Document Redmond_doc_f8f3467cb3

CityofRedmond WASH I NGTO N Planning Commission Report To: From: Staff Contacts: Date: File Numbers: Title: Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommended Action: Summary: City Council Planning Commission Rob Odie, Director, Planning and Community Development, 425- 556-2417 Colleen Kelly, Assistant Director, Community Planning, 425- 556-2423 Lori Peckol, AICP, Policy Planning Manager, [PHONE REDACTED] Jeff Churchill, AICP, Senior Planner, [PHONE REDACTED] October 22, 2014 LAND-2014-01335,' SEPA-2014-01596 OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height Approval Adopt amendments to the Redmond Zoning Code as shown in Attachment A. Microsoft Corporation proposes to amend height limits in a portion of the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) zone, from a maximum height of 4-5 stories to a maximum height of 9-1 0 stories. City Hall· 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA • 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reasons the Proposal should be Adopted: The recommended amendments to the Redmond Zoning Code should be adopted because they: • Are consistent with Redmond's land use vision and growth management strategy and policies • Advance Redmond's economic development goals; and • Allow for more efficient use of land and the provision of additional open space in a campus setting Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Public Hearing and Notice a. Public Hearing Date The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 24, 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 Planning 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 was sent via letter to parties of record. 2. Public Comments Four people testified in writing, six people attended an open house in August, and seven people participated in an online questionnaire before the public hearing. Comments are summarized below. Written testimony is provided as Attachment B. Traffic There was some concern that traffic congestion is already a problem, that this amendment will allow additional development, and that additional development will make traffic worse, both on local streets and on SR-520 and I-405. There was patticular concern about commute traffic using streets in residential areas such as I 64th Ave NE in Bellevue. Visual Impact People living near the campus expressed concem that lighting from taller buildings would add nighttime visual pollution. There was also some concern that residential privacy would be negatively impacted from office workers being able to see into homes/yards from upper stories of taller buildings. OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height (LAND-20 14-0 1335) Page 2 of4 Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Location There was a suggestion to allow taller buildings west of SR 520 instead of in the proposed location for the height increase, which is east of 156 1h Ave NE. Recommended Conclusions 1. Key Issues Discussed by the Planning Commission Key issues discussed by the Planning Commission are summarized below. Traffic While acknowledging existing traffic conditions, the Planning Commission noted that the proposal would not result in any additional development beyond what is already authorized under the 2005 development agreement between the City and Microsoft. The Commission noted that the 2005 development agreement also specifies transportation mitigation to be completed as development progresses on the Microsoft campus. Visual Impact Commissioners studied the visualizations developed by the applicant that simulate I 0-story buildings. The Commission was satisfied that the location of the I 0-story buildings combined with existing buffers would minimize visual impact. Location The Commission concluded that the proposed location was adequately buffered from residential areas and noted that land west of SR-520 is also close to residential areas, and so the Commission did not see a benefit to shifting the proposed height overlay to an area west of SR-520. 2. Recommended Conclusions of the Technical Committee The recommended conclusions in the Technical Committee Report (Attachment D) should be adopted as conclusions. 3. Planning Commission Recommendation The Commission voted 4-0 at its September 24, 2014 meeting to recommend approval of the OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height as shown in Attachment A. OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height (LAND-20 14-0 1335) Page 3 of4 Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Attachments Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Attachment B: Written Testimony Bl: Beye B2: Olson B3: OneRedmond B4: Tosch Attachment C: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 24, 2014 Attachment D: Technical Committee Report with Exhibits Exhibit A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Exhibit B: Public Hearing Notice for September 24, 2014 Exhibit C: Public Input Summary Attachment E: SEP A Threshold Determination Vibhas Chandorkar, Planning Commission Chairperson 7~ Approved for Council Agenda ~ ~ John Marchione, Mayor Date Date i o/-;t,l!y· Date OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height (LAND-20 14-0 1335) Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 1 of 10 Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments ARTICLE I ZONE BASED REGULATIONS RZC 21.12 OVERLAKE REGULATIONS 21.12.180 OBAT Purpose The purpose of the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology Zone is to: A) Implement the vision and policies for the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zone set forth in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan; B) 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; C) Maintain a campus‐like environment with significant areas of trees and open spaces; D) Provide for a low to moderate intensity of development to match available public facilities; E) Enhance compatibility between the uses in this zone and neighboring residential areas; F)Encourage walking, bicycling, carpools, vanpools, and transit use; and G) Provide opportunities for multifamily residential development and limited convenience commercial and service uses to help reduce motor vehicle trips in the area by serving employees from nearby businesses. 21.12.190 OBAT Maximum Development Yield Table 21.12.190A Maximum Development Yield Base Bonuses Available, and Quantity Max. Illustrations Floor area ratio (FAR) 1.47 None in this example 1.47 Example of a 4‐story building with FAR = 1.47 Example of 5‐story building with FAR = 1.47 Height 4 stories (9 stories in 148‐ foot height overlay area) TDRs or GBP: 1 story 5 stories (10 stories in 148‐foot height overlay area) ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 2 of 10 21.12.200 OBAT Regulations Common to All Uses A. Regulations Common to All Uses. Table 21.12.200B Regulations Common to All Uses Regulation Standard Exceptions Minimum Setbacks Front and Street 10 feet 1. 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. 2. See Map 12.4, Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Setbacks, below for front and street setbacks along 148th Avenue NE. Setbacks shall be: a. 20 feet for buildings 20 feet or less in height; or b. 30 feet for buildings greater than 20 feet in height. 3. See Map 12.4 below for Front and Street setbacks along Bel‐Red Road. Rear 20 feet Side 30 feet Landscaping Landscaping 20 percent Maximum Setbacks Front and Street 45 feet Applies in the locations noted on Map 12.4 below only. Impervious surface area, Height, and FAR Impervious surface area 80 percent Height Varies 1. 9‐story buildings shall not exceed 134 feet 2. 10‐story buildings shall not exceed 148 feet FAR Varies 1. 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. 2. The FAR for nonresidential and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated and may be added to together for a cumulative total, provided that the respective maximum FAR for each use is not exceeded, unless otherwise provided for. Drive‐through n/a 1. Drive‐through facilities are prohibited except where expressly permitted in the Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards table below. Map 12.4 Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Setbacks ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 3 of 10 Note: Online users may click the map for a full‐size version in PDF format. B. Landscaping. No changes. C. Street Cross Sections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 4 of 10 No changes. 21.12.210 OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards A. Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards. The following table (see below) contains the basic zoning regulations that apply to uses in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) zone. To use the chart, read down the left‐hand column titled “Use.” When you have located the use that interests you, read across to find regulations that apply to that use. Uses are permitted unless otherwise specified in the Special Regulations column. Permitted uses may require land use permit approval. See RZC 21.76.020, Overview of the Development Process, for more information. Uses not listed are not permitted. Table 21.12.210B OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards § Use Max. FAR Max. Height Parking Ratio: Unit of Measure (Min. required, Max. allowed) Special Regulations Base; w / TDRs or GBP Base; w / TDRs or GBP Residential 1 Multifamily Structures 1.0; 1.0 5; 6 Unit (1.0, 2.25) plus 1 guest space per 4 units for projects of 6 units or more 2 Mixed‐Use Residential 3 Dormitory Bed (0.75, 0.75) 4 SRO Bedroom (0.5, 1.0) General sales or services ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 5 of 10 Table 21.12.210B OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards § Use Max. FAR Max. Height Parking Ratio: Unit of Measure (Min. required, Max. allowed) Special Regulations Base; w / TDRs or GBP Base; w / TDRs or GBP 5 General Sales or Service .40; .47 4; 5 9; 10 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) 1. The following uses are prohibited: a. Pet and animal sales or services; b. Veterinary services; c. Full‐service restaurant; and d. Travel arrangement and reservation services. 2. Convenience uses only. 3. If open to the general public, use shall: a. Be located in multi‐tenant buildings or as part of mixed‐use developments; and, b. Not exceed 20,000 square feet of gross floor area on a single site or 30,000 square feet of gross floor area on a single site if an athletic club or fitness center is included. 4. If open only to internal employees, use is not subject to the above constraints. 5. Automobile sales, rental and service not allowed except for service to public transit or company‐owned vehicles provided the following conditions are met: a. Requires a conditional use permit. See RZC 21.76.070.K, Conditional Use Permit. b. Service for company‐owned vehicles shall be accessory to another use. c. Not permitted within a Transition Overlay. 6. Gasoline service requires a conditional use permit. See RZC 21.76.070.K, Conditional Use Permit. 7. The maximum number of parking stalls allowed may be increased to 5.0 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the retail components of mixed‐use developments. 6 Real Estate Services .40; .47 4; 5 9; 10 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) 1. Property management services only. Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade 7 Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade .40; .47 4; 5 9; 10 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) 1. Outdoor storage not permitted. Transportation, Communication, Information, and Utilities 8 Road, Ground Passenger and Transit Transportation .40; .47 4; 5 9; 10 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) 9 Rapid charging station Adequate to accommodate peak use 1. Shall not be located on a parcel that abuts a residential zone. 10 Battery exchange station 11 Communications and Information 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 6 of 10 Table 21.12.210B OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards § Use Max. FAR Max. Height Parking Ratio: Unit of Measure (Min. required, Max. allowed) Special Regulations Base; w / TDRs or GBP Base; w / TDRs or GBP 12 Local Utilities; Regional Utilities Adequate to accommodate peak use 1. Requires a conditional use permit if 40 feet in height or greater. See RZC 21.76.070.K, Conditional Use Permit. 13 Large Satellite Dishes/Amateur Radio Tower .40; .47 49; 519 Adequate to accommodate peak use 1. See RZC 21.56, Wireless Communication Facilities. 14 Antenna Array and Base Station 1. A Conditional Use Permit may be required; see RZC 21.56, Wireless Communication Facilities, for specific development requirements. 15 Antenna Support Structures 1. Requires a conditional use permit (see RZC 21.76.070.K, Conditional Use Permit) and must comply with RZC 21.56, Wireless Communication Facilities. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 16 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation .40; .47 49; 510 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) Education, Public Administration, Health Care, and other Institutions 17 Education, Public Administration, Health Care, and other Institutions except those listed below .40; .47 49; 510 See Special Regulations 1. Associations, nonprofit organizations, etc., are not permitted. 2. Parking: The number of spaces must be adequate to accommodate the peak shift as determined by the Administrator after considering the probable number of employees, etc. 18 Day Care Center .47; .47 Employee on maximum shift (1.0, 1.0) 1. Play equipment shall be located no less than 10 feet from any property line. 2. Shall not be located closer than 300 feet from existing day care operation in residential zone. 3. If built at greater than 0.40 FAR without use of TDRs, deed restrictions shall be placed on building space to require space is used permanently for a day care center and no other uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 7 of 10 Table 21.12.210B OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards § Use Max. FAR Max. Height Parking Ratio: Unit of Measure (Min. required, Max. allowed) Special Regulations Base; w / TDRs or GBP Base; w / TDRs or GBP 19 Religious Institutions .40; .47 Assembly uses: 1,000 sq ft gfa (10.0, 10.0), or number of fixed seats (0.2, 0.2) Other uses: 1,000 sq ft gfa (2.0, 3.0) 1. A seat is one fixed seat or 18 inches on a pew or bench or seven square feet in the general assembly area (including aisle space, but excluding stage, podium, lobby, and space for musical instruments). 2. Storage locations of buses/vans over 10,000 gvw shall be shown on a plan and screened from neighboring properties or right‐of‐way. 3. Decorative fencing or decorative walls and landscaping. on side or back lots are required when necessary to prevent visual impacts on neighboring properties and public shoreline areas. 4. Steeples, bell towers, crosses or other symbolic religious icons mounted on the rooftop may exceed the maximum shoreline building height by 15 feet. (SMP) 5. Maximum height for separate structures on‐site, such as bell towers, crosses, statuary, or other symbolic religious icons is 50 feet. 6. A traffic mitigation plan is required. The plan shall address traffic control, parking management (including mitigation of overflow parking into adjoining residential areas), and traffic movement to the arterial street system. 7. Requires a conditional use permit if 750 seats or greater. See RZC 21.76.070.K, Conditional Use Permit. Construction‐Related Businesses 20 Construction‐ Related Businesses .40; .47 49; 510 1,000 SF GFA (2.0, 3.0) 1. Shall not include a showroom open to the general public. B. Repealed. C. Building Height. 1. Height Tradeoff. a. The maximum building height on a site may be exceeded when building height reductions are required at building edges, along a street or park, to achieve better design and stepped building height through the development approval 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 (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 one additional floor above the prescribed maximum building height. a.b. In no case shall a building exceed 9 stories without TDRs or 10 stories with TDRs. 2. Height Limit Overlay. a. Purpose. This section establishes special height limits as shown on Map 12.7, Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Height Limits. The intent of this requirement ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 8 of 10 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. b. Map 12.7‐Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Height Limits. REVISED Map 12.7 Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Height Limits Note: Online users may click the map for a full‐size version in PDF format. New proposed overlay ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 9 of 10 C. 2. c. Requirements. 1. The Height Limit Overlay Map shows two kinds of overlays: a. Reduced limits on maximum height for structures located within 300 feet of the OBAT Zone boundary with lower intensity zones; and. a.b. Increased limits on maximum height for structures in an interior portion of the OBAT zone. 2. 45‐Foot Height Limit Overlay. Within this overlay, maximum structure height shall be 45 feet or three stories, whichever is lower. 3. 35‐Foot Height Limit Overlay. a. Within this overlay, maximum structure height shall be 35 feet. b. The maximum structure height may be increased up to 45 feet if at least one of the following features is provided; 1. At least one quarter of the on‐site parking is provided in underground parking structures. 2. 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. 3. Transfer of development rights or Green Building and Green Infrastructure Incentive Program (GBP) are used to increase structure height. 4. 148‐Foot Height Limit Overlay. Within this overlay, maximum structure height shall be 9 stories and 134 feet without TDRs or 10 stories and 148 feet with TDRs. 3. Allowed structure height may be further increased within the 35‐foot and 45‐foot is overlays if the following conditions are met: c. The modified building height does not exceed the maximum height permitted by the RZC 21.12.210, OBAT Allowed Uses and Basic Development Standards. d. 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. Permit decision maker may consider: 1. Landscape features, such as retention or enhancement of vegetation; 2. Building design features, such as massing or roofline; 3. Site design features, such as use of landscaped berms; or ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Page 10 of 10 4. Other features that meet the intent of this section. (Ord. 2642) No changes to remainder of RZC 21.12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Page 1 of 4 Attachment B: Written Testimony Attachment B: Written Testimony Jeff Churchill From: Toni Beye <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:21 AM To: Jeff Churchill Cc: Beye, Toni (comcast) Subject: OBAT Party of Record Request Dear Mr. Churchill, I was unable to attend the OBAT presentation by the City of Redmond and Microsoft on Mon. Aug. 25, 2015, from 6:00 - 7:30PM at Redmond City Hall due to a broken tooth and its immediate, necessary repair. I would like to become a Party of Record in this matter, as I am very much opposed to allowing Microsoft to build 9 or 10 story buildings. Without the necessary improvement to Redmond's infrastructure, the traffic issues alone would be all but unbearable to the city residents within several miles of this area. Microsoft traffic is ALREADY too much for the local streets, State Route 520 and I-405 to handle! I live ten blocks south of NE 156th St, and it has been a very long time since I have seen a traffic counter tube/hose in any of the areas surrounding Microsoft's increasingly, sprawling campus. The city should definitely make traffic counts in the areas surrounding the main Microsoft campus. Also, the members of the Planning Commission should be required to physically witness the extreme traffic problems and congestion in this area during the morning and afternoon rush hours especially when the local schools, colleges and universities are in session! It's a literal nightmare! My contact information is: Toni L. Beye 16220 NE 50th St Redmond, WA 98052-7004 Sincerely, Toni L. Beye Click here to report this email as spam. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Jeff Churchill From: Randy Olson <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:43 PM To: Jeff Churchill Subject: OBAT Building Height I’m sorry that I was unable to attend the Monday evening meeting on the request for increased building height. I would like to register my concern and objection for the overlay to extend as close to Bel-Red Road as currently proposed. As clearly shown on the map, all of the other boundaries abut other high-rises, commercial zones, and high-density dwellings. The exceptions are the wooded and private neighborhoods along Bel-Red including mine at 3255 165th PL NE, Bellevue in the Ashbrook neighborhood. I back to an undeveloped 5 acre lot along Bel-Red and a NPG/Greenbelt on the other. The detention pond and other areas are on the Redmond side of Bel-Red Road. Most of the current buildings are set back and proportional to the height of surrounding old tree growth and other boundary buffers. But, I already scan the trees and see the “recent” parking structure that was built near Bel-Red Road and which for security is lit from dusk to dawn. I can’t imagine buildings sticking up twice as high as the surrounding trees and adding to that light pollution in my back yard. I have gotten used to traffic on Bel-Red and the dangerous U-Turns in my entry for commuters to get around the unique intersection at 30th Street and Bel-Red so I’m not against further development. I know leaving my house and entering Bel-Red that I will be engaged with Microsoft traffic and density and the purple power pole, new high energy lines, and substations. I’m glad to see something going up in the old nursery location where the new multi-story, high density development is taking place off 15th but come on, don’t destroy my own backyard with that density. I don’t want Microsoft 9-10 buildings to be my new view. I also know that I live in Bellevue and am not a constituent but am always impacted by Redmond’s decisions for the main Microsoft campus from the crazy intersection at 30th to the parking garage visible from Bel-Red and now the potential for MUCH more visibility if the proposed height amendment is allowed that close to Bel-Red. Thanks for letting me vent and recording my concerns to this proposal. Randy Olson 3255 165th PL NE Bellevue, WA 98008 [PHONE REDACTED] home [PHONE REDACTED] cell Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment B: Written Testimony Page 2 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8383 158th Ave NE Suite 225 Redmond, WA 98052 I [PHONE REDACTED] I www.oneredmond.org 9/4/2014 Planning Commission MS: 4SPL 15670 NE 85th Street P.O. Box 97010 Redmond, WA 98073-9710 Subject: Concerning Amending Height Limitations in the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Zone Commissioners: OneRedmond is the public/private partnership whose mission is to expand and retain local employers, attract new companies, and create community vitality in the City of Redmond. OneRedmond strongly supports the proposal by the Microsoft Corporation to amend the Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) Zone regulations to allow up to 9-story buildings in the central portion of the Microsoft Main (East) Campus, with the option to go to 10 stories using transferable development rights (TDRs). The proposal supports OneRedmond’s primary objective: to support the growth and expansion of our existing businesses. The proposal before the Planning Commission speaks directly to this priority and we urge its approval. Thank you in advance of your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Bart Phillips, CEO Executive Committee Dr. Eric Scroggins President Banner Bank Jim Stanton Vice President Microsoft Dan Angellar Treasurer Redmond Marriott Town Center Tom Markl Secretary Nelson Legacy Group Bill Biggs Immediate Past President Group Health Ryan Baumgartner At-Large Cashman Consulting Board of Directors Mike Arntzen Amaxra, Inc. Dr. Eric Murray Cascadia Community College Councilman Tom City of Redmond Mayor John Marchione City of Redmond Larry Martin Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP Tom Martin EvergreenHealth Dan Peyovich Howard S. Wright Dr. Amy Morrison Goings Lake Washington Institute of Technology Robert Pantley Natural & Built Environments Brian Webster Physio-Control Jay Olsen ServiceMaster Cleaning & Restoration Committee Chairs Tom Martin Business Development EvergreenHealth Doug Christy Business Expansion Pro/Vision Coaching Dr. Eric Murray Communications Cascadia Community College Traci Tenhulzen Events Tenhulzen Residential Dan Angellar Finance Redmond Marriott Town Center Tom Markl Government Affairs Nelson Legacy Group Nicole Yurchak Investor Relations Swedish Medical Group Attachment B: Written Testimony Page 3 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Jeff Churchill From: [EMAIL REDACTED] on behalf of Brian Tosch <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:13 PM To: Jeff Churchill; Planning Commission Subject: OBAT Height Limits Hello, I'd like to provide feedback on Microsoft's proposal to increase building height limits. I have lived on 51st in Redmond for ten years and won't be able to attend the public hearing. At a location so near planned light rail, 9‐10 stories seems inadequate to provide the density we need to justify the public investment in transit. I'd be much happier seeing 12‐20 or more stories like you'd find near rail stations in Vancouver. As such, I hope this extremely conservative request can be approved expeditiously. And I hope we can find ways to encourage higher density development in the future. Thank you, Brian Tosch Attachment B: Written Testimony Page 4 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- REDMOND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2014 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Conunissioners O'Hara, Gregory, Sanders, Murray COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Chairman Chandorkar, Commissioners Miller and Biethan STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Churchill and Sarah Stiteler, Redmond Planning Department RECOROI.NG SECRETARY: Lady of Letters, Inc. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Commissioner O'Hara in the Council Chambers at City Hall. He noted that this was Commissioner Sanders' last meeting, and thanked her for her two years of service. Commissioner Sanders said it was a pleasure and an honor to serve and urged other members of the public to apply to join the Commission. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: There were no changes to the agenda. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no items from the audience. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY: Hearing no changes proposed to the September 17, 2014 meeting summary, Commissioner O'Hara APPROVED the meeting summary. The Commission agreed with the decision. Public Hearing and Study Session, Proposed Amendment to Building Height Limits in OBA T (Overlake Business and Advanced Technology) Zone, presented by Jeff Churchill, City ofRedmond Pla1ming Department. Jeff Churchill summarized the proposed amendment, noting that the Microsoft Corporation has asked for a change to the Zoning Code that would allow, on a portion of the main Microsoft campus, nine or ten-story buildings to be built. The difference between nine or ten-story buildings depends on whether transferable development rights are used. The area proposed to allow taller buildings is located east of !56th A venue NE, northwest of Bel-Red Road and south of NE 40th Street. The proposed Zoning Code amendment is about building height only and would not allow any additional development because it would not change the allowed density in the Zoning Code. lt also does not include any specific building plans. There are no specific buildings proposed or in the works at this time. Redmond Planning Commission September 24, 20 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Planning Commission held a first study session on the proposed amendment last week and the public hearing is at this meeting. After that, the Commission wi ll further study the issue and then make a recommendation to the City Council. A City Council review and decision is expected in early 20 I 5. Commissioner O' Hara then opened the public hearing. Jim Stanton and Bill Lee, both of whom work in real estate and master planning for the Microsoft campus, testified on behalf of the Microsoft Corporation. Mr. Stanton said Microsoft has had a long history of collaborating with the City of Redmond and the company's neighbors in Over lake, and that collaboration is taken very seriously. Mr. Stanton said he feels Microsoft has done a good job at fitting a very large corporate entity within an urban center in Over lake and cohabitating with its neighbors in a positive way. Mr. Stanton said the proposed amendment was simply to raise the height limit in a portion of the campus which is most likely to be redeveloped in the future. There is no specific plan for development at this time. The San Francisco architectural firm Skidmore, Owings, and Menill has recently been retained to start the process of talking with business groups, users, and other constituents and determine a plan for the future. Microsoft is not in the midst of a large growth cycle, which gives the company some time to think in a rational time frame about future development. There is an approved development agreement on the campus, one of three, that allows for more than a million square feet of development on the campus at some point in the future. The City of Redmond has placed a variety of other requirements on Microsoft as part of that development, including for infrastructure, utility, and transportation improvements. Mr. Stanton said the additional square footage allowed by the development agreements can be accomplished within the current height limit of four to five stories, but the hope is to give designers some flexibility with taller buildings. This could help retain open space and create something more sustainable. Mr. Stanton would like to keep the walking trails and fields the campus currently has. Microsoft has been talking about this idea since 20 I 2 with the City of Redmond. The Platming Department had input on the proposed amendment. Mr. Stanton has provided renderings of what taller buildings would look like from public viewpoints in and around the campus. Microsoft has met with neighbors to the campus as well about this idea. Commissioner Sanders asked about a letter the Commission has received about a setback off of Bel-Red Road, and if that setback is adequate. Mr. Stanton said many years ago, when this land was developed before Microsoft arrived, a number of limitations were set in tem1s of setbacks on the property. That was carried forward along Bel-Red Road, where there is a 1 00-foot setback of existing trees and greenery. There is no intention of changing that. Also, as part of Microsoft's 2005 development agreement with the City of Redmond, the company was required to add some plantings in that buffer area, and that has been completed. Microsoft has been in touch with the Sherwood Forest neighborhood about the buildings near this setback and about the implications of light and view. The Redmond Planning Commission September 24,20 14 2 I ---PAGE BREAK--- company has taken into account that this perimeter is one of the most exposed parts of the Microsoft campus in relation to the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Sanders asked about another question that had come up about development between SR 520 and !48th A venue NE, near the west part of campus, and whether that could be an area where Microsoft could concentrate its desire for taller buildings. Mr. Stanton said that would be a logical area. However, the west campus development was completed around 2009 with 1.3 million square feet of development, and no changes to that development are planned anytime soon. The area outlined in the proposed amendment is the oldest portion of the campus with buildings that would be reaching their natural end of life in the near future. Commissioner Sanders wanted to make sure that the proposed amendment would not add any density that has not already been agreed to. Mr. Stanton said that was correct. Commissioner Murray said a letter had been received about traffic, and clarified that this proposed amendment would not add any square footage that has not already been approved in the previously approved development agreement. Continuing, Commissioner Murray stated that the City has approved Microsoft's expansion, and Microsoft is merely seeking to expand up rather than out. Mr. Stanton agreed with that assessment, and said the proposal was about the composition of the type of buildings that would be built. No square footage beyond the 2005 development agreement would be added. Another person wrote to the Commission about lighting, and said that some security lights from Microsoft go into a back yard close to the campus. Commissioner MmTay asked if any additional thought had gone into the lighting of the proposed taller buildings that could address what one resident called light pollution. Mr. Stanton said he would like to know where those security lights are causing trouble currently. He said the company tries to do a good job in not spreading light off the campus. He could not speak to the specific location, but some perspectives have been provided to show what the campus would look like at night with taller buildings. Commissioner O'Hara said the various perspectives provided have been very helpful in understanding the implications of this proposal, and he appreciated the work that went into those. Commissioner O' Hara opened the public testimony. There were no members of the public present to testify. Commissioner O'Hara asked if there were any issues that the Commission wanted to discuss. None of the Commissioners had issues to add. Commissioner O'Hara closed the public testimony, written and oral. With no other issues to discuss, Commissioner O' Hara noted that an additional study session would not be needed at the next meeting. Commissioner Murray asked if it were the right time to make a MOTION on this proposal. Commissioner O'Hara said that would be appropriate. Commissioner Murray made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Proposed Amendment to Building Height Limits in OBA T (Overlake Business and Advanced Technology) Zone. The MOTION was seconded by Commissioner Gregory. The MOTION was approved unanimously Redmond Planning Commission September 24, 20 14 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Ms. Stiteler noted that the agenda for the next meeting of the Commission, on October 22, includes action on the Planning Commission's Report for the height limits amendment and a study session for the proposed amendment to the Park Plan Trails Map. Commissioner Gregory made a MOTION to close both the oral and written testimony on the OBAT issue. Commissioner Murray seconded the MOTION. The MOTION was approved unanimously ( 4-0). Briefing and Consult, Evaluation of Innovative Housing Demonstration Program, presented by Sarah Stiteler, City of Redmond Planning Department. Ms. Stiteler noted that there is a required evaluation of the Innovative Housing Demonstration Program embedded into the original adopting ordinance on this topic. The program was created in 2005 as a three-year demonstration program. However, 2008 was the height of the recession, and not many projects were being built. The Commission in 2008 proposed extending the program another fi ve years or five projects, whichever came first. Five years came first, and the program ended in August of2013. One project has been completed under this program. Another project did receive preliminary plat approval under this program, but the project has not moved from that point. The property is located on Avondale Road just south ofNE 104 111 Street on the west side of the street, and is for sale. However, a buyer has not come forward. That leaves one project to evaluate and another project to evaluate on the basis of a site plan. Ms. Stiteler wanted to ask the Commission for other suggestions about evaluating this program, including a look at its goals and how the projects using this program have adhered to those goals. She also asked if any Zoning Code issues have arisen out of this program, and if there was anything the Commission learned from this process that could have been done differently. Ms. Stiteler also wanted to look at community response to this program and what neighbors and developers are saying about it. She asked if some new items could be added to the Zoning Code that would allow for additional flexibility in cer1ain prescribed situations, as described by the program. Ms. Stitler would like to come back to the Commission with a briefing on this issue that would then go forward as a report to the City Council. Commissioner Sanders said she saw the words innovative and affordable used interchangeably throughout the language of the program, and asked what the intention of the program was. Commissioner O'Hara said he wanted to know about the Sycamore Park project, which was completed under this program, and about the prices of those units compared to others in the area. Commissioner Murray asked the Commission to recognize that the program was designed for multiple participants and options. However, there is only one completed project to evaluate the program by. He said it would be difficult to develop any conclusions from that one case study about how the goals of the City were reached or not reached. Redmond Planning Commission September 24,2014 4 J ---PAGE BREAK--- Commissioner Murray said the process or intent of the program needed to be reviewed, and the question should be asked as to why no one really took advantage of it. He would like to know if there are other factors besides the economic downtown that may have inhibited people from using this program. Commissioner Gregory had a similar comment, and noted that innovative housing should be revisited, in terms of affordability and innovation. He would like to see how innovative housing is getting successfully developed in other communities to determine some best practices on this issue. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission to keep an eye on where housing is going in general, noting that housing costs are going up. He said the single fami ly home ideal is slipping further and further away from modern young families. He asked what innovations could be considered to provide housing for those families. Commissioner O'Hara said that in the Marymoor area, there has been a lot of talk about transit-oriented design. That concept would allow for, possibly, some innovative housing in prox imity to the transit station in southeast Redmond. He said innovate housing and transit-oriented development could be two ideas that work together. Commissioner Gregory said current cable television shows have a lot of programs about smal ler homes as a new way to live. Commissioner O'Hara asked if a reality television show about small homes was in Redmond's future. Ms. Stiteler thanked the Commission for its suggestions. REPORTS/SCHEDULING/TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING(S): There were no reports. The next meeting is October 22nd. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Sanders to adjourn. MOTION approved unanimously Commissioner O' Hara adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:3 1 p.m. Minutes Approved On: Redmond Planning Commission September 24, 2014 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- This page left intentionally blank. I ---PAGE BREAK--- CityofRedmond WAS HINGTON To: From: Staff Contacts: Project File Number: Project Name: TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Technical Committee Robert G. Odle, Planning Director [PHONE REDACTED] Lori Peckol, AICP, Policy Planning Manager [PHONE REDACTED] Jeff Churchill, AICP, Senior Planner [PHONE REDACTED] September 5, 2014 LAND-2014-01335 OBA T Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height Related File Numbers: SEPA-2014-01 596 (SEPA) Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Reason for Proposal Adoption: Microsoft Corporation Jim Stanton The Technical Committee recommends approving the proposed Zoning Code amendment because it: • Is consistent with Redmond's land use vision and growth management strategy; • Advances Redmond's economic development goals; and, • Allows for more efficient use of land and the provision of additional open space in a campus setting. City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond. WA • 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. APPLICANT PROPOSAL OBAT Zoning Code Amendment for Building Height LAND-20 I 4-0 I 335 Technical Committee Report Page 2 of 14 Microsoft Corporation proposes to amend building height limits in a portion of the Overtake Business and Advanced Technology (OBAT) zone. Current zoning regulations allow 4-story buildings without the use of transferable development rights (TORs) and 5-story buildings with TORs. The proposal is to allow up to 9- story buildings without the use and 1 0-story buildings with TORs. The change would be limited to an overlay area in the OBA T zone shown in the figure below. ---PAGE BREAK--- OBAT Zoning Code Amendmentfor Building Height LAND-2014-01335 Technical Committee Report Page 3 of 14 The proposal does not include changes to allowed floor area ratio (FAR) or changes to the total amount of development allowed under the 2005 development agreement between the City and Microsoft that covers this area. BACKGROUND AND REASON FOR PROPOSAL: The applicant states that the proposal is intended to provide more open space and landscaping as property in the OBA T zone is developed and to enable construction of buildings in a more efficient configuration. The applicant also states that the proposal will support the goal of retaining and enhancing Redmond's distinctive character and quality of life by enabling the provision of more open space than without the amendment, support a vibrant concentration of office and technology uses in the OBAT zone, support a strong economy and supp011 the ability to celebrate diverse cultural opportunities by further enabling the applicant to construct buildings for one of the most ethnically diverse companies in Redmond. II. RECOMMENDATION The Technical Committee recommends approving 9-story (134-foot) buildings without use oftransferable development rights (TDRs) and 10-story (148-foot) buildings with use within the proposed overlay area. The balance of the report describes the Technical Committee's rationale, findings and conclusions. III. PRIMARY ISSUES CONSIDERED A. ISSUES CONSIDERED AND ALTERNATIVES Visuallmpact The Technical Committee considered the visual impacts to residential areas near the Microsoft Main (East) Campus. Based on visual impact studies conducted by the applicant, there will be some visual impacts as 1 0-story buildings will in some places rise above existing tree or building lines. Much of the impact will be mitigated by limiting the placement of taller buildings to the central portion of the campus. The following images show how hypothetical 9- or 1 0-story buildings would impact views of the campus from outside the campus. Note that trees are in the foreground of many images and would thus screen portions of potential future buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- •rt" df•tOOJt"'8 height in