Downtown Livability Initiative

1. Downtown Livability Initiative Advisory Committee Meeting #3 July 17, 2013 6:30 p.m.

2. Overall Process • Public Scoping (Nov 2012) • Land Use Code Audits (June 2013) • WE ARE HERE – July 2013 • Identification of Range of Alternatives • Analysis of Alternatives • Identification of Preferred Alternatives • Alternatives Refinement and Development of Final Recommendations • Transmittal of Recommendation from Advisory Committee to Council • Review by Planning Commission • City Council Consideration/Adoption Process Continuous Public Engagement

3. July 9-10 Open Houses/Focus Groups • Focus Group Guide w/ summary info on code audits & specific questions; Full audits available as well • 45 individuals attended • About half new to Livability focus groups/did not attend in March • Comment cards to continue to come in through July 31; report completed thereafter

4. Downtown Subarea Lake Washington Single Family 100th Ave NE NE 12th St Single Family Main St Single Family I-405

5. Series of Neighborhoods/Districts

6. Signature Streets

7. Ideas Generated from Past Work

8. Questions: Building Height and Form • Key policy issues: Should building heights and their urban form be modified to better achieve the Downtown vision? • If so, what areas should be analyzed (Core, Mixed-Use District, DT-OLB District, Ashwood, Old Bellevue, Perimeter Areas, others)? And why? • Should iconic roof features be allowed to exceed building height limits? If so, where should this be analyzed? • Should differences between residential and non-residential buildings be addressed? • Should provisions for increased floor plates above certain thresholds be studied? What areas should be analyzed?

9. Previous Committee Comments Building Height and Form: Summary of 6/19 Discussion • Iconic skyline would be good for Bellevue; different ways to accomplish. • The wedding cake approach is appropriate; Take terrain/topography into consideration relative to the wedding cake. • Examine increased building heights, particularly in the core area (though there are limited properties that would be benefit in DT-01). • DT-OLB could support more height, though avoid creation of a wall from I-405. • Flexibility to look at heights on a site-by-site basis to result in better overall effect. • Consider increasing floor plate sizes for some of the districts. • Equalize the FAR between residential and non-residential. • Density transfer could be used to support affordable housing. • Allow height to create more open space, green spaces, places to play recreate. • Changing architectural form of buildings is easier for residential towers. • If the base density (FAR) is not economically viable, it should not be in the code.

10. From July 9/10 Focus Groups Building Height and Form: July Focus Groups/Comments • Examine taller heights; a lot of Bellevue buildings feel short and boxy; would allow for more open space • Should not alter “wedding cake” approach too much • Like unusual building designs – adds interest to the skyline • Additional height could be appropriate in Core and DT-OLB • Should be variation built into height system (certain % difference) • Caution in Perimeter Areas, protect adjacent neighborhoods • Be careful about anything that adds to traffic impacts • Iconic roof features are very important • Height and density provisions should favor residential; opposing view is that development type should follow the market • Look at needs of employers regarding floor plates

11. Questions: Amenity Incentive System • Key policy issue: How should the Amenity Incentive System be updated to meet evolving market conditions and integrate newer thinking about desired Downtown amenities? • What existing amenities do you think provide a high level of public benefit? • Are there new items missing that should be analyzed for potential inclusion? • Should a fee-in-lieu system be considered?

12. Previous Committee Comments Amenity Incentive System: Summary of 6/19 Discussion • Amenities should enhance livability for Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. • Make Downtown more inviting and friendly to families. • Existing policy direction regarding housing affordability. • More flexibility and needs to make economic sense. • Remove amenities that are not having any effect. • Move some items from amenity list to requirements (e.g. weather protection). • Consider items such as fire station, public parking facility, incentives for iconic building features and green spaces. • Assess the need for a school and get input from BSD.

13. From July 9/10 Focus Groups Amenity Incentive System: July Focus Groups/Comments • Update system to allow greater flexibility now and evolve over time with changing needs. • Customize amenities by Downtown neighborhood. • Use tiers of amenities; let developers choose from grouping • Consider how affordable housing could be included in system. • Focus on pedestrian experience, including outdoor plazas, green spaces, parks, etc. • More attention to: water features, drop-off areas, green space, entertainment, art, recreation. • A fee-in-lieu system should be one of the options considered.

14. Questions: Design Guidelines • Key policy issue: How should design guidelines be refined to improve the livability and character of Downtown? • As the design guidelines are reviewed, what elements should receive the most attention? • How can the guidelines ensure quality design, while providing a balance between predictability and flexibility?

15. From July 9/10 Focus Groups Design Guidelines: July Focus Groups/Comments • Focus on the pedestrian experience when looking at guidelines; including Pedestrian Corridor guidelines • Attention should be given to creating distinct Downtown district/neighborhoods • Guidelines need to provide more clarity throughout – be less subjective • Concern about more above-grade structured parking – urban design implications

16. Next Steps • Next scheduled Advisory Committee Meeting, Sept. 18 • Ideas for additional stakeholder engagement in September