4/21/2014

1

City CouncilContinued Public Hearing

April 21, 2014

4/21/2014

2

Before late 2010, F/T District had:

No height limits for development

No street required to be built for new development• Meaning new development could have been served by

an existing public street through a residential zone

No requirement for tree buffer on F/T-zoned properties

Chapter 19.60 MTMC:

Comprehensively updated in 2010• Including F/T Design

Standards

EIS i d f F/T EIS issued for F/T regulations

F/T Planned Action Ordinance adopted

4/21/2014

3

Establishes subdistricts within F/T District• Based on land characteristics (such as parcel size, ( p ,

elevation in relation to other properties, proximity to freeway, proximity to other zoning districts, etc.)

Establishes height limit for each subdistrict Requires new road connection for development in

northern part of district• Meaning existing street through SF residential zone cannot

b d f i lbe used for commercial purposes

Requires tree buffer (min. 60-ft wide) to be on F/T properties, separating them from SF zone & protecting trees & habitat

Requires Design Standards

4/21/2014

4

BUILDING DISTRICT C BUILDING DISTRICT D

“Regular” maximum of 4 stories up to 60 ft. height

“TDR” maximum of 20 stories up to 285 ft. height

“Regular” maximum of 4 stories up to 50 ft. height

“TDR” maximum of 12 stories up to 180 ft. height

When TDR provision for F/T District considered it was noted that:considered, it was noted that:• TDR programs—though highly desirable—were

complex & relatively new• If TDR credits did not prove viable option, alternative

way to achieve extra building stories would be proposed as code update

Market demand for TDR outside of core metro area is currently low:• Last 4 years, no TDR projects have been proposed—

nor any developer interest shown—in options for TDR projects within F/T District

4/21/2014

5

Provide alternative to TDR to achieve extra t i f h i ht i Di t i t C & D th hstories of height in Districts C & D—through

special conditions that create public benefit beyond what otherwise would be required:

• 1 condition met = development up to 8 stories

• 2 conditions met = development up to 12 stories

Special Conditions:A l LEED G ld d b ildi• At least LEED Gold-rated building

• Extra low-impact stormwater management techniques

• Provision of 100 or more housing units of which 30% are dedicated for 12 years to households that earn less than Area Median Income (to be deleted)

• Provision for enhanced stream buffer and public multi-use trail (to be added)

• Public plaza that is accessible from street & includes artwork & landscaping

4/21/2014

6

Background:• F/T Building Districts C & D are adjacent to I-5 &

close to Transit Center• 1-story buildings would not take best advantage of

unique location

Proposal:Proposal:• Establish 3-story minimum building height for

future development in F/T Districts C & D

4/21/2014

7

4/21/2014

8

Although F/T Code & Design Standards generally working well minor “housekeeping”generally working well, minor “housekeeping” items are proposed at same time as “key changes”:

• F/T Code “housekeeping” examples: Add to purpose statement about mixed use & transitAdd to purpose statement about mixed use & transit

orientation

• F/T Design Standards “housekeeping” examples: Require sidewalks to be “broom finish”, not “float finish” Clarify that solar panels do not need to be screened

4/21/2014

9

Including:February 24 – Planning Commission meetingFebruary 24 – Planning Commission meetingMarch 10 – Planning Commission meetingMarch 24 – Planning Commission public

hearingApril 3 – City Council work/study sessionApril 7 – City Council public hearing.News releasesPosted notices in usual placesPublished notice in newspaperCity webpage news announcementsChannel 21 announcement

Discussed update of F/T Code & Design Standards at February 24 & March 10 workStandards at February 24 & March 10 work sessions

Held public hearing March 24

After public hearing, recommended City Council p g, yadopt proposed Ordinance & updated Design Standards

4/21/2014

10

Criteria to consider per MTMC 19.110.240.C.

1. Proposal is in conformance with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan

2. Proposal promotes health, welfare, and safety of the general public

3. Proposal will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services

Criterion 1. Proposal is in conformance with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

Th d O di f i h h C h i Pl• The proposed Ordinance conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, most notably the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (objectives): Policy CL-1.15: Provide civic buildings, parks, and plazas that

encourage friendly neighborhood interaction and meet other citizen needs.

Policy EN-1.2: Promote the use of environmentally-friendly building materials and techniques.

Policy EN-1.12: Encourage “low-impact stormwater” techniques to be used where suitableused where suitable.

Policy EN-1.9: Ensure that land use policies and development regulations provide for a positive business climate, while protecting the environment and community quality of life.

Goal HO-3: (Housing) Affordability for a range of income levels.

• Above items provide basis for additional development options proposed for the Freeway/Tourist District. Therefore, Criterion 1 is met.

4/21/2014

11

Criterion 2. Proposal promotes health, welfare, and safety of the general publicand safety of the general public.• Proposed Ordinance promotes healthy environment,

for example through incentive for “green” building practices. It also promotes public welfare, for example through option of plazas to provide public space and stream buffer enhancement and pedestrian trails.

• Therefore, this criterion is met.

Criterion 3. Proposal will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for publicadditional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services.• Proposed Ordinance does not create excessive

requirements for public facilities and services at public cost. In fact, proposal does not require any public facilities or services. When future development occurs i F/T Di t i t it ill b i d t it h fin F/T District, it will be required to pay its share of any additional public facilities and services.

• Therefore, this criterion is met.

4/21/2014

12

Move to close public hearing

Move to revise the proposed Ordinance to replace condition 3 in Section MTMC 19.60.070.S with:• “3. The development provides exceptional stream

buffer restoration and enhancement together with a continuous multi-use path or trail and public spacecontinuous multi use path or trail and public space amenities within and adjacent to the critical area buffers to connect with the Transit Station”

Move to adopt the proposed Ordinance, as amended, with updated Design Standards