly 20C.20.016) 20D.30.10-020 General. This section applies to: all new senior housing developments and congregate care senior dwelling units, not including nursing homes; all new dwelling units within the Downtown Neighborhood and all new multi-family dwelling units within the Overlake Neighborhood, and all new single-family attached and detached dwelling units within the Willows/Rose Hill, Grass Lawn , North Redmond , and Education Hill neighborhoods. In areas where density limitation is expressed as a floor area ratio (FAR), density bonuses will be calculated as an equivalent FAR bonus. Affordable Housing. At least 10 percent of the units in new housing developments of 10 units or greater must be affordable units. At least one bonus market rate unit is permitted for each affordable unit provided, up to 15 percent above the maximum allowed density permitted on the site. For example, if the maximum allowed density for the site is 20 units per acre, the density bonus shall not exceed three units per acre, yielding a total allowed density, with bonus, of 23 units per acre, or, 20 units x 15 percent = 23 units. In portions of Overlake where density limits are expressed as a floor area ratio, the bonus is equivalent floor area above the maximum residential FAR specified in RCDG 20C.45.40-020 for each affordable unit provided. The bonuses granted under this provision are in addition to any bonuses granted for senior housing under RCDG 20D.30.15, Affordable Senior Housing Bonus. Affordable Housing – Low Cost Units. Each low cost affordable unit provided counts as two affordable units for the purpose of satisfying the affordable unit requirement under subsection of this section. For purposes of computing bonus market rate units under subsection of this section, two bonus market rate units are permitted for each low cost affordable unit provided, up to 20 percent above the maximum density permitted on the site. Affordable Housing Calculation. The number of required affordable housing units is determined by rounding fractional numbers up to the nearest whole number from 0.5. The project proponent may propose to provide alternative payments for fractional portions of units, as provided for in RCDG 20D.30.10-030(2)(b). Housing Construction Timing. Affordable home construction shall be concurrent with construction of market rate dwelling units unless the requirements of this section are met through RCDG 20D.30.10-030, Alternative Compliance Methods. Deleted: City Center Deleted: Neighborhood Deleted: within the Deleted: Neighborhood Deleted: Neighborhood Deleted: N ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B55 Duration. An agreement in a form approved by the City must be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections to stipulate conditions under which required affordable housing units will remain as affordable housing for the life of the development. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the applicant. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner shall sign any necessary agreements with the City to implement these requirements. The City may agree, at its sole discretion, to subordinate any affordable housing regulatory agreement for the purpose of enabling the owner to obtain financing for development of the property, consistent with any applicable provision of the Community Development Guide in effect at the time of the issuance of the development permit(s). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B56 Proposed Amendment to Existing RCDG Section 20F.40.20 Administrative Design Flexibility. 20F.40.20-010 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote creativity in site layout and design and to allow flexibility in the application of standards for residential, commercial, business and manufacturing parks and to achieve the creation of sites and uses that may benefit the public by the application of special design policies and standards not otherwise possible under conventional development regulations and standards. (Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-020 Scope. This section establishes the criteria that the City will use in making a decision upon an application for administrative design flexibility in all zones, except those zones within the City Center (See RCDG 20C.40.40-030 for administrative design flexibility in the City Center) and nonresidential and mixed use districts within Overlake (See RCDG 20C.45.40-130 for administrative design flexibility in Overlake). Administrative design flexibility shall only be considered for adjusting standards in the categories listed below for each type of land use. Requests for adjustment to standards not listed shall be processed as a variance as set forth in RCDG 20F.40.180, Variances. (Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-030 Procedure. Applications that seek administrative design flexibility shall follow the procedures established in RCDG 20F.30.35 for a Type II permit process. (Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-040 Decision Criteria. Criteria for Projects Other than Existing Single-Family Structures. The City may approve or approve with modifications the request for administrative design flexibility only if the project meets all of the following criteria: Superiority in achieving the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood goals and policies as well as superiority in design in terms of architecture, building materials, site design, landscaping and open space. Projects shall seek to create greater amounts of privacy, maintenance of views, preservation of trees, preservation of historic resources, vegetation and habitat, and provide for adequate security. The applicant must prove that the project meets the criteria outlined above, based on: Measurable improvements such as an increase in the number of trees saved, increased amount of open space, or increased landscaping area; (ii) Objective improvements such as increased solar access or increased privacy; and (iii) Conceptual architectural sketches, showing two sketches (with and without administrative design flexibility), indicating the improvement gained by application of the administrative design flexibility. Criteria for Existing Single-Family Residential Structures. Additions or modifications to existing single- family residential structures may be eligible for administrative design flexibility if the project meets all of the following criteria: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B57 No adverse impact on adjoining property owners; Not unduly injurious to property owners in the vicinity or their enjoyment of their property; Special physical circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property; The project otherwise complies with the requirements of the Community Development Guide. (Ord. 2164; Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-050 Residential Flexible Standards. Limitations. Application of administrative design flexibility shall be limited to the following zoning districts and development standards: Design flexibility shall apply to all residential zones unless otherwise specified. Setbacks. Front, side and rear setbacks may be reduced up 20 percent. Setbacks from Lake Sammamish shall not be eligible for design flexibility. A minimum of 18 feet of driveway shall be provided between the garage, carport, or other fenced parking area and the street property line except when alleys are used for vehicular access. (ii) Impervious Surface. In the R-8 through R-20 zones the impervious surface area can be increased an additional five percent. (Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-060 Commercial Flexible Standards. Limitations. Application of administrative design flexibility shall be limited to the following zoning districts and development standards: Commercial. Shall apply only to the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surface. May be increased an additional five percent. (ii) Minimum Building Setbacks. May be reduced up to 20 percent. (Ord. 2118) 20F.40.20-070 Business and Manufacturing Park Flexible Standards. Limitations. Application of administrative design flexibility shall be limited to the following zoning districts and development standards: Business Park (BP), Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OV), Manufacturing (MP), and Industrial zones. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surface. May be increased an additional five percent. (ii) Minimum Building Setbacks. May be reduced up to 20 percent. (Ord. 2118) Deleted: , Deleted: and Retail Commercial (RC) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Draft Revised Regulations August 29, 2007 B58 Other Proposed Amendments to Existing Overlake Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Change 20C.70.35-030: Duplexes, Threeplexes, and Fourplexes, Supplemental Requirements for the Overlake Neighborhood Renumber to 20C.30.70-040, Multiplex Housing - Supplemental Requirements for the Overlake Neighborhood 20C.70.35-020 Buffer Requirements – Supplemental Renumber as 20C.45.50-010, Buffer Requirements Supplemental 20C.70.35-040, Overlake Neighborhood Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Height Overlays (for portion of Overlake east of 152nd Avenue NE/SR 520, south of NE 40th Street, and west of Bel-Red Road. ƒ Show maximum height on new height overlay map for all of Overlake ƒ Delete minimum FAR overlay 20C.70.35-050, Interjurisdictional Review and Cooperation Renumber as 20C.45.50-020, Interjurisdictional Review and Cooperation 20C.70.35-060, Overlake Design District Delete text and reserve number – replaced by new section 20C.70.35-070, Overlake SEPA Planned Action ƒ Renumber as 20C.45.50-030, Overlake SEPA Planned Action ƒ Update as part of phase 2 amendments for Overlake 20C.70.35-Remainder ƒ Delete 20C.70.35-010 - Purpose 20C.50 Commercial Zones and 20C.60 Business, Manufacturing and Industrial Zones ƒ Amend to delete Overlake portions of these sections 20D.80.10-070, Landscape Area Requirements ƒ Strike obsolete references to CO and CB zones and update to reference proposed RCDG 20C.45.40-040, Landscaping for all Overlake Districts. This also rectifies an inconsistency between more recently adopted standards for landscaping and previous standards. 20D.100 Noise Standards ƒ Strike obsolete references to CO and CB Throughout Redmond Community Development Guide Change all “Retail Commercial” references to “Overlake Village District” Change all “OV” abbreviations to “OBAT” ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Draft Revised Proposed Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy ---PAGE BREAK--- Final Draft Proposed – Revised Redmond Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements City Administration Mayor Rosemarie M. Ives City Council Kimberly Allen Richard Cole John Marchione Nancy McCormick, President John Resha Jim Robinson John P. (Pat) Vache, Vice President Primary Project Staff Rob Odle, Planning Director Don Cairns, Public Works - Transportation Manager Lori Peckol, Policy Planning Manager Joel Pfundt, Principal Transportation Planner Jayme Jonas, Assistant Planner Steve Fischer, Senior Planner Rob Crittenden, Public Works – Traffic Operations Manager Craig Larsen, Parks Director Tim Cox, Parks Planning Manager Jon Spangler, Public Works- Natural Resources Manager Steve Hitch, Public Works-Natural Resources Engineer Erika Vandenbrande, Senior Transportation Planner Barb Heriot, Transportation Planner Planning Commission Tanika Kumar Tom Hinman Charlie McCarthy Korby Parnell Susan Petitpas, Chair Suzanne Querry, Vice Chair Martin E. Snodgrass Park Board Mary Bourguignon Terri Dige Seth L. Kelsey, Jr. David Ladd Dayle "Hank" Margeson Dolores "Lori" Snodgrass Sue Stewart, Chair Consultant Team: Mirai Transportation, Planning & Engineering Tom Noguchi, Principal Jana Janarthanan, Principal Howard Wu, Transportation Planner Yukari Bettencourt, Graphics Specialist Makers Architecture + Urban Design John Owen, Partner Julie Bassuk, Partner Pietro Potesta, Associate Dara O’Byrne, Planner Community Attributes Inc. Chris Mefford, President KPG Sue Byers, Senior Project Manager Nelson Davis, Principal Cheyenne Covington, Project Engineer ---PAGE BREAK--- 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan - 8/29/07 Page i Table of Contents Introduction:Overlake 1 4 Process 5 Comprehensive Plan Policies Summary 5 Demographic Projections 6 8 Strategies for 10 Land Use and 12 Overlake Village 13 Employment 18 Residential Area 19 Neighborhood Wide 20 Transportation 23 Open Space & Public 33 Implementation 39 Appendix Proposed Transportation Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan - 8/29/07 Page ii ---PAGE BREAK--- 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan - 8/29/07 Page 1 Introduction:Overlake Neighborhood With its corporate campuses, shopping and residential areas, Overlake is a regional urban center offering opportunities to live, work, shop, and recreate. It is home to major corporations, offices, and high technology research and development businesses, a range of small and large retailers, and single-and multi-family residences. Close to regional parks and recreational amenities, its wooded feel creates a campus-like backdrop for its multiple users. Overlake is well located in southwest Redmond and easily accessed off State Route 520. A short distance to Redmond Town Center and Downtown Bellevue, the neighborhood is approximately 15 miles from Seattle and currently well served by local and regional transit. The neighborhood is comprised of three districts: Overlake Village to the south, the Residential Area to the northeast and the Employment Area in between. Overlake is located in the southwest corner of Redmond, bounded on the west by 148th Avenue NE, on the south by NE 20th Street, Bel Red Road / West Lake Sammamish Parkway to the east, and NE 60th Street / SR 520 to the north. SR 520 bisects the western third of the neighborhood. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 2 / Residential Area Employment Area / / ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 3 Multi-family development in the Residential Area. The treed, campus-like environment of Overlake’s Employment Area. One-story retail or office development characterizes much of Overlake’s Village today. The Residential Area consists primarily of single family homes with interspersed multi-family development. This area will not experience significant change in the next twenty years, but will continue to accommodate infill development. Overlake’s Employment Area consists of major corporations, offices, and high technology research and development businesses. The area is characterized by treed corporate campuses. This area will continue to provide for phased growth over time. Of the neighborhood’s three districts, Overlake Village is the most poised for change as it is generally developed to a low intensity and characterized by one- or two-story buildings and surface parking. Though it supports a wide range of uses, its commercial development is similar to many other suburban locations – auto-oriented with non-descript architecture. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 4 Purpose The Overlake Neighborhood Plan update refines the community's vision for Overlake adopted in 1999. It advances a number of long-standing goals for Overlake, including providing places to live that are close to jobs and amenities. It also builds on Overlake’s existing assets and opportunities, including the planned extension of light rail with Sound Transit Phase 2, relocation of Group Health’s in-patient facility, and Microsoft’s planned expansion. The Master Plan summarizes all updates resulting from the Overlake Neighborhood Plan project, including the policies, development regulations, and related portions of other Redmond plans such as the Transportation Master Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PRO) Plan. It describes a coordinated approach to land use, transportation, parks and natural resources in the area and lays out a strategy to achieve the refined vision. This Master Plan is intended to guide private development and public investments so that new projects fit the community’s vision and accomplish public as well as private objectives. Implementation of this Plan will depend on taking action. The detailed list of implementation steps in this plan will guide the actions of the City for the next twenty years. Sound Transit is evaluating service to Overlake as part of its planning to bring light rail to the east side. Microsoft plans to add 2.2 million square feet for 12,000 additional employees within the next several years. To support this growth, Microsoft will be completing approximately $35 million in street and sewer improvements, including the new SR 520 overpass connecting NE 31st to NE Redevelopment of the Group Health site is envisioned after relocation of the Overlake inpatient facility in 2008 "I believe the time has come for us – as a community – to take a careful look at Overlake and how investments over the next 20 years could transform this area into a vibrant urban village with places for people to work, live and play." Mayor Rosemarie Ives ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 5 Process The Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy was developed in partnership and close coordination with the area’s business and property owners, people who live or work in the area, interested community members, Redmond elected officials and members of several boards and commissions, staff and project consultants. Input and comments were encouraged at three neighborhood events, several focus group and stakeholder meetings, and through the Redmond website. Comprehensive Plan Policies Summary The Redmond Comprehensive Plan sets the direction for Overlake with policies addressing land use; character and design; parks, recreation, open space and the arts; transportation; and public facilities and services for the neighborhood as a whole and for each of the three districts. New and strengthened policy concepts include: • Encouraging residential development while balancing residential and commercial growth • Encouraging mixed-use and Transit Oriented Development • Investing in 152nd Avenue NE to create a linear neighborhood core in Overlake Village • Creating a unique neighborhood character • Increasing multi-modal mobility • Planning for light rail • Creating a parks system including parks, trails, open spaces, plazas, and art • Encouraging green building and Low Impact Development • Developing regional stormwater management facilities • Considering phased increases in zoning capacity in the Employment Area over time The policies relating to Overlake are included in their entirety in the Comprehensive Plan. Overlake Urban Center Design Workshop attendees refine the vision for Overlake Village (top); community members discuss transportation alternatives at an open house. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 6 Demographic Projections Overlake will play a critical role in Redmond’s evolution as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. By 2030, Overlake should be able to accommodate: • Significant multi-family, retail, and office growth in Overlake Village • Phased office growth along with some multi- family and retail growth in the Employment Area • Modest infill and new single-family residential development in the Residential Area ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 7 Overlake Neighborhood Vision 1 Legend - • • Overlake Boundary Gateway Activity node Residential Area NE 40'" St Employment Area - • Light rail route options - Bus rapid transit - Commuter bus connections o- Connected open spaces - Bike connections _ • Pedestrian-oriented street with retail - Multi-use pathways \ \ Overlake Village ---PAGE BREAK--- 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 8 Vision Overlake will be an attractive, safe place to live, work, shop and play. A vibrant neighborhood with a mix and density of uses, Overlake will include plazas, parks, trails and other amenities for its residents and visitors. It will be walkable, bikeable and served by frequent transit service and will continue to thrive as an employment center, residential neighborhood and commercial center serving nearby areas. Strong multimodal linkages will connect the neighborhood’s three subareas to each other and to their surroundings. Goals specific to Overlake’s three districts are summarized below: ν Overlake Village Increase the area’s diversity of uses and activity by encouraging development of a range of multi-family housing, retail and service businesses, pedestrian-oriented activities and alternative transportation modes. Evolve over time to be a true urban residential/mixed-use neighborhood: a vibrant gathering place for people, with a variety of stores and eateries that line the streets as part of integrated, multi-story developments. ν Employment Area Maintain and enhance the area’s role as a major corporate, advanced technology, research and development, and compatible manufacturing hub for Redmond and the region, while retaining a campus-like feel with significant trees. ν Residential Area Protect the character and feel of Overlake’s residential area and strengthen its connections to Overlake Village, the Employment Area and its surroundings. The strategies described in the next section will be used to achieve this neighborhood vision. They are guided by the following key principles: • Creating a sense of place • Creating a place where people want to live • Making connections to improve transportation choices • Creating a system of connected open spaces • Growing “greener” by promoting sustainable development ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 9 With the year 2030 as our target, the Overlake Neighborhood Plan envisions a vibrant neighborhood that successfully accommodates housing and employment growth, parks and open spaces, improved pedestrian, bike, and vehicle circulation, as well as a transit system. The Overlake Village, Employment, and Residential Areas will connect to create a cohesive neighborhood and critical urban center within the Redmond - Bellevue corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 10 Strategies for Action The Strategies for Action identify the Land Use, Transportation, and Open Space strategies needed to achieve the neighborhood’s vision. They build on Overlake’s existing including its active retailers and businesses, as well as its proximity to employment centers, residential neighborhoods and regional recreation opportunities. The Strategies for Action depict the neighborhood at 2030. They assume significant investment by numerous agencies including the City of Redmond, King County Metro Transit, and Sound Transit as well as property development initiated and undertaken by property owners A walkable mixed-use center with great pedestrian spaces is envisioned for Overlake Village. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 07b Appendix C - Draft Revised Master Plan Page 11 l V/1/ageat 1 Overlake Station l Cr- ) Overlake Village l ogond Mixed use (commercial & residential) maintaining regional retail Mixed use maintaining commercial Mixed use emphasizing residential ISS;J Cornerstone Sites New local street General streetscape improvements Street improvements and development that create a lively, walkable retail street Urban pathway Intersection improvements Alternate alignments for potential regional light rail e e Alternate locations for potential light rail stations 0 0 Alternate alignments for bus rapid transit • • Alternate locations for bus rapid transit stops * General vicinity of a major park coordinated with redevelopment General vicinity of plazas or small parl