Memorandum

 

DATE:            April 3, 2008

                       

TO:                 Shoreline Planning Commission

 

FROM:           Paul Cohen, Senior Planner

 

RE:                 Code Amendments to Address CB, RB, I  Moratorium

 

 

The Planning Commission met March 13th and 20th 2008 to study the proposed transition area requirements.  Tonight the Commission will open an additional public hearing.  Though the Commission did not direct staff to modify its proposal, at the March 20 meeting, several questions were raised for staff to analyze.  Below are the key questions, together with staff responses.

 

Responses to Questions from the March 20 meeting

 

  1. How would transition areas requirements be applied to properties that only partially abut each other?   The proposed language requires transition area requirements when abutting to or across rights-of-way from R-4, R-6, or R-8 zones.  That provision means that any portion of the adjoining commercial property that meets this criterion will require transition area requirements radiating in from the point of property contact.  Staff recommends no additional changes to the amendment language.

 

  1. How would commercial properties be impacted if they are shallow?   Generally, commercial properties less than 80 feet in depth may not reach the allowable height limit.   The proposed Type I landscaping is unchanged from the current code language, however, the additional assurance for a longer lasting buffer and more setbacks into the building bulk are further impacts on the development potential.  Staff recommends no additional changes to the amendment language.

 

  1. Could a multi-building development circumvent the additional setback requirement?  Concern was raised that a development proposal with multiple buildings could circumvent the intent and language for further setbacks where facades exceed 50 linear feet.  This is possible, for example, if 40-foot facades were proposed on separate buildings with a 10-foot separation between buildings.  Staff recommends that the setbacks be applied to the entire site no matter the number of buildings.  See changes below.

 

Proposed Revisions to the Development Code

 

Currently, the Development Code has one area that conflicts with the moratorium intent and two areas where the amendment needs to be repeated since it does not have its own code section. 

 

 

Revised Proposed Amendments for Transition Area Requirements (from Attachment C, with additional changes underlined) followed by staff comments.

·        Development in CB, RB, or I  zones abutting to or across street rights–of-way from single family zones R-4, R-6, or R-8  shall meet transition area requirements.

 

The reason to include only properties abutting or across rights-of-ways is to simplify which commercial zoned properites are affected by the transition area requirements and to show the effects of transition area requirements the first 100 feet into a commercial property rather than the moratorium’s limit of any property touched by the 90-foot margin around single family.  This defintion of transition areas affects fewer properties than those affected by the mortatorium.

·        A 35-foot maximum building height at the required setback and a building envelope within a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope up to the maximum building height for the commercial zone.  

 

The intent is to match the adjacent maximum single family building height on the commercial property with the current 20 foot setback and then use a 2:1 building envelop.  This will reduce the looming quality of a 60 foot high façade with decks peering into single family backyards (Attachment D).

·        Property width abutting R-4, R-6, and R-8 zones must have additional setbacks for every 50 linear feet of property width.  The additional setbacks must be a minimum 800 square feet of open ground with a minimum 20 foot horizontal dimension.  

The intent is to complement the 35-foot height limt of single family with a horizontal element to break up the potential for a broad and voluminous building mass for more of a single family house scale.  Each inset could potentially remove approximately three, 800 square foot apartments.      

·        Transition area setbacks shall contain Type I landscaping along property lines abutting R-4, R-6, and R-8 zones and Type II landscaping along property lines with right-of-ways across from R-4, R-6, R-8 zones. A solid, 8-foot in height  fence shall be placed on the abutting property line.  Patio or outdoor recreation areas are allowed up to 20% of the landscape area and no less than 10 feet from abutting property lines if Type I landscaping can be effectively grown.   Required trees species shall be selected to grow a minimum height of 50 feet.  The option for a written agreement with the abutting property owners to delete or substitute tree varieties shall be offered by the developer and submitted for City approval.  The entire length and 20- foot wide landscape area shall be a recorded easement that requires plant replacement as needed to meet Type I landscaping.  No utility easements shall encroach into the landscaping requirements.  

  

The intent is to provide ample landscape area to grow Type I landscaping abutting single family.  Type I acts as a screen with mostly native conifers, 10 feet in height at planting and planted 10 feet apart with shrubs 3 feet apart.  Patio and outdoor recreation areas are limited to provide more privacy to the single family properties.

Summary and Next Steps

Overall, this amendment patch is to make compliance simple and clear while increasing protection of adjacent single family zoned neighborhoods. 

The current moratorium expires April 29, 2008.  Staff requests the Commission’s recommendation April 3rd in order to transmit a recommendation to the Council for its April 21 and 28th meeting dates.   

 

Attachments:

A.  Moratorium 488

B.  City Map of Affected Properties

C.  Proposed Code Amendments

D.  Cross–Sections