Document Redmond_doc_afe02066fd

CityofRedmond W A S H I N G T 0 N Planning Commission Report To: From: Staff Contacts: Date: File Numbers: Title: Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommended Action: Summary: City Council Planning Commission Rob Odle, Director, Planning and Community Development, [PHONE REDACTED] Colleen Kelly, Assistant Director, Community Plam1ing, [PHONE REDACTED] Lori Peckol, AICP, Policy Plamung Manager, [PHONE REDACTED] Sarah Stiteler, AICP, Senior Planner, [PHONE REDACTED] January 9, 2015 LAND-2014-01869,' SEPA-2014-01870 Margolese (Maplewood) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment Approval Adopt amendments to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as shown in Attaclunents A, B and C. Applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to change the land use designation and zoning for a 0.65 acre undeveloped property located at 8420 167th Avenue NE, adjacent to Downtown. Proposed change is from Single Family Urban, R-5 zoning to Multifamily Urban, R-18 zoning. In addition, a proposed City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA • 98073-97 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reasons the Proposal should be Adopted: amendment to RZC 21.20 Affordable Housing will require one affordable housing unit at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) if 8 or fewer homes are developed. If more than 8 homes are developed, one affordable housing unit at 50% of AMI is required. The recommended amendments to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code should be adopted because: • They are consistent with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan policy regarding locations for Multi-Family Urban designation and other policies because they will support opportunities for increased housing near Downtown services, employment and transit; • Additional housing units in the area will be compatible with the adjacent land uses; • No critical areas exist on the development portion of the site; adjacent critical areas on the larger, eastem portion of the site have been preserved through the Transfer of Development (TDR) program; and • One or more affordable homes will be included in any future development of the site consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy. Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Public Hearing and Notice a. Public Hearing Date The Planning Conm1ission held a public hearing on December 10, 2014. b. Notice The public hearing was published in the Seattle Times. Public notices were posted in City Hall and at the Redmond Library. Notice was also provided by including the hearing in Plarming Commission agendas and extended agendas that are distributed to various members of the public and various agencies, and posted on the City's web site. Additionally, notice of the "office hours" as well as the public hearing on the amendment was sent to prope11y owners and occupants within 500 feet of the proposal. Information about the proposed amendment was posted on online notification sources such as the Neighborhood Newsletter and Gov.Delivery. Per RZC 21.76 Review Procedures, a large four by six sign was posted on site on November 7, 2014. Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments {LA ND-20 14-0 1869) Page 2 of5 Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Public Comments Two people testified in writing, three people attended one of three "office hours" sessions held during November and one person testified at the public hearing. Comments are summarized below. Written testimony is provided as Attachment D. Trees Two persons expressed concerns about tree removal from the subject site and possible adverse effects to tree stands on their own properties. Traffic and Parking Some concerns were expressed regarding increased traffic and safety issues related to the unimproved nature ofNE 85 111 Street east of 166 111 Avenue NE as well as the limited tmning allowed at the intersection ofNE 85 111 and 166 111• There was some concern that parking along 167' 11 A venue NE is already a problem, and that this amendment will allow additional development which would make the parking situation worse. Visual Impact One person who lives north and uphill near the site expressed concern that buildings developed on the subject site would impact views and privacy. Pedestrian Access One person raised concern that pedestrian access in the area for children attending Redmond Elementary would be challenged. There was also concern that residential privacy would be negatively impacted by additional use of trails between the site and single family homes to the nmih and east of the site. Another person expressed concern that the trail easement tlu·ough the east end of the subject site be maintained. Recommended Conclusions 1. Key Issues Discussed by the Planning Commission Key issues discussed by the Planning Conunission are summarized below. Trees Commissioners discussed the removal of trees from the site and the City's tree retention and replacement requirements. They concluded that development ofthe site with the existing or proposed zoning would result in removal of trees from the ctmently undeveloped site, at which time staff would apply the tree protection standards regulations in the Redmond Zoning Code. Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments (LAND-20 14-0 1869) Page 3 of5 Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic, Parking and Access While acknowledging existing access conditions for vehicles and pedestrians, the Planning Commission noted that the proposal would allow a maximum of nine new residential units more than what cunent zoning would allow, with the ultimate number built likely fewer due to site requirements. The Commission noted that the new dwellings would require on-site parking and most vehicle trips would turn south from the site on 16i 11 A venue NE as the intersection at NE 85 111 and 166 111 A venue NE only allows right turns from NE 85th. One Commissioner stated that he supported the proposal but that improvements toNE 85 111 Street east of 166 111 Avenue NE (for pedestrians and vehicles) should not have to wait for frontage improvements required for new development north and south ofNE 851\ but should be put in place soon to support this proposal and other existing residents in the area. Visual Impact Commissioners studied the visualizations developed by the applicant that depict 4- story buildings on the subject site. The Commission was satisfied that the location of the buildings combined with associated landscaping for new development would minimize visual impact. Further, they noted that there would be visual impacts if the site was developed under the cunent zoning. Location The Commission concluded that the proposed location was appropriate for a Multi- Family Urban land use designation and R-18 zoning and the associated allowance for additional density on 16i 11 A venue NE which is now predominantly occupied by multifamily residences. 2. Recommended Conclusions of the Technical Committee The recommended conclusions in the Technical Committee Repmi (Attachment F) should be adopted as conclusions. 3. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 6-0 at its December I 0, 2014 meeting to recommend approval ofthe Margolese (Maplewood) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment for the property located at 8720 16i 11 A venue N.E. as shown in Attachment A and Attachment B. In addition, they recommend the amendment to Redmond Zoning Code (RZC) Section 21.20 Affordable Housing to require at least one affordable unit as part of any future development of the site. Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments (LAND-20 14-0 1869) Page 4 ors Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Attachments Attachment A: Recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Map) Attachment B: Recommended Zoning Code Amendment (Zoning Map) Attachment C: Recommended Zoning Code Amendment to RZC 21.20 Affordable Housing Attachment D: Written Testimony Dl: Amjad D2: Loaiza Attachment E: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes fo•· December 10, 2014 Attachment F: Technical Committee Report with Exhibits Exhibit A: Recommended Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Exhibit B: Recmmnended Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit C: Recommended Zoning Code Amendment to RZC Section 21.20 Affordable Housing Exhibit D: SEP A Threshold Determination ~ Robert G. Odle, Planning Director Vibhas Chandorkar, Planning Commission Chairperson Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments (LAND·20 14-01 869) Page 5 of5 Date ~115 ~ Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NE 80th ST 166th AVE NE 164th AVE NE NE 88th ST 165th AVE NE NE 89th ST NE 85th ST 169th AVE NE NE 83rd ST NE 87th ST 169th PL NE 170th PL NE NE 86th CT 167th AVE NE 170th CT NE NE 84th CT NE 82nd ST 169th CT NE 165th LN NE 169th PL NE Attachment A - Comprehensive Plan Legend Buildings Parcels Downtown Boundary ! ! ! ! ! ! Project Site & proposed Land Use Downtown Mixed Use Multi-Family Urban Single-Family Urban ± 0 300 150 Feet 1 inch = 300 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- R-18 R-5 East Hill R-20 R-30 Town Square R-20 Anderson Park Valley View Old Town R-30 NE 80th ST 166th AVE NE 164th AVE NE NE 88th ST NE 85th ST 165th AVE NE NE 83rd ST NE 89th ST 169th AVE NE NE 87th ST 169th PL NE 170th PL NE NE 86th CT 167th AVE NE NE 84th CT 170th CT NE NE 82nd ST 169th CT NE 165th LN NE 169th PL NE Attachment B - Zoning Legend Buildings Parcels Downtown Boundary Project Site (proposed Zoning) ± 0 300 150 Feet 1 inch = 300 feet Single-Family Urban Zones (R-4, R-5, R-6, RIN, & R-8) Multi-Family Urban Zones (R-12, R-18, R-20, & R-30) Downtown Zones (TSQ, OT, EH, AP,VV) ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT C REDMOND ZONING CODE Section 21.20.060 Supplemental Requirements C. Education Hill Neighborhood. 1. Consistent with policies HO-38 and N-EH-15, properties rezoned from R-5 to R-18 (Ord. shall be required to provide 10% of units as affordable housing units if eight or fewer homes are developed. If more than eight homes are developed, 10% of units shall be low-cost affordable units. The bonus provisions of RZC 21.20.030D shall not apply. ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Malik Amjad Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:46 AM To: Sarah Stiteler Subject: Margolese Comprehensive Plan Amendment Importance: High Dear Ms. Stiteler, Re: the rezoning of 0.65 acres lot from single family to multi-family The land development and construction activity immediately south of lots 11, 12, 13, 14 of the Central Park North homes is causing extensive wind damage to trees in these properties. Since the many trees that have been cut down to accommodate the development, the change in wind patterns is causing undue pressure on the trees in our lot. Already 3 trees have crashed on our property since the various trees were cut down, causing damage to our shed and fence - one barely missing the houses. Attached are a couple of pictures. The request is not to rezone the property, as the additional development will bring down more trees and will certainly cause further damage to our property and could even hurt our family. Please let me know if I need to submit a formal document to request a stop to this rezoning plan. Kind regards. Malik Amjad Attachment D1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Julian Loaiza Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 9:50 PM To: Sarah Stiteler Subject: Project: 8420 167TH AVE NE Hi Sarah, I have a concern regarding land use change from R-5 to R-18. Parking on the street will be very hard to find as it's only available one side of the street. Do you know if something will be planned? Regards Julian Loaiza Attachment D2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E REDMOND PLA~N lNG COMMISSIO~ ~ON UTES December 10,2014 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Chandorkar, Commissioners Biethan, Gregory, Miller, Murray, Haverkamp COMMISSIONERS I!:XCUSED: Commissioner O'Haw STAFF PRESE~T : Sarah Stiteler, Redmond Planning Department RECORDING SECRETARY: Lady of Letters, Inc. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chainnan Chandorkar in the Council Chambers at City HaiL He introduced the newest member of the Commission, Commissioner Meishelle Haverkamp. She is a longtime resident of Redmond who has worked with Hopei ink and other groups. Commissioner Haverkamp said she has lived in Redmond since 2001 and loves the City. She works at a sta1tup software company that is transitioning to a high-growth company, and she is helping with program management and reorganization. She has a background in organizational structure, coaching, and helping companies transition from startup mode. She said she was happy to serve on the Commission. APPROVAL OF THE A GENOA: There were no changes to the agenda. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no items from the audience. APPROVAL OF lVlEETlNG SUMMARY: MOTION by Commissioner Murray to approve the December J. 2014 meeting summary. Commissioner Bi.ethan seconded the MOTION. The MOTION to approve the meeting summary was approved unanimously (5-0) with one abstention. Public Hearing and Study Session, Proposed Margolcsc Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment, presented by Sarah Stiteler, City of Redmond Planning Department. Ms. Stiteler noted that this week's public hearing would build upon last week's study session on this topic. This item is also known as the Maplewood Amendment. The proposal is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendment for a 0.65-acre site. The proposal would change the land use designation of this site from Single-Family Urban, and R5 zoning, which allows five units to the acre, to Multiamily Urban, and Rl8, which allows eighteen units to the acre. The proposal also includes an amendment to the Zoning Code to requin~ a portion o r the new homes to be affordabk If eight units or less Pkuming- Cununissil>n O "C<:Uii>l:f 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- an~ developed. the developer would be required to build one unit at 80% of the Area Median Income. If more than eight units are developed, then one home at 50% of the Area Median Income would be required as part of the proposal. The Downtown neighborhood is to the south and west or this site, which is located at the intersection or NE 85~ ' Street and 167' 11 Avenue NE. The entire parcel owned by the applicam is 2.3 I acres. The subject site under consideration is .65 acres and the rest is undevelopable and would become a sending area or transfer development rights. Ms. Stiteler noted that the City has designation policies for various zones in the City. Policy LU36 governs the MultiFamily Urban designation, which encompasses several zone categories, from R 12 to R30. \v11en considering a land use de-signation change, these policies are LL~ed in the evaluation process. The criteria includes the following language: the change should result in focusing nigh-density housing in locations io or ncar Downtown or Overlake, the City's urban to support Redmond centers, near employment and commercial nodes and high levels of transit service or access to an arterial. Looking at the criteria, the Margolese site is an infill parcel near to Downtown services, employment, and transit. It is also consistent with other surrounding multifamily land uses to the no•tnwest, west, and south of' the site. The zoning surrounding the Margolese site includes R20 in the Educati.on Hill neighborhood on the west side of 166°'. To the west and south, there is Downtown! East !Jill zoning. There is a single-1\lmily area to the not1h separated by a steep slope. Looking at the environment and the suitability of this site and its capacity, staff found no critical area~ in the developable portion of the site. The remainder of the parcel, with steep slopes, would be protected through a transfer of' development rights easement. There will be tree retention requirements as well: the Zoning Code requires that35% of the significant trees on the site must be maintained, preferably in clusters. The staff has studied transportation, and the additional trips estimated to occur with the multifamily designation versus singk-family. Access will primarily be from the south. The applicant has done a traffic study and will speak to these issues later. In addition to land use designation policies, statT has studied neighborhood policies l(>r Education Hill, which encourage a mix or housing types and styles while maintaining the single-family character ol' the established neighborhoods within Education Hill. The policy promotes a variety of housing choices accessible to persons of all income, which would be achieved through the requirement of an affordable housing unit. Ms. Stiteler showed the Commission an aerial view of the Margo lese site and how it relates to Downtown and the single-family zones in the area. The Technical Committee finds that the Margolese site is appropriate for higher density, using the established criteria from the MultiFamily Urban designation policy. ft is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and will support opportunities tor increased housing, and affordable housing ncar Downtown, including areas of employment and transit. Members or the public have been invited to talk about this proposal with staff during three "of1ice hours" s~ssions held during the dates of ;\/ovemher 7'h through the l2u', tor about an hour and a half each time. After Planning Commission completes review and recommendation, Redul04td Pl.'ltll\tng Commll>Shln QI;}C(tllb.:r 1(}.1(114 2 ( I I ---PAGE BREAK--- the expectation is that City Council will review and act on this proposal during the first quart~r of 2015. One issue was brought up last week. which was a question about plans for the improvement toNE 85m. Ms. Stiteler said after checking with transportation engineers with the City that there are properties both north and sou!h ofNE 851h that would be required to comple.re frontage improvemenl5 for that of85'" ifth~ywere to develop those areas. Cbainnon Chandorkar opened the public hearing. Barry Margolese, the applicant, was the first to speak. His address is I 05 S. Main Street /1230, Seanle, W A. The property is owned by a tenants-in-common entity of Ebro LLC and Amalani LLC. Mr. Margoh:se is a principal of Amalani and the manager lor the property owner. l-Ie has worked closely with the City for a year and a half on this property and has a design team from Core Design working on it. He introduced Josh Beard from Core Design to further present to the Commission on bebalfol'th.: applicant. Mr. Beard has an address of 14711 NE 29'" Place, Bellevue, \VA 98007. Mr. Beard thanked the Commission and the Technical Committee for their work on this proposed amendment. He said that, originally, a pnimbrush method was applied to this neighborhood (in selling the Downtown neighborhood boundary), which did not take into accou1tt the different characteristics of the Margolesc property. The area to the east of the site is wooded with some steep slopes and is Singlc-liunily homes are located to the north and east. The western portion is very close to the Downtown zone. The applicant would like to show land use patterns and how tbe propos~;.-d amendment would lit into the neighborhood to strengthen its character. The Downtown zone bugs the property on its western and southern borders. The major corridors are 16 7 111, which fronts the property and runs north and south. Up to the north is 85'h and 83'd is to the south. The next major corridor to the we"t is 166'". With regard to neighborhood character. the applicant is trying to follow existing land us.: policies to establish a certain character. Townhomes of higher density have been propostld. To the south of the subject property, there is a multifamily development with high density. An existing trail and easement runs from the south~a.~t comer of the subject property to the north, wh~re it meets an existing rood and public utility easement. The applicant believes his proposal belongs in the 167'h corridor. The ~ loped area and green space helps transition lrom a higher density development to single-family developments to the north and east. lf the property were developed under tltc current zoning, a few single· family units would be put on the corner of the sire that would be count~r to the land us~ patterns and land use policies that guide the City tl1 redevelop und~rutilizcd parcels. The applicant said the re?.oning. would create an cfl'cctive transition bctw~en land uses lhl't)UI:Ih the usc or the green spac~ buffer. The proposal would meet the intent of the previous two land usc policies of LU36 and LU II by creating development that is e4ual in character to what exists and what is allowed in these zones. which would be higher n.'Sidential deosity. The R~lhnOJKI Plmmu\t: C011 nni~sicln o~..:l!mbCI' It>. 211 H .l ---PAGE BREAK--- rezoning would also maintain development rC(;ulations for compo ti hili t y bet ween uses, maintain desired neighbol'l10od character, cnsurt: adequate open spuc.:, protect and impl'llvt: environmental quality. Further quoling land use policy, the applicant said th.: rc~oning would provide lor high-density residential neighborhoods that are urban in character and provide for rnultiliunily resid<)nccs on land suitable for this intensity. The applicant said the ability to provide for housing has been met as well. The applicant would divid" tht: site into two portions, the wooded area and the buildable area. The wooded area would be placed in a of Development Rights (TOR) easement. The character of the units on the site would be similar to the ones to tbc south of the site. called The Reserve. The tree minimum rt:tjuirements haw been met for the site. in that 38% of the trees will be retained. Tho: development may have some impacts on thu ~ommunity, including visual impacts. The applicant showed the Commission a simulation of the view ol'thc site tor the three units to the nonh. Mitigation trees would eventually screen and buffer the development !'rum the rteighborhood to the north. Traffic impacts have been stuuicd. as well. The site would create additionaltrallic in the morning and evening commut~ times, but the arnouot of flow through the site shows most tra!lic would be heading sourb on 167u. to 83 111• Th~n: would be lllming constraints from I 66th onto 85th from the north. Pedestrian tmOic flow may chang~ on 85th with future improvements, including transit. Chairman Chandorkar asked about parking. Som..: written testimony has been submitted abou1 on-street parking on 167lh. Chai1man Chandorkar asked how the proposal would impact parking. The applicant said each unit built would providu tor two parking stalls within the garage, but there would be some on-street parking generated by dtis pmjoct. Commissioner Murray noted that this prop~:ny was already zoned for R5, and the proposal would not add that many more units. He noted that with two parking spots per unit, he was not worried about overflow parking. The applicant said bused on the corridor this ~ i te is in and the surr(lunding neighborhood. the proposal would strengthen the charactw of the neighborhood as a higher-density area. Pete Oaccetti next spoke to the Commission. lives at 16767 1\"E 86 111 Court, just to the north of the proposal area. He bas several concerns, which he has aired before at the meetings on this issue in l"ovember. He said th.:n: has been som.: signilicant tree loss on the site that is not seen in the pictures the ComJllission is looking at. The proposal would remove even more trees, and ht: has a concer11 about the single-liun ily homes and the transition between high-density housing and single-family housing. Mr. said 11 water line easement project on the site has created a lot of pedestrian traffic, and there has an increase in robberies as well as drug and alcohol arrests by police in that area. The privacy for the single-family homes along t1te trail has been compromised. Mr. Bacc~ni is also concerned about an easement on the site that is a ~rave l path for children to go to school. This path allows kids to Silly away from 1661 , whk h has a lot of This bas not h1 -1 6 I [ I ---PAGE BREAK--- Conunissioner Gregory said be suppo1ted Commbsioner Miller's point. but noted that all the responsibility of creating infrastn1cturc should not be placed on the applicant Commissioner Miller said, to characterize his comments correctly, he did not want all that responsibility on one development He noted that the applicant himself said that many of the parcels surrounding this site could bu developed the same way. If the idea is to make this area a part of Downtown, it should look Like Downtown. Conunissioner Miller would like to make sure the costs o r infrastructure improvements are shared up front, such that the improvements could be put in when development occurs. Chairman Chandorkar said th~rc would have to be a reason for the City to put in that type of money. He said the Commission could discuss this issue fun her in the luturc. Commissioner Mun·ay said he wanted to respect the comments from the audience. Sidewalks and trails could make the area better for the people living in this area. Chainnan Chandorkar noted that 51 '1 bas been a well-trafficked area for many years and only recently has a sidewalk been put in. He said thut Conuuissioner Mill.:r did a good job highlighting the issue of infrastructure improvements for this proposal. The MOTION was approved unanimously REPORTSISCIIEDUU NGffOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING(S): Ms. Stiteler said a m~cting would not be necessary on December 17d'. The I' I arming Commission R~pOl't l(lf this amendment is scheduled tor approval in January. ADJOUR.i~l\rENT: MOTIO~ by Commissioner Murray to adjourn. MOTION seconded by Commissioner Miller. MOTION approved unanimously The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:05p.m. Minutes Approved On: R~dmond Plannin:,; \)lfUIIbl.(l\'lll II), 2Q IJ Planning Commission Chair ( l i~ 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment F CityofRedmond WASH I NG TO N From: Staff Contacts: Project File Number: Project Name: TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Technical Committee Rob Odle, Planning Director [PHONE REDACTED] Lori Peckol, AICP, Policy Planning Manager [PHONE REDACTED] Sarah Stiteler, AICP, Senior Planner [PHONE REDACTED] November 21,2014 LAND-20 14-01869 Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment and Amendment to RZC 21.20 Affordable Housing Related File Numbers: PR-2014-01478 SEPA-2014-01870 Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Reason the Proposal Should be Adopted: Amalani Properties Barry Margolese The Technical Committee recommends approving the amendments to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code because: • The proposal is consistent with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, because it will support opportunities for increased housing near Downtown services, employment and transit; City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 970 10 • Redmond, WA • 98073-97 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 2 of 14 • Additional housing units in this area will be compatible with the adjacent land uses; • No critical areas exist on the development portion of the site; adjacent critical areas on the larger, eastern portion of the site have been preserved through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program; and, • One or more affordable homes will be included in any future development of the site I. APPLICANT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and Redmond Zoning Code (RZC) for a 0.65 undeveloped property located at 8420 16ih A venue NE, within the Education Hill neighborhood. The cunent land use designation is Single-Family Urban, with R-5 zoning; the applicant proposes Multifamily Urban and R-18 zoning. The area proposed for land use change is part of a larger parcel; the remaining eastern portion of the property consists of 1.66 acres which is undevelopable due to the existence of critical areas. This area will be established as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) sending area and would remain as Single-Family Urban, R-5. ~ iD r Area to be preserved BACKGROUND AND REASON FOR PROPOSAL: 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-2014-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 3 of 14 The applicant states that the proposal is intended to provide additional housing supply and variety on a site which is adjacent to other multifamily land uses and is near Downtown services, employment and transit opportunities. The applicant also states that the proposed area for land use amendment is separated by steep slopes from a single family development to the north. Further, the proposed designation and zoning would provide for compatible future development with adjacent properties to the south, southwest and west across 167 111 Avenue NE. II. RECOMMENDATION The Technical Committee recommends that the land use designation and zoning for the property be changed from Single-Family Urban, R-5 to Multifamily Urban, R-18. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy H0-38, the Technical Committee also recommends an amendment to the RZC 21.20, Affordable Housing, to incorporate an affordable housing provision particular to this rezone. The .65 acre parcel is an appropriate site for infill housing given its location close to downtown, topography and adjacent land uses. The balance of the report describes the Technical Committee's rationale, findings and conclusions. Exhibits A, B and C show the recommended amendments. III. PRIMARY ISSUES CONSIDERED AND ALTERNATIVES A. ISSUES CONSIDERED 1. Policy Basis for Evaluating Change in Land Use Designation Comprehensive Plan Designation policy LU-36 identifies how to evaluate proposed locations for the Multifamily Urban Designation: Purpose. Provide for high-density residential neighborhoods that are urban in character. Provide for neighborhoods of multifamily residences, small lot single-family homes, and attached single-family (multiplex) homes on lands suitable for these intensities. Focus high-density housing in the following locations: • In or near the Downtown or Overlake in support of Redmond's centers; • Near other employment and commercial nodes; and • Where high levels of transit service are present or likely or where there is adequate access to an arterial. Allowed Uses. Implement this designation through zones that allow densities of 12 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. Permit multifamily 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 4 of 14 residences and, in suitable locations, detached or attached single-family homes. The site is located adjacent to the east edge of the Downtown. This location is close to jobs and frequent transit service in the Downtown. Current land use designations and zoning surrounding the site are shown in Exhibits A and Band include Downtown Mixed Use to the northwest, west and south. The Single-Family Urban/R-5 designation and zoning is on the east and north boundaries. Residential development under the current zoning of R-5 would be an underutilization of the property, given its location near Downtown, existing multifamily development on the northwest, west and south and other areas which will remain undeveloped on the north and east. Further, it would be inconsistent with existing and planned land uses nearby. 2. Existing Land Uses and Compatibility The site of the proposed rezone is vacant. The portion of the applicant's property which is to the east of the proposed rezone is heavily treed, with steep slopes and has been designated as a "sending area" under the City's Transfer of Development Rights program. No development in this area will be allowed, as the right to do so has been captured and can be sold, with the existing density transferred for development within an identified "receiving area". Existing land uses surrounding the site include a City-owned parcel to the immediate north, and single-family homes beyond that, which are grade separated from the subject site. The combination of slope and the City- owned parcel provide a geographic separation between the subject site and land uses to the north. In addition, the single family lots on the northeast edge contain many tall evergreens that provide a buffer between this area and the subject site which is moderately sloped. Multifamily homes are located northwest, west and south of the site, consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation. One single-family home is located across the site on the west side of 167 111 Avenue NE. The Technical Committee considered the current land uses near the subject site and concluded that the proposed amendment to allow higher residential density is appropriate to this location and compatible with existing land uses. 3. Environmental Issues 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 5 of 14 Any development of the parcel, either under the existing zoning or the proposed multifamily use, will result in tree removal on site because there are a number of trees located on the property. Proposed development would be subject to RZC standards for tree protection and mitigation. The height limit for structures in the R-18 zone is 45 feet, which is 10 feet higher than the height limit in the R-5 zone. Some visual impact is anticipated for residents of the single-family homes to the north; however, with the difference in grade between the homes and the subject site, that may be minimized. The height limit for structures in the R-18 zone is similar to the finished height of the newly constructed multifamily structure immediately to the south. 4. Transportation Access: The site is located on the east side of 16i 11 A venue NE which will provide the access. The termination ofNE 85 111 Street intersects with 16i 11 Avenue NE near the northwest edge of the property. Trip generation: Staff has estimated the potential trips using ITE Trip generation rates to show a comparison between the existing and proposed land use designations as follows: Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a weekday: Weekday peak of adjacent street traffic for one hour between 4-6 p.m. Use Average Estimated Rate Number of Base Zoning ITE Category 210: 1.00 3 Units Single-Family 3 Trips Detached Housing ITE Category 220: 0.62 12 Units Multifamily 7.44 Trips Net change, pm peak 4- 5 trips 5. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Housing policies Housing Element policy H0-11 states: "Encourage the development of a variety of housing types, sizes and densities throughout the city to accommodate the diverse needs of Redmond residents through changes in age, family size and various life changes . " The proposal would support additional moderate density housing. Policy H0-18 states, "Ensure an appropriate supply and mix of housing and affordability levels to meet the needs of people who work and desire 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-2014-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 6 of 14 to live in Redmond, especially near existing and planned employment centers, such as Downtown, Overlake and SE Redmond." Policy H0-38 states, "As part of any rezone that increases residential capacity, consider requiring a portion of units to be affordable to low-and moderate-income households." Staff has discussed with the applicant inclusion of an affordable housing provision specific to this rezone. The applicant indicates that he proposes to develop eight homes on the property. Based on this, the Technical Committee recommends amending RZC 21.20, Affordable Housing, to require that one home be affordable at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) level if eight or fewer homes are proposed. If more than eight homes are proposed, the Technical Committee recommends requiring affordability for one home at 50% of AMI. Standard bonus provisions would not apply since additional capacity for market rate homes would already have been provided through the rezone. This recommendation is shown in Exhibit C. In addition, the proposal is consistent with policy N-EH-14: "Encourage a mix of housing types, styles and a range of choices, while maintaining the overall single-family character of established neighborhoods in Education Hill," as well as N-EH-15: "Promote a variety of housing choices that are accessible to persons of all income levels." While making no change is not inconsistent with the Education Hill Neighborhood Plan, it also does not advance the housing goals of the Neighborhood Plan nor citywide policies to increase the supply and variety of housing. Any new housing development would be required to adhere to City development and design standards. B. ALTERNATIVES 1. No change. Maintaining the existing land use designation and R-5 zoning would result in the least impact though it would not further Comprehensive Plan housing goals to increase the supply and variety of housing choices. Also, residential development under existing R-5 zoning would not be consistent with surrounding multi-family uses to the northwest, west and south of the site and no affordable homes would be required. 2. Change the Downtown Neighborhood Boundary to incorporate this parcel. In 2012, the applicant created a "sending area" easement under the City's transfer of development rights (TDR) program for the eastern portion of the site, due to the existence of steep slopes and other constraints and the lack of overall development potential. In 20 13, the applicant proposed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the neighborhood boundary such that the western, developable portion of the site would be within the Downtown neighborhood instead of in the Education Hill neighborhood in order to achieve greater density. While 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 7 of 14 this proposal supported Comprehensive Plan housing policies, it conflicted with Comprehensive Plan policy DT-6: "Retain existing Downtown boundaries and encourage redevelopment and infill within these boundaries. Encourage natural or naturally designed landscaping and open space on the edges of Downtown to act as a transition to adjacent neighborhoods and to Marymoor Park." A "squared off' Downtown neighborhood boundary to add the site within the East Hill area of Downtown would allow a potential residential density of 45 dwelling units per acre. Staff was supportive of considering options to increase capacity for housing next to the Downtown but did not support changing the Downtown Neighborhood boundary to achieve this, due to inconsistency with policy DT-6. Further, extension of the Downtown boundary in this location would establish a precedent for other property owners to propose similar requests for a change to neighborhood boundaries from lower density residential to higher density within the Downtown neighborhood. An analysis of the Education Hill neighborhood boundary indicates that there are several other properties along the eastern edge of the Downtown neighborhood for which this could be the case. 3. Maintain the Existing Neighborhood Boundaries and Pursue a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning change. Staff discussed an alternative approach with the applicant that would maintain the current Education Hill Neighborhood boundary and instead amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to change the .65 acre portion of the site from R-5 to R-18. The R-18 zoning could allow up to a maximum of 12 multifamily dwellings on the site. Rather than extend the Downtown neighborhood boundary to incorporate the proposed .65 acre area and thereby permit additional density, the Technical Committee recommends the area remain within the Education Hill neighborhood. This would not be in conflict with Downtown Neighborhood policy DT-6 and would not create a precedent for other properties nearby. In addition, the proposed Multifamily Urban land use and R-18 zoning is compatible with existing adjacent land uses while allowing less density than if the site were within the Downtown neighborhood and zoning. Also, the site is located near Downtown services, employment and transit. There are no significant adverse impacts with the proposed amendment. IV. SUPPORTING ANALYSIS A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject propetty is 0.65 acres in size within the Education Hill neighborhood. The existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-2014-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 8 of 14 designation is Single Family Urban, with R-5 zoning. The larger, eastern portion of the property is approximately 1.66 acres and has been designated as a Transfer of Development Rights sending area, with no future development allowed. The 0.65 acre area on the western portion adjoins 16i 11 A venue NE and is intended for residential development. The land use designation and zoning to the northwest, west and south of the site is Downtown Mixed Use, East Hill zone. Single-family land use to the north is separated by a steep slope. COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS Redmond Comprehensive Plan Policies PI-16 and LU-26 direct the City to take several considerations, as applicable, into account as part of decisions on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Items 1 through 6 apply to all proposed amendments. Items 7 through 9 apply when proposed amendments concern allowed land uses or densities, such as proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map, land use designations, allowed land uses, or zoning map. The following is an analysis of how this proposal complies with the requirements for amendments. 1. Consistency with Growth Management Act (GMA), State of Washington Department of Commerce Procedural Criteria, VISION 2040 or its successor, and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The proposed amendments will allow additional housing in an area which is appropriate for this use because it will provide increased density close to employment, transportation services and commercial areas in the Downtown. Providing zoning that supports an increase in the supply of housing as well as affordable housing is consistent with state and regional goals and policies. The King County Countywide Planning Policies policy H0-5 states: "Adopt policies, strategies, actions and regulations at the local and countywide levels that promote housing supply, affordability, and diversity The Housing Chapter of the reflects and supports VISION 2040's housing policies, which address affordability, jobs-housing balance, focusing housing in urban centers and innovations in housing. 2. Consistency with Redmond's Comprehensive Plan, including the following sections as applicable: a. Consistency with the goals contained in the Goals, Vision and Framework Policy Element. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Repmt Page 9 of 14 One of the eight goals for Redmond contained in the Goals, Vision and Framework Policy Element is "To emphasize choices and equitable access in housing, transportation, stores and services." The proposed amendments support this goal and are consistent with other goals within this Element. b. Consistency with the preferred land use pattern as described in the Land Use Element. The proposal supports Comprehensive Plan Designation policy LU-36 for the Multifamily Urban Designation: Purpose. · Provide for high-density residential neighborhoods that are urban in character. Provide for neighborhoods of multifamily residences, small lot single-family homes, and attached single-family (multiplex) homes on lands suitable for these intensities. Focus high-density housing in the following locations: • In or near the Downtown or Overlake in support of Redmond's centers; • Near other employment and commercial nodes; and • Where high levels of transit service are present or likely or where there is adequate access to an arterial. Allowed Uses. Implement this designation through zones that allow densities of 12 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. Permit multifamily residences and, in suitable locations, detached or attached single-family homes. Other Land Use Element policies address the consideration of infill development and compatibility between land uses: Policy LU-6: "Encourage infill development on suitable vacant parcels and redevelopment of underutilized parcels. Ensure that the height, bulk and design of in fill and redevelopment projects are compatible with their surroundings." And, Policy LU-11: "Promote compatibility between land uses and minimize land use conflicts when there is potential for adverse impacts on lower-intensity or more sensitive uses by: • Ensuring that uses or structures meet performance standards that limit adverse impacts, such as noise, vibration, smoke and fumes; and 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-2014-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 10 of 14 • Creating an effective transition between land uses through building and site design, use of buffers and landscaping, or other techniques." c. Consistency with Redmond's community character objectives as described in the Community Character/Historic Preservation Element or elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy CC-18 speaks to the use of design standards and design review to accomplish a variety of design goals, including ensuring that building scale and orientation are appropriate to the site. Any future multifamily residences would be subject to design review in accordance with policies CC-17 through CC-23 and Redmond Zoning Code regulations. d. Consistency with other sections as applicable. See discussion in items a-c above. 3. Potential general impacts to the natural environment, such as impacts to critical areas and other natural resources, including whether development will be directed away from environmentally critical areas and other natural resources. Residential development on this parcel, either under existing zoning or under the proposed zoning will require tree removal due to the number of trees on site. Proposed development would be subject to RZC standards for tree protection and mitigation. With any new development, potential impacts to the environment are assessed on a site specific basis. New residential development would continue to be directed away from environmentally critical areas, and the adjacent area directly to the east will be preserved in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) tract. 4. Potential general impacts to the capacity of public facilities and services. For land use related amendments, whether public facilities and services can be provided cost-effectively and adequately at the proposed density/intensity. The potential impacts to public facilities as a result of the proposed amendment would be negligible. The Redmond Zoning Code provides public facility requirements for new housing development. 5. Potential general economic impacts, such as impacts for business, residents, property owners, or City Government. The proposed amendments will not have significant economic impacts for business or residents. The proposal may provide economic benefit to residents and businesses by providing additional opportunities to live in Redmond close to jobs. The proposal may benefit the applicant who owns the property proposed for increased density. The proposal may 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-2014-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 11 of 14 economically benefit city government from the property owner's payment of property taxes. 6. For issues that have been considered within the last four annual updates, whether there has been a change in circumstances that makes the proposed amendment appropriate or whether the amendment is needed to remedy a mistake. The amendments have not been considered within the last four annual updates, nor has there been a change in circumstances. The following items apply when proposed amendments concern allowed land uses or densities, such as proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan Map, land use designations, allowed land uses, or zoning map. 7. General suitability of the area for the proposed land use or density, taking into account considerations such as adjacent land uses and the surrounding development pattern, and the zoning standards under the potential zoning classifications. The proposed amendment for multifamily housing applies only to the moderately sloping, developable portion of the site. The sutTounding land uses are multifamily residential to the west and south; the density of the newly constructed development to the south is approximately 28 dwelling units per acre. There is no development potential to the east, due to steep slopes and establishment of a TDR easement. A City-owned utility easement is located to the north, on the northwest border, and single family home lots are located up the slope on the north and northeast. Maximum building heights in the R-18 zone are 45 feet, which is consistent with the finished building heights of the development to the south. 8. Whether the proposed land use designation, zoning, or uses are compatible with nearby land use designations, zoning or uses. Whether there are opportunities to achieve compatibility with surrounding land uses through design or through separation by topography or buffers. The proposed land use and zoning are compatible with nearby land use designations, zoning and uses. The East Hill zone within Downtown allows up to 45 dwelling units per acre and is adjacent to the northwest, west and south of the subject parcel. The proposed R -18 zoning is compatible in use with existing multifamily housing to the south and west, and would be a transition between the East Hill zone and the Single Family Urban land use designation to the north. Future housing structures on site will be separated from land uses to the north by a steep slope. 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01 869 Technical Committee Report Page 12 of 14 9. If the amendment proposes a change in allowed uses or densities in an area: a. The need and demand for the land uses that would be allowed and whether the change would result in the loss of capacity to accommodate other needed land uses, especially whether the proposed amendment complies with policy H0-17, the City's policy of no net loss of housing capacity; The proposed amendments are intended to support additional housing development. Additionally, one or more affordable homes would be required with any new development. b. Implications of the proposed amendment for the balance between the amount and type of employment in Redmond and the amount and type of housing in Redmond. The proposed amendments may further encourage smaller and relatively more affordable housing which may provide opportunities to a wider economic spectrum. In addition, the site is adjacent to Downtown near public services and transit opportunities. V. AUTHORITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW A. AMENDMENT PROCESS RZC Sections 21.76.070.AE and 21.76.050.K require that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code (except zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan) be reviewed under the Type VI process. Under this process, the Planning Commission conducts a study session(s), an open record hearing(s) on the proposed amendment, and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the decision-making body for this process. B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The Redmond Planning Commission and the Redmond City Council have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide whether to adopt the proposed amendment. C. WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) A Determination ofNon-Significance and SEPA Checklist was issued for this non-project action on November 7, 2014 as well as posted on site. B. 60-DAY STATE AGENCY REVIEW State agencies were sent 60-day notice of this proposed amendment on November 19,2014 C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 13 of 14 The public has opportunities to comment on the proposed amendment through the Planning Commission review process and public hearing which will be held on December 10, 2014. Public notice ofthe public hearing was published in the Seattle Times on November 19, 2014. During November 7 - 12, 2014, City staff held office hours on three occasions. Three individuals attended during these times and expressed concerns about three issues: 1) tree removal from the subject site and possible adverse effects to tree stands on their own properties, 2) increased traffic, and safety issues related to NE 85 111 Street such as the intersection with 166 111 Avenue NE and capacity, and 3) increased density. The Redmond Zoning Code identifies that a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map must have extraordinary notice per RZC 21.76 Review Procedures. A large four by six foot sign was posted on site on November 7, 2014. In addition, notice of the proposed amendment was sent to persons expressing interest, as well as online notification sources such as the Neighborhood Newsletter and GovDelivery. D. APPF:ALS RZC 21.76.070.AE identifies Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments as a Type VI permit. Final action is held by the City Council. The action of the City Council on a Type VI proposal may be appealed by filing a petition with the Growth Management Hearing Board pursuant to the requirements. VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Recommended Amendment to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Recommended Amendment to the Redmond Zoning Code Map Recommended Amendment to the Redmond Zoning Code Section 21.20 Affordable Housing SEP A Threshold Determination Conclusion in Support of Recommendation: The Technical Committee has found the proposal to be in compliance with the Redmond Zoning Code, Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Redmond Municipal Code, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEP 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- (]cQQ~ ROBERT G. 0DLE, Planning Director Margolese Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment LAND-20 14-01869 Technical Committee Report Page 14 of 14 Planning and Community Development Department Director of Public Works Public Works Department 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NE 80th ST 166th AVE NE 164th AVE NE NE 88th ST 165th AVE NE NE 89th ST NE 85th ST 169th AVE NE NE 83rd ST NE 87th ST 169th PL NE 170th PL NE NE 86th CT 167th AVE NE 170th CT NE NE 84th CT NE 82nd ST 169th CT NE 165th LN NE 169th PL NE Exhibit A - Comprehensive Plan Legend Buildings Parcels Downtown Boundary ! ! ! ! ! ! Project Site & proposed Land Use Downtown Mixed Use Multi-Family Urban Single-Family Urban ± 0 300 150 Feet 1 inch = 300 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- R-18 R-5 East Hill R-20 R-30 Town Square R-20 Anderson Park Valley View Old Town R-30 NE 80th ST 166th AVE NE 164th AVE NE NE 88th ST NE 85th ST 165th AVE NE NE 83rd ST NE 89th ST 169th AVE NE NE 87th ST 169th PL NE 170th PL NE NE 86th CT 167th AVE NE NE 84th CT 170th CT NE NE 82nd ST 169th CT NE 165th LN NE 169th PL NE Exhibit B - Zoning Legend Buildings Parcels Downtown Boundary Project Site (proposed Zoning) ± 0 300 150 Feet 1 inch = 300 feet Single-Family Urban Zones (R-4, R-5, R-6, RIN, & R-8) Multi-Family Urban Zones (R-12, R-18, R-20, & R-30) Downtown Zones (TSQ, OT, EH, AP,VV) ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT C REDMOND ZONING CODE Section 21.20.060 Supplemental Requirements C. Education Hill Neighborhood. 1. Consistent with policies HO-38 and N-EH-15, properties rezoned from R-5 to R-18 (Ord. shall be required to provide 10% of units as affordable housing units if eight or fewer homes are developed. If more than eight homes are developed, 10% of units shall be low-cost affordable units. The bonus provisions of RZC 21.20.030D shall not apply. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT D STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE For more information about this project visit www.redmond.gov/landuseapps CityofRedmond WASHI•I CTOtl PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: · Margolese Comprehensive Plan Amendment SEPA FILE NUMBER: SEPA-2014-01870 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Land Use change from Single Family Urban, R-5 to Multifamily Urban, R-18 PROJECT LOCATION: 8420 167th Avenue NE SITE ADDRESS: 0 No Address REDMOND, WA 98052 APPLICANT: Barry Margolese LEAD AGENCY: City of Redmond The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the requirements of environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed through the City's regulations and Comprehensive Plan together with applicable State and Federal laws. Additionally, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment as described under SEPA. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. CITY CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT PLANNER NAME: Sarah Stiteler PHONE NUMBER: 425- 556- 2469 EMAIL: [EMAIL REDACTED] IMPORTANT DATES COMMENT PERIOD Depending upon the proposal, a comment period may not be required. An is placed next to the applicable comment period provision. There is no comment period for this DNS. Please see below for appeal provisions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11 -340(2), and the lead agency will not make a decision on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments can be submitted to the Project Planner, via phone, fax (425)556-2400, email or in person at the Development Services Center located at 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA 98052. Comments must be submitted by 11/21/2014. APPEAL PERIOD You may appeal this determination to the City of Redmond Planning Department, Redmond City Hall, 15670 NE 85th Street, P.O. Box 97010, Redmond, WA 98073-9710.J!.Q_ later than 5:00 p.m. on 12/08/2014, by submitting a completed City of Redmond Appeal Application Form available on the City's website at www.redmond.gov or at City Hall. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. DATE OF DNS ISSUANCE: November 7, 2014 For more information about the project or SEPA procedures, please contact the project planner. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: SIGNATURE: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: SIGNATURE: Robert G. Odie Planning Director Linda E. De Boldt Public Works Director Address: 15670 NE 85th Street Redmond, WA 98052