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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Delete: Dimensional Standards
allows R-48 zoning adjacent to single family to reach heights of 50 and 60
feet (SMC 20.50.020 – Exception 9).
- Replace SMC 20.50.020(2)(2)
Transition Areas for Industrial zones with Densities and Dimensions
Standards for Residential Development in Nonresidential Zones (SMC
20.50.020(2) – Exception 2).
- Replace SMC 20.50.020(2)(2)
Transition Areas for Industrial zones with Dimensions for Commercial
Development in Commercial Zones (SMC 20.50.230 - Exception 4).
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